samp76 0 #1 February 28, 2003 Does anyone know the scoop on the new Miniforce system?? Here is the link. http://www.aerodyne-int.com/sport/default.asp Then go to articles. --Sam--Let go of the NUT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 February 28, 2003 Looks good to me, 37% reduction in cutaway pull force, just by modding the 3 ring geometry, and redesigning the big riser ring.. Of course new risers required along with a slight relocation of the cutaway cable end housing. As soon as it is tested for compatibility, I can see other container manufs adopting this. I think its cool because a lot of us big boys are jumping mini risers when we really ought to be on standard risers....... Anything that mitigates this fashion driven decision is good in my book!. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #3 February 28, 2003 from the websight. in regards to the new Icon rig. QuoteNew design that distinguishes you from the crowd well, I wouldn't say it's all that new looking. Not bad though. I like the 3 ring design. That interests me.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #4 February 28, 2003 I like the look of the Icon. Doesn't give much detail about it on the site though.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #5 February 28, 2003 it's nice... Eclipse, talon, wings.. vectoresque... loose looking riser covers in the picture, .....but it has internal riser covers, so more pictures, and of course seeing it in person. It's probably a very nice rig.My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #6 February 28, 2003 I don't like it, purely aesthetic reasons...... Also noticed this "Guaranteed pin protection in all free flying positions" Thats a bold statement to make, kinda like the canopy manufacturer's adage "designed for superior openings". So what happens if you get a prem (or have someone get evidence that the flap is open in freefall) with this rig, do you get your money back under the 'Guarantee?'-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #7 February 28, 2003 QuoteEclipse, talon, wings.. vectoresque... Very Atom Legendesque. Not surprising considering where half of Aerodyne Internationals staff come from! Quoteloose looking riser covers in the picture To be fair, I think that is because the rig is being suspended from the yoke rather than worn and cinched down. That would curve the yoke around the shoulders tightening up the slack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 1 #8 February 28, 2003 Quote To be fair, .... Actually to be fair, I should not post at nearly 4:00 in the morning My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #9 February 28, 2003 The Miniforce system is basically an elongated RW3 ring (bottom ring on the riser). Essentially, it adds a longer lever arm to the system, making it more effective. Their big argument is that the tolerances for the 3-Ring system as it exists today are so exacting that they're difficult to build correctly, and if built incorrectly they aren't as functionally correct or efficient as they need to be. This elongated ring basically allows you to build with a larger tolerance and still get an efficient system at the end. Listening to Ian describe it, the comparison they made was that of an incorrectly built standard 3-ring system compared against a correctly built miniforce system...seems like a worst case/best case scenario to me, but whatever. On the plus side, the risers will be able to be fitted on any existing rig. On the neg. side, they "weren't able to confirm a unit price" at PIA...which reads to me that it's not going to be cheap. I spent some time after the lecture speaking with a certain very well known inventor and innovater in the area of skydiving canopy release systems (who's name I won't put out there, but it should be obvious). His response was something to the effect of "Ok, but the reduction in pull force they're getting is less than the amount of drag generated in the cable housings. Why not work on that instead? It's all of a pound and a half savings per side. A gimick? Maybe, but you know everyone will have to get them...." I guess they're going to work, but it seems like there's not a whole hell of a lot wrong with the 3-ring as it exists now, and we know it works well. Not that I'm against innovative change, but.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #10 February 28, 2003 I guess it would be worth reminding here that you'd get even less needed cutaway force with the original, larger, three-rings. Is there any reason why you couldn't make 1" risers with the large rings? Other than "not looking cool"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichM 0 #11 February 28, 2003 QuoteIs there any reason why you couldn't make 1" risers with the large rings? Other than "not looking cool"? How about normal risers but folded in half? The rears could be wrapped around the hard housing inserts and tacked, and the fronts just folded in half and tacked. This would make them thinner than 1" risers so produce less drag. Anything stupidly wrong with this idea? Has anyone done it?Rich M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #12 February 28, 2003 QuoteQuoteIs there any reason why you couldn't make 1" risers with the large rings? Other than "not looking cool"? How about normal risers but folded in half? The rears could be wrapped around the hard housing inserts and tacked, and the fronts just folded in half and tacked. This would make them thinner than 1" risers so produce less drag. Anything stupidly wrong with this idea? Has anyone done it?I'm glad you brought that up. I've been trying to get people to accept folded-in-half type 8, large ring risers for years, but no one seems interested. As an added advantage (in addition to more strength and mechanical advantage) the folded-in-half risers would present a knife-edge to the relative wind under canopy, yielding less drag than type 17, 1" risers. But actually, there is little reason to alter the design of the ring portion of mini 3 ring risers. Hard cutaways are generally NOT caused by improper ring placement. They are caused by 1. soft housings, 2. incorrectly installed metal housings, 3. lack of cable lubrication, 4. lack of hard housing inserts in the risers, or 5. too short riser closing loops. Incorrectly placed rings are minor problem compared to the above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SPY 0 #13 March 1, 2003 QuoteDoes anyone know the scoop on the new Miniforce system?? Here is the link. http://www.aerodyne-int.com/sport/default.asp Then go to articles. --Sam-- Looking at it and comparing with the original mini three rings, it brought a question: Considering the fact that the new middle ring is larger (vertical axis) than the hole of the big ring, would it be possible for the miniforce to slide a bit and be at an angle that it wouldn't be vertical so it wouldn't fit throught the big ring? Theoretically, the middle ring of the original system can go through the big ring in any position (well it's a circle so there is no position) but the miniforce add a new variable: the axis of the middle ring. Is that my imagination or would it be an issue - at least in theory-? Any Aerodyne engineers around? Bill Booth? S-P =========================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #15 March 3, 2003 The way the ring is designed, at least the way they sold it to us at PIA, is that the middle (elongated) ring has a slot built into it that is supposed to keep the ring from rotating off axis. We'll see! "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
