to downsize or not to downsize

[Freeflaw 0]

Hi....got 250 jumps. Weigh around 190 out the door. Currently under sabre 2 190. Can land canopy downwind (and have). Can change heading by 90 degrees on flare/flair (sp?). Have landed canopy on rears (3 times). Experimenting with double front approaches (maybe the last 60 jumps or so) and 45-90 front to double front approaches. Feel confident under this canopy. I would def consider downsizing if not for the fact that I was going to get into wingsuiting very soon. I was thinking to downsize to maybe a 170 spectre or 170 storm. Just wondering what the hive mind thinks.

[Sangi 0]

250 jumps and maaaaybe a downsize to 170?

Most people at these jumps fly something more like 120's...

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[DocPop 1]

Three points:

1. Nobody here can give you a good answer unless they have seen you fly.
2. Your numbers seem reasonable for a 170 according to the "accepted" limits, and you're doing the right sort of canopy drills.
3. Ignore Sangi, he adds no value to any discussion I have ever seen him comment on.

Other than that, what is your reason for wanting to change wing?

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[monkycndo 0]

Your new wing loading would be well within what most people consider acceptable. Changing from the 9 cell Sa2 to Pulse or 7 cell Spectre , the flight characteristics will be different in opening speed, glide and flare. And each a little different between the two. Not huge, but enough that you should try and demo them both to find your preference. Both would make excellent WS canopies. Whichever you chose to do first (downsize or WS), be confident in the flying before you make the second change. Splitting your attention between both at the same time is not the best idea. I realize that they involve two different parts of the dive, But knowing how the canopy is opening just by how it feels without having to watch it is a good thing to have when in a wingsuit. Also, you wouldn't want to mistime your flare and get your new wingsuit dirty due to a botched landing.


Oh, and don't mind sangi. He really is harmless. Kind of like that little annoying dog that pees on the carpet, barks at anything that scares him, and chases his tail when bored. But we keep him around because he makes us laugh.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[pinkfairy 0]

1. Do you want more speed when you land? Because that's what you get with smaller canopies. Yes, sure, smaller canopies also usually give you a more powerful flare and better penetration through the wind, but mainly you get more speed.

2. Small(ish) canopies can be used with wingsuits, as long as they are appropriate type. My Pilot 111 has great WS deployments, and worked great even when I hadn't bled off all of the forward speed. But if you don't want to have to deal with a new canopy and a new kind of jump at the same time, that's very understandable. And smart. On the other hand, 7-cells, like the Storm and Spectre are considered better WS canopies than the Sabre2.

Us people on the internet can't really give you an answer to wether you should downsize or not, we don't know you, the above is just general information.

I quite liked the spectre, but haven't tried a Sabre2 yet, I'm a Pilot girl.

Relax, you can die if you mess up, but it will probably not be by bullet.

I'm a BIG, TOUGH BIGWAY FORMATION SKYDIVER! What are you?

[jimmytavino 16]

key words in your post.....
"Feel confident under this canopy".. That sounds like a nice place to be...
It's tough to do Everything in this sport, especially since there are sooo many disciplines from which to choose...
But it would be great.. to "feel confident" in as many of them as possible...It's good, if you're running out downwinders and as i read your post i got the idea that you have the energy and agility of a guy in his 20's or so...hahaha.. which certainly HELPS,,, for this hobby...
If wingsuiting appeals to you and you'd like to explore that.... how nice to already BE "confident under canopy".....
your post shows that you understand the situation and the complexity of exploring new things, simultaneously...
There's nothing wrong with making 7 or 8 hundred jumps on a canopy, hell i have one here, that gave me 1,100 malfunction free rides, alll with safe landings.
"Upsize?? downsize? why not just stick with The RIGHT size".....

if it ain't broke, don't fix it...
jmy

[billvon 3,109]

What is your current canopy, and why do you want to downsize?

[Sangi 0]

Quote

Currently under sabre 2 190.

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[virgin-burner 1]

downsize for SAFETY!!!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[pinkfairy 0]

Quote

downsize for SAFETY!!!

Nono, don't lead the boy astray: pack fast, pull low, date your rigger's wife.

Seriously, though, I've actually heard people argumented that they'd be safer under a smaller canopy. Yes it's true.

Relax, you can die if you mess up, but it will probably not be by bullet.

I'm a BIG, TOUGH BIGWAY FORMATION SKYDIVER! What are you?

[billvon 3,109]

>Seriously, though, I've actually heard people argumented that they'd
>be safer under a smaller canopy.

I've often heard this, and applied to things beyond canopy loading - like doing camera ("I'll just turn it on and forget it, and I'll review the video later and become a safer skydiver!") and listening to music during the skydive ("I'm more focused with my tunes.")

Not surprisingly, the "safe" thing for them to do is often precisely in line with what they really _want_ to do. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to do those things - but it is a bit scary to hear them making the claim of "it's safer." Because when they do that they're either lying (which is actually more understandable) or they really don't understand what they're risking.

[Zlew 0]

Quote

Quote

downsize for SAFETY!!!

Nono, don't lead the boy astray: pack fast, pull low, date your rigger's wife.

Seriously, though, I've actually heard people argumented that they'd be safer under a smaller canopy. Yes it's true.

You know I agree with the general concept that "bigger is safer" and I don't advocate going smaller than you are ready for....but it's not all doom and gloom. There are some advantages to having a higher performance canopy. I'm sure I'll get nailed to the cross on here for saying this, but I've been in situations where I was happy I was under a canopy with a 35mph fwd speed and a nice big landing cone, and not under something twice as big and half as fast. I've been in the situation where having a canopy that would turn "now!" to avoid the guy flying right at me in line twist might have saved my butt when a student sized canopy may not have.
I like having the decent speed range that allows me to let it fly and come down quickly if that's what makes sense in the pattern, or get into the brakes and land last if needed to. Yes, there are some more risks with higher wingloadings. Yes, it takes time, experience and skill to be able to fly at higher loadings (no dobut) but there are also some options and benefits that come with having something smaller.

Station Wagon is safer than a Vette for sure. The Vette can get you into trouble fast...but there are times when the Vette can get you out of trouble the Wagon might not be able to.

I'm not trying to argue for downsizing fast... or saying that "smaller is safer" but a lot of what I read on here is all about the doom and gloom of smaller canopies...and my point is that there are some advantages as well....it's not all bad.

bring on the flames.

Z

[wmw999 2,584]

9 times out of ten, the agility of the Vette to get you out of trouble is because you got too close to it in the first place.

Not that I'm against downsizing; just do it for the right reasons, and not specious ones.

And, to Sangi -- don't be the "wanna demo a Velo with 100 jumps" guy either
Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Zlew 0]

Quote

9 times out of ten, the agility of the Vette to get you out of trouble is because you got too close to it in the first place.

Wendy P.

I think a lot of it also depends on the mindset. If you are pushing the limits and going hard/fast.... for sure. Most of your trouble you will have gotten into yourself. But you can jump canopies that are loaded up a little bit and not push the edge all the time. You don't have to be mr. super swooper, or hotrod. If that's your mindset, you will be at higher risk due to that...regardless of the canopy.

The person I know who messed themselves up the worst under canopy (real real real bad... ) got himself in trouble under a 7 cell F111 at 1:1. There is more to it than wingloading, and I think you are right about the midnset/skill/reasons for downsizing.

[billvon 3,109]

>but I've been in situations where I was happy I was under a canopy with a
>35mph fwd speed and a nice big landing cone, and not under something
>twice as big and half as fast.

Me too. But I like it because it's fun to have that much speed to play with, not because it's "safer." It's not.

>I've been in the situation where having a canopy that would turn "now!" to
>avoid the guy flying right at me in line twist might have saved my butt when
>a student sized canopy may not have.

A small canopy takes longer (distancewise) to turn than a student canopy. Sure, it feels to you like it turns RIGHT NOW! but it turns with a significantly faster forward speed. In other words the arc it describes is a lot wider than that of a student canopy, which nearly comes to a stop as you turn.

In other words, if you are ever head on to another canopy, and are very close to them, best pray that you _both_ have big canopies.

>The Vette can get you into trouble fast...but there are times when the
>Vette can get you out of trouble the Wagon might not be able to.

Not if it doesn't have very good brakes. That's the problem with small canopies - you are taking away the brakes and replacing them with a throttle. And when the shit is really about to hit the fan, slowing down will do an awful lot to improve your odds of survival.

>but a lot of what I read on here is all about the doom and gloom of
>smaller canopies...and my point is that there are some advantages as
>well....it's not all bad.

Oh, agreed. They're more fun, they're faster, they surf longer, they can deal with stronger winds without backing up etc etc. But 9 times out of 10, a larger canopy will do a much better job of keeping you alive than a smaller canopy will.

[Sangi 0]

Quote

Me too. But I like it because it's fun to have that much speed to play with, not because it's "safer."

You might realize someday that others like that too, who gives you the right to take that away? Are you the acknowledged police of the skydiving world?

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[Zlew 0]

Quote

>
Not if it doesn't have very good brakes. That's the problem with small canopies - you are taking away the brakes and replacing them with a throttle..

They do have brakes, and it is up to the pilot to use them or not use them. I fly in brakes a lot under my current canopy (about 1.7:1), there isn't a need to fly at full flight all the time IMO. That canopy can hang up with students and even tandems in deep brakes. Will it fly as slow or descend as slow as a .7:1 wing in deep brakes, nope... but it will fly really slowly. I've landed that canopy (and one size smaller as well at closer to 1.9:1) from about 3/4 brakes several times. It can fly slow..and descend slow if you fly it that way.

In my experience, people who fly lightly loaded canopies spend most of their time at full flight. They spend most of the time towards the fastest non turning/diving aispeeds their canopies are capable of. If that is how you fly, and you get a smaller wing, yes you are going to be going much faster...but it's not because you took away the brakes... but because you are driving at full throttle.

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

I was thinking to downsize to maybe a 170 spectre or 170 storm.

A 170 Spectre does not fly the way a 170 Storm does. The Storm is more of a high performance canopy.

Since you jump a Sabre2 190, a Storm 190 will still dive and turn faster. If I were you, I'd go with a Spectre 170 instead. You'll leave more of a margin for error if you fuck up a little.

JMO

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[billvon 3,109]

>They do have brakes, and it is up to the pilot to use them or not use them.

Correct - but they do not work as well any more. You can not slow down as quickly or to as slow a speed. So to use your example, it's like replacing a station wagon with good brakes with a Corvette with only the right front wheel brake working.

Can it be driven safely? Sure, if you are careful. Is it _safer?_ Definitely not.

> It can fly slow..and descend slow if you fly it that way.

Of course. But no matter what you do, you cannot fly as slowly, or descend as slowly, as someone under a much bigger canopy (who is flying it with the same skill level you have.)

[billvon 3,109]

>You might realize someday that others like that too, who gives you
>the right to take that away?

Who's trying to take anything away? This sort of knee-jerk defensiveness is getting a little odd.

[Sangi 0]

Quote

Who's trying to take anything away? This sort of knee-jerk defensiveness is getting a little odd.

Your kind.

The one who keeps trying to stop everyone from doing what they want to do and trying to implement rules that would not allow that..

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[billvon 3,109]

>The one who keeps trying to stop everyone from doing what they want to do . . .

Rest easy then. I have no intention of taking anyone's HP canopy away. (But I will stop someone with 5 jumps from getting on a bigway, belly nazi that I am.)

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Your kind.
The one who keeps trying to stop everyone from doing what they want to do and trying to implement rules that would not allow that..

Sangi,

Should there be ANY rules for skydiving?

In other words, say someone who has never skydived before goes to a dropzone, says I'll accept all risks, I'll do a solo jump so I can't hurt anyone else, just give me the rig and let me go. My life, my choice.

Should there be a rule against that?

I'm going to assume you'd say yes.


Now, someone on solo student status says, I've passed 8 levels of AFF, stood up all my landings, I bought this rig with a Velocity canopy for cheap. It's a little smaller, but I can handle it. How hard could it be?

Should there be a rule against that?

Again, I assume you'd say yes.


Then a newly minted A-licensed jumper -- 25 jumps -- says all right, I've got a license. Give me my camera and a wingsuit, I wanna make a youtube video!

Should there be a rule against that?


If you have answered yes to these questions, would you say you are trying to take away these people's fun?

Additionally, if you are answering yes to all of these questions, it sounds like your problem is not that there are rules, it's that you disagree with the content of the rules. But then you're no longer arguing that there should be no rules on downsizing, or no rules on jumping camera, or a wingsuit, all you're arguing about is the content of the rules. SIM says 200 jumps for camera, you say it should be 100 (or 50). 200 for wingsuit, you say 150. Etc. Or perhaps you're saying it shouldn't be number-based, it should be based on demonstrated skill.

So instead of lashing out that people are "trying to stop everyone from doing what they want to do" or trying to take away their fun, why not put forth a cogent argument on why the limits should be lowered, if you feel they should be, or that the content of the rule should be changed from jump numbers to demonstrated skills or whatever?

[Sangi 0]

Quote

or that the content of the rule should be changed from jump numbers to demonstrated skills or whatever?

Yes to this.

Not everyone sucks at flying their canopies, not everyone has to PLF on every landing cause after 50-100 jumps they still haven't figured out how to flare..

Not everyone sucks at multitasking and others actually do turn on, forget about the cam and focus on the jump instead..

Not everyone sucks at tracking and all the general skills involved in a controlled 3D horizontal flight.

All of this should be based on a persons abilities, not jump numbers, a 200 year old book that you have called the "SIM" and fossils from the 70's who's egos can't stand evolution..

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[billvon 3,109]

>All of this should be based on a persons abilities, not jump numbers, a 200
>year old book that you have called the "SIM" and fossils from the 70's
>who's egos can't stand evolution..

Nor should it be based on clueless newbies who have never even seen a fatality, much less a string of them. There is something to be said for real world experience and training, something that is (sadly) often ignored by the people who have a severe lack of those things.

Yes, some people are good enough to jump a camera or a wingsuit at 200 jumps, if they are unusually heads up, very good flyers, aware, good with gear and able to multitask. No one is able to at 2 jumps, no matter how good they think they are.