AdamF 0
Recommended Posts
Adam,
Thanks for the compliments, although I feel the article was rather hastily written and should have had a tougher edit before I posted it. I've heard about CR's claim to a vent in the late 90's. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific by saying "BR was the first to offer vents in the marketplace." With the obvious improvments to canopy inflation, one has to wonder why CR did not offer the vents after testing them.
Again, maybe I should have been more specific by saying something like "the blackjack and troll came out with vents of slightly different design and location than the FOX vtec, but are essentially the same in regards to performance."
BR's products are not my products. BR does not pay me for testing, only instruction. I am "loaned" a canopy to test and report feedback and eventually I have to return the canopy. I wrote the article because I like the FLiK and see it's design as an improvement of the FOX canopy and a superior design in regards to BASE specific canopies. This is only my opinion after jumping the FLiK, FOX, Dagger, Ace, BlackJack, Mojo and Troll.
>To clarify: BR certainly popularized the concept of lower surface vents. When we decided to answer the market's desire for such a feature we did not copy anyone. We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve.
BR popularized vents in BASE specific canopies, that I can agree with (since they were first introduced and used for accuracy in skydiving), and thankfully somebody did. Again, sorry, my mistake, I was not aware that the BlackJack bottom skin vents, so similarily sized and located to the Vtec FOX, were not copied. As I said, I did hear well after the Vtec was introduced into the marketplace that CR, at one time (I am relatively young in the sport of BASE - only 5 years), developed and tested some bottom skin venting, but "scrapped" the idea due to undesireable performance. But, for all I know that could have only been rumor. Did CR discard the original idea because the venting was improperly placed? Just speculation - I don't know. When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon.
>We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve.
Help me understand why a BASE specific manufacturer would ever want to patent a life saving/injury preventing innovation.
!!!TO ALL BASE JUMPERS AND THOSE INTENDING TO BASE JUMP!!!
Any life saving or injury preventing device or design should be shared and people should not care who came up with what or when - INMO (In My Humble Opinion). We should thank those who came up with/introduced into the marketplace new ideas that minimize BASE related injuries/fatalities, and we should continue to try and understand how canopies work and how they might be improved - I know BR is always open to suggestions and theories (but be ready to fully explain your theory with evidence) - and all other manufacturers should be too...IMHO.
>A vent with out a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I flew the Vtec without vents for nearly 400 jumps and did not experience any problems fitting to the analogy "a vent without a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle." I did however notice an improvement in performance in glide ratio with the Vtec covers.
JJ
Thanks for the compliments, although I feel the article was rather hastily written and should have had a tougher edit before I posted it. I've heard about CR's claim to a vent in the late 90's. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific by saying "BR was the first to offer vents in the marketplace." With the obvious improvments to canopy inflation, one has to wonder why CR did not offer the vents after testing them.
Again, maybe I should have been more specific by saying something like "the blackjack and troll came out with vents of slightly different design and location than the FOX vtec, but are essentially the same in regards to performance."
BR's products are not my products. BR does not pay me for testing, only instruction. I am "loaned" a canopy to test and report feedback and eventually I have to return the canopy. I wrote the article because I like the FLiK and see it's design as an improvement of the FOX canopy and a superior design in regards to BASE specific canopies. This is only my opinion after jumping the FLiK, FOX, Dagger, Ace, BlackJack, Mojo and Troll.
>To clarify: BR certainly popularized the concept of lower surface vents. When we decided to answer the market's desire for such a feature we did not copy anyone. We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve.
BR popularized vents in BASE specific canopies, that I can agree with (since they were first introduced and used for accuracy in skydiving), and thankfully somebody did. Again, sorry, my mistake, I was not aware that the BlackJack bottom skin vents, so similarily sized and located to the Vtec FOX, were not copied. As I said, I did hear well after the Vtec was introduced into the marketplace that CR, at one time (I am relatively young in the sport of BASE - only 5 years), developed and tested some bottom skin venting, but "scrapped" the idea due to undesireable performance. But, for all I know that could have only been rumor. Did CR discard the original idea because the venting was improperly placed? Just speculation - I don't know. When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon.
>We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve.
Help me understand why a BASE specific manufacturer would ever want to patent a life saving/injury preventing innovation.
!!!TO ALL BASE JUMPERS AND THOSE INTENDING TO BASE JUMP!!!
Any life saving or injury preventing device or design should be shared and people should not care who came up with what or when - INMO (In My Humble Opinion). We should thank those who came up with/introduced into the marketplace new ideas that minimize BASE related injuries/fatalities, and we should continue to try and understand how canopies work and how they might be improved - I know BR is always open to suggestions and theories (but be ready to fully explain your theory with evidence) - and all other manufacturers should be too...IMHO.
>A vent with out a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I flew the Vtec without vents for nearly 400 jumps and did not experience any problems fitting to the analogy "a vent without a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle." I did however notice an improvement in performance in glide ratio with the Vtec covers.
JJ
TomAiello 26
QuoteBR's products are not my products.
QuoteWhen BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we...
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
TomAiello 26
On the subject of vent locations, I believe that the initial BR (two way) vents were well placed to minimize disruption to the canopy's flight characteristics, while still allowing excellent inflation.
However, given a one way valve inlet, I believe the (further forward) CR location is probably superior (since it places the valve directly between the first two suspension lines to load, and hence at the likely point of maximum air pressure.
Jim, can you tell us if BR ever re-evaluated the location of the vents, subsequent to the introduction of the covers (and hence the change in air flow characteristics of the vents)? And if so, what conclusions were reached (and specifically why BR decided to maintain the same placement that was ideal for a different kind of vent)?
However, given a one way valve inlet, I believe the (further forward) CR location is probably superior (since it places the valve directly between the first two suspension lines to load, and hence at the likely point of maximum air pressure.
Jim, can you tell us if BR ever re-evaluated the location of the vents, subsequent to the introduction of the covers (and hence the change in air flow characteristics of the vents)? And if so, what conclusions were reached (and specifically why BR decided to maintain the same placement that was ideal for a different kind of vent)?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
AdamF 0
Jim, Although this thread is beginning to diverge into different subjects and other message boards. I'd like to keep on the theme of my original post which had to do with the subject of copying.
On the BASE Board, Dwain points out that everything is a copy of everything, and it's quite true that creativity does not grow in a vacuum. However, our industry is rife with outright duplication followed by inflated claims of creation. Marketing claims are like a resume: By all rights they should be colored in your favor, but when they cross the line into fiction they lose all credibility.
Our vents/valves, like our vented pilot chutes, were not pulled from thin air but the idea was inspired, examined, prototyped tested and refined rather than simply adding a "clone" to our product line. I'm pretty sure I was the first to vent and valve a BASE canopy. Was I the first to explore or test the idea of vents or valves?- certainly not. Did I ever claim that?-never. The vented pilot chute is the extrapolation of very old technologies used in round parachutes. Did I claim to invent the idea-No. But we did a lot of research and tested numerous designs eventually releasing something that is not only vented but uses some other unique design features to enhance it's stability. Contrary to Dwain's assertation that Gravity Sports introduced the tuck flap on the shrivel, we were first to test and introduce the idea two years before GS or BR but even in our literature we do not attempt to lay claim to it because god knows someone probabaly did it 30 years ago on a pilot rig or a handbag:-)
My point about "copying" vs "inventing" is probably best summized by an Ad I recently saw in Parachutist. The Jump Shack is selling a canopy with a new leading edge configuration. It's identical to a skydiving canopy I designed and tested almost 8 years ago. Did they copy me? No. Did they draw the same conclusions about how to improve the performance of a canopy? Yes. That is the whole point here. If one thinks about ways to improve the equipment and then invests the time, energy and money in researching and testing those ideas it's commendable and we all gain. If a new standard is set, the next generation of product will build on that. Thats how we got from bottle rockets to the Appllo missions.
Conversly, putting a quick spin on someone elses idea and bringing it to market with inflated claims in an effort to earn a buck is...well, it's ethically wrong; but still extremely common. (BTW this is why I resopnded originally, because it was insinuated that our vents were just that.)
So back to your vent/valve question. Why didn't we release auxiallary inlets in 1996 when we began with the idea? Two reasons:
Our canopy at the time (the Mojo) had excellent low-speed inflation and pressurization characteristics and did not see a marked improvement with vents. This was evidenced years later when a customer (against our recommendation) put vents (no valves) into a Mojo and later decided it hurt performance more than it helped. He converted it back.
The second reason was that in 1996 a Mojo was $895 and BASE mfgs competed less w/ one another but more with new and used skydiving gear that was avaialble for less. At over $1500 for vented /valved canopy we didn't feel the improvement warranted the cost nor did we think customers would be able to justify the price tag.
With reference to your question about patents: Why would someone patent a life-saving device?
Patents are not about exclusivity, they are about ownership of intelectual property. License agreements don't have to even come with a cost but patent infringement claims start at triple damages.
Patents don't prevent the use of an design or idea, they preserve the origin. (Interestingly, included in their wording is credit for those that did prior work in the same area.)
When a person or company invests the time and $ in an idea and then markets the concept, the patent keeps the competition from taking a shortcut to the same end. Hopefully, with the road block to plagiarism that a patent presents, it also encourages further innovation.
Thanks
Adam Filippino
Conolidated Rigging, Inc.
On the BASE Board, Dwain points out that everything is a copy of everything, and it's quite true that creativity does not grow in a vacuum. However, our industry is rife with outright duplication followed by inflated claims of creation. Marketing claims are like a resume: By all rights they should be colored in your favor, but when they cross the line into fiction they lose all credibility.
Our vents/valves, like our vented pilot chutes, were not pulled from thin air but the idea was inspired, examined, prototyped tested and refined rather than simply adding a "clone" to our product line. I'm pretty sure I was the first to vent and valve a BASE canopy. Was I the first to explore or test the idea of vents or valves?- certainly not. Did I ever claim that?-never. The vented pilot chute is the extrapolation of very old technologies used in round parachutes. Did I claim to invent the idea-No. But we did a lot of research and tested numerous designs eventually releasing something that is not only vented but uses some other unique design features to enhance it's stability. Contrary to Dwain's assertation that Gravity Sports introduced the tuck flap on the shrivel, we were first to test and introduce the idea two years before GS or BR but even in our literature we do not attempt to lay claim to it because god knows someone probabaly did it 30 years ago on a pilot rig or a handbag:-)
My point about "copying" vs "inventing" is probably best summized by an Ad I recently saw in Parachutist. The Jump Shack is selling a canopy with a new leading edge configuration. It's identical to a skydiving canopy I designed and tested almost 8 years ago. Did they copy me? No. Did they draw the same conclusions about how to improve the performance of a canopy? Yes. That is the whole point here. If one thinks about ways to improve the equipment and then invests the time, energy and money in researching and testing those ideas it's commendable and we all gain. If a new standard is set, the next generation of product will build on that. Thats how we got from bottle rockets to the Appllo missions.
Conversly, putting a quick spin on someone elses idea and bringing it to market with inflated claims in an effort to earn a buck is...well, it's ethically wrong; but still extremely common. (BTW this is why I resopnded originally, because it was insinuated that our vents were just that.)
So back to your vent/valve question. Why didn't we release auxiallary inlets in 1996 when we began with the idea? Two reasons:
Our canopy at the time (the Mojo) had excellent low-speed inflation and pressurization characteristics and did not see a marked improvement with vents. This was evidenced years later when a customer (against our recommendation) put vents (no valves) into a Mojo and later decided it hurt performance more than it helped. He converted it back.
The second reason was that in 1996 a Mojo was $895 and BASE mfgs competed less w/ one another but more with new and used skydiving gear that was avaialble for less. At over $1500 for vented /valved canopy we didn't feel the improvement warranted the cost nor did we think customers would be able to justify the price tag.
With reference to your question about patents: Why would someone patent a life-saving device?
Patents are not about exclusivity, they are about ownership of intelectual property. License agreements don't have to even come with a cost but patent infringement claims start at triple damages.
Patents don't prevent the use of an design or idea, they preserve the origin. (Interestingly, included in their wording is credit for those that did prior work in the same area.)
When a person or company invests the time and $ in an idea and then markets the concept, the patent keeps the competition from taking a shortcut to the same end. Hopefully, with the road block to plagiarism that a patent presents, it also encourages further innovation.
Thanks
Adam Filippino
Conolidated Rigging, Inc.
>in our literature we do not attempt to lay claim to it because god knows someone probabaly did it 30 years ago on a pilot rig or a handbag:-)
Why Adam, I'm so impressed! I've often wondered when BASE manufacturers would finally take notice of the significant contributions that fashion has made to the sport!
~ Karin
Why Adam, I'm so impressed! I've often wondered when BASE manufacturers would finally take notice of the significant contributions that fashion has made to the sport!
~ Karin
Tom the Alabama man,
>When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon.
I was there when BR was testing the vents...I guess that makes us "we" because we were at the test site at the same time, I videoed the initial test drops, and I threw in my 2 cents on where I thought the vents should be located. I way in no way compensated for being there... Does that make us "we" or not? Slight grammatical error and thank you for pointing it out. I really should re-read these things before I post them...
JJ
>When BR was testing the first Vtec canopies, we tried several locations and sizes before the final design was decided upon.
I was there when BR was testing the vents...I guess that makes us "we" because we were at the test site at the same time, I videoed the initial test drops, and I threw in my 2 cents on where I thought the vents should be located. I way in no way compensated for being there... Does that make us "we" or not? Slight grammatical error and thank you for pointing it out. I really should re-read these things before I post them...
JJ
TomAiello 26
Jim,
My point was that you are deeply involved with BR, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You are one of their primary test jumpers, you essentially get free gear from them (what else can you call it when someone hands you a rig and say "go put 400 jumps on this and let us know how it goes"), and they pay for your BASE trips to "show the BR flag" (your own words). Haven't you also taught first jump courses for them?
At any rate, this puts you in a relatively rare, and highly enviable position. You have the inside track on developments in BASE technology. Lots of us appreciate hearing about them from you. All of this is something to be proud of, not to try to deny.
When you speak on BR gear, you speak as an authority. This makes your words more, not less, valuable, and makes people more, not less, likely to listen to them.
My point was that you are deeply involved with BR, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You are one of their primary test jumpers, you essentially get free gear from them (what else can you call it when someone hands you a rig and say "go put 400 jumps on this and let us know how it goes"), and they pay for your BASE trips to "show the BR flag" (your own words). Haven't you also taught first jump courses for them?
At any rate, this puts you in a relatively rare, and highly enviable position. You have the inside track on developments in BASE technology. Lots of us appreciate hearing about them from you. All of this is something to be proud of, not to try to deny.
When you speak on BR gear, you speak as an authority. This makes your words more, not less, valuable, and makes people more, not less, likely to listen to them.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
...the success of Vent Technology has been so great that almost every other BASE canopy manufacturer has chosen to copy the Vtec without varying the size, location, or number of bottom skin vents; a tribute to the innovation and success of Basic Research.
This would insinuate that CR copied the Vtec as there are only two other altenatives when it comes to vented canopies. For the record, CR develped both a lower surface vent and a valve in 1996. It was publicly jumped on many occasions including two Bridge Days.
Prototypes of what we sell now had vent positions fore, aft, left and right of our current production design. Vent size and number were also varied. More relevant is the fact that the vents/valves on the Black Jack are different in both size and position (both are similar, but different by design) from anything we saw on previous canopies.
To clarify: BR certainly popularized the concept of lower surface vents. When we decided to answer the market's desire for such a feature we did not copy anyone. We built on our own knowledge and then completed the concept with a (patent pending) valve. A vent with out a valve is like a seatbelt without a buckle.
No offense intended. You are entitled to promote your product, but verify your claims first.
Adam
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites