brettpobastad

QuoteSome people are more comfortable with a round reserve. That doesn't make round reserves better than square reserves. I can see why someone would stay with something that works and they are comfortable with, but that doesn't make a round reserve better than a square reserve. *** It's all semantics, I guess. We all are saying the same thing really. Round parachutes are not better than ram-air parachutes and vice versa. Ram-air parachutes are not better than round parachutes. Ram-air parachutes have more forward speed, a better glide ratio and have the ability to provide lift for a potentially softer landind, etc. But they are not 'better'. Using that line of thinking would mean that "It would have been better if he was jumping a round parachute on that one, he wouldn't have hooked it in and broke his femur". Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

I wonder if the manufacturers might design a way to integrate the lines directly onto the risers and eliminate the link altogether. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

They both do the intended job effectivley and each have their real and percieved benifits and drawbacks. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Fellas you're right about the name calling. No place for that here. I apologize to those I offended. It certainly ain't gonna help make my point. I'll do that at a later time and in a different manner. We'll try it again later. Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Hey dummy, read your post again. You said Racers are inferior the first time. ...tells me you don't your ass from the hole you're probably gonna leave in the ground someday. With that dumbshit attitude. And I was talking about your statement that square parachutes are 'safer' than rounds. Are you daft, man! Square parachutes have an inherently better glide ration and the ability to provide lift on landing and their pack volume is less, respectivley, etc. But they are no more dangerous and no safer than a round parachute. Check the figures, dummy and then take up golf before you hurt yourself or someone else. Riggers that know what they are doing do not mind packing Racers at all. And think about it. Is that how you choose gear? BY WHICH ONE IS CHEAPER TO PACK? That attitude is death on a stick. If you need to get your tonsils removed and your doctor says it's to hard to do so he's going to leave 'em in. I'd get me another doctor. Not that it applies to you, but I charge less tro pack a Racer. Good point, Travis. Had nothing to do with a Racer (or slinks, or square parachutes, for that matter). At that point in time I was still using a legstrap mounted pilot chute and the bridle got loose. So being a rigger an all, I changed the velcro. Go figure? And FYI, that was several years ago and I have since changed to a pull-out deployment system. But don't worry about me or my equipment. I've manage to stay alive for this long without your help and you have enough to worry about on your own. Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Well that's a pretty strong statement. And of course you, being the experienced jumper that you are, have evidence to back it up, right? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

So if this is true, and I had heard it as well, then that means Rapide links win! minus 1 to nothing.... "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Young fella, you're wrong with your argument but I don't have the time, nor the patience, to explain it to you. You ain't gonna understand it anyway. When you say Racers are inferior products, well that's just ignorant. You'll never get the another munufacturer to say that. You will never hear a true professional say that. And the blanket statement that modern equipment is 'safer' is simply not true. The statistics prove you wrong. The statement proves you might not be long for this world. Have you checked the incident reports lately? Have you ever seen a dead skydiver as the result of a hook turn? I have and it ain't pretty. And by the way, junior, I have more jumps on what you call 'modern equipment', than you have jumps TOTAL. Brett "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Never mind. You just made it for me. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Have you seen the movie SPINAL TAP? You DO realize that it was a farce and they were actually poking fun at the band, don't you. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

You got me again, SWOOP-man. I cannot argue with you on that one and won't even try. But how much difference is there really? I'm saying that only in extreme cases will it make any difference in performance, comfort or looks. But yes, the are less bulky. (rolls eyes) Soft cutaway cable housings have less bulk then metal ones as well. Maybe we should start putting those things back on. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Who says they are easier to install? You? That's an opinion and it shouldn't be on the list of deciding factors in any case. I think French links are MUCH easier to install. And I have seen with my own eyes two different instances of soft links being installed the wrong way. You got me again on the 'tools' thing 'cause you gotta use a wrench but I wouldn't use nail polish or lock-tite. Don't need 'em. Never used 'em and never had a French link problem since I started using them way back when. Thousands and thousands of jumps and many, many canopies ago. Yea, I don't see the need for slider bumpers either. I've used those Nylon or Delrin washers that go directly on the link between the lines. They work great! What? Says who? This is another 'opinion' and even if true, should not be used in any descision on which to use. And I think it's easier to inspect a French link. You can see all surfaces easily and the link can be rotated all the way through lines and risers for a complete inspection. Really all you have to do is make sure it is tight enough but not so tight as to crack the barrell. Finger tight plus a quarter turn does the trick (with a 'tool', of course). "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Right again, I guess. But do you really know what issues we may or may not have with soft links, long term? I bet if you crunched the numbers, you would conclude that soft link usage is a mear drop in the bucket when compared to French links. Certainly not even close to enough to make a real conclusion that there won't be unforseen problems down the road. Has there ever been an incident where a French Link came apart and the lines came off the link at an altitude too low for the jumper to do anything about it and that jumper was hurt or killed? (I'm not using this as part of my reasoning for prefering French links because that would be like using the argument that if and/or when soft links fail, they do so at a preferable time.) "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Ya got me there, H&S! "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

For the sake of argument, I'll agree. But you must also agree that properly installed and maintained, the strength of both soft links and metal links is well past the point of what is required to do the job. I don't ever remember hearing anything about a French link 'breaking' as far as the metal actually coming apart before the nylon lines or risers did. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

(sigh) OK, let's try it this way... Would it be a fair statement to say that square parachutes are 'better' than round parachutes? My answer would be 'yes' Would it be a fair statement to say that square parachutes are 'a whole lot better' than round parachutes? My answer would also be 'yes' Would it be a fair statement to say that round parachutes are now 'bad' because square parachutes exist? My answer would be 'no' Would it be a fair statement to say that the 3-ring release is 'better' then Capewells? My answer would be 'yes' Would it be a fair statement to say that the 3-ring release is 'a whole lot better' then Capewells? My answer would be 'yes' again! Would it be a fair statement to say that Capewells are now 'bad' because we have the 3-ring system available to us? My answer would be 'no' Would it be a fair statement to say that Slinks are 'better' than French Links? My answer would be (for the sake of this argument) 'yes' Would it be a fair statement to say that because we finally got Brett to admit that Slinks are 'better' than French Links, he might agree that Slinks are 'a whole lot better' than French Links? I would answer, No, they are not 'a whole lot better' and roll my eyes. Would it be a fair statement to say that the vast majority of skydivers out there who do use Slinks do so without understanding the concept? Sadly, the answer seems to be 'yes' Would it be a fair statement to say that Nigel's guitar amplifier is 'louder' than other amps since all the knobs on his go to 'Eleven'? Ok, sure. I'll buy that. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Chris, that's just down right stupid! I'm sorry man, you're probably a good guy an all. I'm sure your rigging work is just fine and you probably buy beer when your supposed to, but goddamit read the words that you just typed! First you say that soft links are stronger, then you say "but if they do break, at least you'll see it in time" (not your exact words) So do we use them because they are stronger or because it's easier to notice a failure? One 'failure' I definitley see is that when a component isn't installed or assembled correctly, it cannot do it's job. The component did not, I repeat DID NOT ....fail! The human that hooked it up wrong 'failed'. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

"So we use them on the main and can use them on some reserves. I saw a bridle attached to a canopy this weekend with a slink and thought "damn thats cool!" Got me thinking - anywhere else we can use slinks instead of metal? What about using larger cord in the same fashion for hip rings? chest rings?" This is what I'm talking about. This cat want's 'em because they're "cool". "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

So...did you ever find any examples of a French link actually failing? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

"Rapide links are fine I'm sure. Hell I have them on my reserve and certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid at using them on anyone elses kit. But that doesn't mean they are better." I didn't say that French links are better! Where did I say that? The original point I was trying to make was that soft links are not 'better' then metal links! And that jumpers are using them because someone told them so. But they don't really understand why! And then they pass that crap to next year's 100 jump wonder. Look at it this way; It was a big improvement going from belly mounted reserves to tandem rigs (for you youngin's, when they first started putting both the main and reserve on the back in one container, they called that a 'tandem rig') That didn't mean belly mount reserves all of a sudden go bad did they? And I do love a good square parachute over them round ones! But that doesn't make rounds any more dangerous then they were, does it? Soft links are not dangerous or bad. I never said that they were. Or even implied that they were. I don't think?? What I'm saying is that they do not fix a problem or markedly improve performance over what they may replace! And no one has shown my anything to disprove my theroy. Hey! I'm all for innovation and change. But let's understand the proceess behind each change and the reasoning and intent for it. But...I apologize for getting salty about it. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Hey! No fair using the same example three times! Oh, and one of your examples has moved to another location on the web. And thank you for making my point for me, once again. In none of those examples (and to be completely forthright, I didn't read every word. My eyes started to glaze over after looking at the same bent French link three times) did the link fail! In all of the examples, near as I can tell, someone forgot to tighten the links, or maybe over tightened them? Class, I'll give you five more minutes on this project and then it's recess. Geeez... "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Where are we going with this, Marc? Are we now talking about which would fail first, metal or fabric links? Or are we talking about which type would we want to fail first? ...I can't even make a sentence out of that! I hope there isn't anyone out there making the argument that soft links are better than metal links because...when they do fail, it's easier to detect the problem ?? Ironically enough, I have a first hand story that somewhat supports that argument. several years ago a jumpmaster that worked at my DZ landed with a twisted French link. He noticed it at a point well before landing but low enough to where he wasn't comfortable chopping it. His desicion. So there you go. If he would have used soft links he might have -noticed -it -sooner? Or maybe he could have put little nicks with a hot knife on each riser so it would fail there first ....so he could see it sooner? Maybe?? No? Making the argument for something because when it breaks it will be easier to deal with, well.... Sorry Marc! I'm not trying to dog you! I think you are actually trying to help me to make my point. I juat gave 'em another set of French links and told 'em to make sure he tightened 'em up right. He was happy with that. "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

show me some of those incidents... "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

So your saying that the size, weight, stength and whatever else difference between L-bars and French links is comparable to the difference between French links and soft links? That's like saying the BOC is as much of an improvment over the legstrap pilot chute pouch ......as was the throw-out method versus the ripcord method. You don't think that do you? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"

Still not buyin' it, Kris. First of all, those tests don't show me (or you) anything. I still don't see any numbers. I don't see any testing procedures either. You've seen that deal where the sprinter dashes out to the lead against the race car? Well that don't make him faster. And you're not comparing apples to apples. Wouldn't it be just as easy to install a soft link wrong as it is to over or under tighten a metal link? Did I here of someone going in or getting hurt recently because of an improperly installed soft link? Or is that my imagination? Keep these thoughts in mind as we go along this thread: Soft links are not any more or any less likely to malfunction, break, stretch or be installed wrong when compared to their metal counterparts, by any usefull or even perceptible measure! Yes, of course they are lighter and less bulkier than metal links, being made out of that lightweight, space age nylon, polymer an all. But by a usefull amount? Nope! Note: you forgot the 'less aerodynamic drag' gambit and the popular 'easier to gey my slider over' manuever. I'm not going to bother trying to address that 'breaking on opening being an advantage' deal. That doesn't even make any sense. As far as the digging into your back because of the big canopy in the small container goes, well... And what have you got against the French, anyway? "It's only arrogance if you can't back it up"