Swami belt instead of chest strap?

[Engovatov 0]

Got this idea into my head while answering Mirage Bill's poll, and can not shake it out - help needed to shut it down (or not)
It looks like the major configuration for all harnesses is the same. Leg loops, with attachment point on the side of one's hip, going in to main lift webbing and thin, non-load bearing chest strap.
Not the most comfortable leg loops configuration - my climbing harness, with leg loops attached on the inside of my legs is much more comfortable and allows for unrestricted movement. Swami belt sits tight, and the whole configuration is bulletproof and very comfortable - climbing harnesses see shock loads and wear and tear that is likely higher then for the parachute ones.
Why not to use such configuration on a parachute harness?
First, start with a wide and comfortable swami belt with front double pass-thru buckle in the middle.
Main lift web come from your shoulders and attaches to the swami about 3 inches on each side of the main buckle - maybe a bit wider for females.
It continues and the leg loops are attached on the inside - like climbing harness ones (see http://www.mistymountain.com/products/ or petzl's rescue page - http://www.petzl.com/petzl/statique/wr/uk/rescue/rescue.html for example of such attachments and leg loop construction; something like this: http://www.petzl.com/petzl/statique/wr/graphics/C/C67.jpg combined with a belt from this http://www.petzl.com/images/produits/fiche/C57.jpg)
The buckle on the leg loop probably should be easier to adjust that a typical climbing one.
Release handles are attached outside of the main lift web - over the swami - about the same position they are now. They can not fold under, they will not shift - as the belt can be tightened (unlike chest harness)
Probably will need two more buckles on the sides for tightening - non detachable types..
Container is attached to the back of the belt - second load bearing tape goes along the back - so you do not flip back.
Because the swami belt can be kept tightened - container will not shift, while preserving full range of motion.
Chest and hip rings will not be needed; as such configuration is inherently more fitting and flexible. I can squirm in an offwidth, or stem, or just hang without any heavy and expensive hardware ($300 for couple rings?? Top of the line climbing harness is around $100. And I bet - it is not less reliable..)
Overall - I think such configuration will be safer - for the reason that release handles are easier to access, will not shift, fold under or get covered by clothing. Also harder to forget to fasten the middle buckle. More comfortable - just hang in a good climbing harness to compare. Better range of motion, while with a much tighter fit - due to the tightened swami belt.
Violent deployment will be less likely to break your back as the direction will be more favorable and lumbar support present. Those well endowed will have less pinching to fear.
Is it time to rethink the basic configuration?
..What do you think?

[Vlad 0]

I think that some base equipment companies offer a climbing harness instead of a regular one as an option.
I think it would be a nice idea

[councilman24 37]

I think your configuration would be a little off. Climbing harnesses (which I use as well as heavier high angle rescue harness) uses a single attachment point in the center. The leg straps then have to distribute the load from there. Hence the attachment in front of your hips rather than on the side. Two main lift webs coming down from your shoulders to the front of the swami belt and then on around would put lateral force on the harness out from the center to the sides. I think this would also put load on your lower back. You would obviously still have the over the shoulder harness to support the container and keep everything in place (MLW, three rings, etc.) I think you would still need a chest strap, just as technical climbers need a chest harness, to keep them from inverting and coming out of the harness. I disagree with the contention that climbing harnesses take more load than skydiving. Climbers don't get anywhere near terminal during the longest screamer and the rope, with a stretch of several percent under moderate loads, provides shock absorbtion not available in modern parachutes. Climbing harnesses also do not see high shock loads routinely.
About the handles folding back. That usually happens when you put the harness on. Fastening the chest strap just keeps them there, just like it keeps them from folding under when they are in the proper position. I think not having a chest strap, which I don't think will work anyway, would only allow the handles to fold under more easily.
Rigs used to have belly bands. Mainly to help hold a container that wasn't sewn to the harness tight in place. On the ground the one on my Crossbow also worked like a backpack waist belt to support the weight. I certainly didn't find a belly band to be comfortable in the air, of course the 50lb rig wasn't in general.
Just some thoughts.
Terry

[nacmacfeegle 0]

You can't really compare pricing of a climbing harness, to a parachute harness, there are ecomomies of scale, plus most climbing harnesses are not custom made to your exact dimensions, and colour choice...
On the swami belt thing I believe Deanna Kent used to jump something similar to what you describe, check out Willing to fly sometime.
Cya
D

[bmcd308 0]

I have thought about this also, primarily because I do not think that descent under canopy is as comfortable as being lowered after a top-rope climb. In my opinion, it would help a lot if the load attach point was moved down on the shoulder straps so that we were suspended by a point closer to (but still above) our center of gravity, like when using a dual harness climbing system (swami/seat and chest harness). I do not like the way the harnesses I have used so far give you that "carried by the nape of your neck" feeling. In a climbing harness, you are much more reclined and more comfortable.
BMcD...

[PhreeZone 20]

I actually pack that rig that Deanna used every once and a while. All it is was a Vector 2 with a belly band. RWS used to offer a belly band as an option on freestle rigs to keep them more in place during some of the more radical moves. Terri loves it, but only changes the way it feels on the ground, not under canopy from listening to her.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[weid14 0]

there's a smaller guy (lets call him Maggot) that uses something like 25 pounds of lead -- he got his rig with a belly band and said it tremendously helps with comfort.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Sorry I missed you in Houston Phree, weather was against us, next time mebbe....
Okay on Deanna's rig, is there a chest strap (eg is it routed under her shirt etc)?, how do the leg straps adjust?
This has been puzzling me for a while as I've only occassionally seen legstraps with 'reversed' buckles up close once.
Cya
D

[PhreeZone 20]

Its just a regular Vector 2 with a belly band, regular leg and chest straps. I did'nt even know it was Deanna's old rig till Terri was talking about it one time. The entire harness is black so it might be blending into her outfit. And covering up hardware could be done with a slip on cover of black fabric.
We got a tiny guy at the DZ that has a Belly band on his Vector3 also. Mark loves his too. It works similar to the new lats on a Oddessy. It hold the rig higher on the back.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[billvon 3,120]

>In my opinion, it would help a lot if the load attach point was moved down on the
> shoulder straps so that we were suspended by a point closer to (but still above)
> our center of gravity . . .
Paraglider harnesses are like this. Problems:
1. Harder to get your feet beneath you on landing
2. More likely to drop backwards through the legstraps without a solid saddle
3. Must rotate more than 90 degrees on opening.
Advantages:
1. Less drag
2. More comfy
-bill von

[Engovatov 0]

>Paraglider harnesses are like this
Paraglider harnesses I have sit in are more like a belay chair - still suspended on the outside of the hip.
I was talking mostly about suspending leg loops more in front/inside - like on climbing harnesses. There is never a problem to rich the ground when repelling.. You also do not rotate more then 90 - you bend you legs at the hip - torso is still just slightly past vertical.
Belly band also is not the equivalent - load is still goes along sides of your body - not closer to the front - and along the back. And you can not flip over is such configuration - it is a similar configuration on rescue and work harnesses.
And I think that ability to tighten the swami, and having handles better protected and shifting less - and not needing any rings, will improve safety.. besides comfort..
Ah, well, just a thought.. whatever..

[Engovatov 0]

>Climbers don't get anywhere near terminal during the longest screamer and the rope, with a stretch of several percent under moderate loads, provides shock absorbtion not available in modern parachutes.
I wish it was so. Factor 1 fall easily generates above 5g. Fall directly on belay can be much worse (recent double death on Middle Cathedral in the Valley? - ripped 4 pieces out of granite)
Let's imagine you fall 50m (full rope length - it happens). Your terminal speed sqrt(2*g*h) = 30 m/s. Let's imagine you got a very good rope that stretches 10% with perfect efficiency (constant force when stretching). To stop within 5m you will need a constant accelaration of v^2/2s = 90 ~ 9g. Since the world is not perfect - even for rather short falls shock loads of up to 15g can be expected and that is reflected in typical specs (>15kn (3000lb) for belay loop)
As far as wear and tear - I almost chewed through a legstrap on a single off-width once...

[billbooth 10]

Engovatov asked;
"climbing harnesses see shock loads and wear and tear that is likely higher then for the parachute ones.
Why not to use such configuration on a parachute harness?"
Unlike rock climbers, jumpers have parachute containers that must be held firmly in place on their backs. They also need to be supported from TWO points, just in front of each shoulder, so that the jumper is always facing the same way the parachute is going, and will be easily able to land standing up, or even running... Not to mention, take 200 knot opening loads from ANY direction. This is why parachute harnesses have always been designed with vertical main lift webbs, (up the front) ), diagonal back straps (over the shoulders, crossing inside your backpad), and a horizontal back strap (across the bottom of your container). Climbing harnesses are comfortable, but I'd rather have shoulder straps during a head down opening. How 'bout you. Take a look through the harness section of Pointer's Parachute Manual. There are some slight differences in harnesses over time, but this is one piece of parachute gear they got pretty much right back in the 1920's.
The one thing that is missing on "modern" parachute harnesses is the "Belly Band". It had been on early piggybacks, but disappeared in the late seventies with the appearance of Vectors and Racers. And it's a shame. Although it doesn't increase safety a whole lot (unless you forget to hook up your chest strap), it does improve comfort. Think about it...you want the bottom of your container held firmly against the small of your back, and a belly band does that very well, without loading up your main lift webbs and leg straps. That's why your main lift webb has to be so damned tight over your shoulders. A belly band would allow your main lift webbs to come straight down the front of your body (placing your handles more in front where you can more easily see and protect them), instead of having to curve radically backward below the chest strap to try and do the extra job of holding the bottom of your rig snuggly to your back. And just like in any quality backpack, the belly band also takes the weight of your parachutes off your shoulders, and places it on your hips, where you hardly notice it. Deanna Kent, the original "Skydancer" knew that, and asked me to make her rig with a bellyband. Hardly any one else has recently, probably because as rigs get lighter and narrower, the comfort differences become less apparent.