KellyF

Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly.... It varies greatly from rig to rig, and can also vary greatly from rigger to rigger. there are pretty much two schools of thought- make a PC that can blast through the jumpers' burble when they are flat and stable, or make a PC that can clear the flaps of the reserve container but relies on the air returning to the jumpers' back to sweep it out to the side and into clean air. Something else to keep in mind is the fact that a PC doesn't do anything (orient itself or stay inflated) until it has a load on it, so a PC that launches to 4 feet or so on the ground can actually deploy a canopy faster than a PC that goes to full bridle extension. Regardless, it always feels good to have the PC fly across the room and knock a picture off the wall

Where you really? It was chilly on Saturday. You would be sick right now and we want you to come out more often. but but, not even a pie! kake>pei

Not if the Cypres cutter location works fine if the reserve flap tucks back under itself (like the Vector III/Mircron) and doesn't tuck into the bottom flap (like the Mirage, Javelin, and Talon/VooDoo). There are many design factors to take into consideration when it comes to the cutter location. Things like pilot chute cap diameter, spring force, flap flexability, container shape and closing sequence. To say that one particular feature equals a "bad design" is misleading, IMO. If you want "proof", RWS was at least considering changing the cutter location on future V-3's, meaning that there may be more to it than just the design of the pin cover flap

Congrats, girlie! But I thought you said it was in Perris? There's an aweful lot of green on the ground!

This is what you need http://rtperformanceparts.com/images/turbo1.jpg http://rtperformanceparts.com/images/turbo2.jpg http://rtperformanceparts.com/images/turbo3.jpg Trust me

Slider stop since it doesn't have any stabilizers to mount them on. VSE on Facebook

Unless you have a total

The container manufacturer. They install the components to make the container 'Cypres Ready'. I think when the Cypres first came out Airtec did a lot of testing in order to get container manufacturers to make their containers 'Cypres Ready'. The manual comes with instructions from the container manufacturer on how the AAD is to be installed. Derek Actually, Airtec tests each brand of container and determines if the location that the container manufacturer requests (for cosmetic reasons mostly) is appropriate and allows the Cypres to function as designed. To be fair, if Airtec had their way, they would locate the cutter on the flap opposite the pin on nearly every rig. The point has alredy been made about other AAD manufacturers taking advantage of much of the R&D that was originally done, and continues to be done, by Airtec. Kind of puts the cost differences into perspective

I'm gonna stir the pot a little and ask who is responsible for the location of the cutter?

We can add it after the rig is built, we just need to make the handle and do a quick modification to the container.

Believe it or not, it's too big!!! It may not be. There are other dimensions that have been changed to make the overall harness smaller but keep the main lift web somewhat standard for handle and chest strap placement. Got measurements? I can compare them to Chelle's. Of course, I'm not REALLY gonna do the silent auction, but small harnesses are kind of a fun challenge. FWIW, this harness fit an 11 year old girl pretty well

Well, since I've been dis-owned It's a 13.5" harness with a 5" (to the front edge of the main lift web) lateral and 1" taken out of the yoke. Leg pads are 18". Sound good? PM your bids!!

She's being gracious enough to let me take it to PIA to use as a display rig

Yes, we will make a freefly handle, just specify it on the "special instructions" area of the order form

I haven't shipped Chelle's rig yet, maybe we could hold a silent auction to see where it gets shipped

Which supports exactly what I'm saying. How do I know that Manufacturer X doesn't feel the same way, when in reality the only reason they don't offer rigs with collins lanyards is that they can't. They aren't going to advertise (for the most part) that a collins lanyard is an essential part of a proper RSL system. I'd rather hear YOUR opinion on a matter like that. RWS, who happens to sell rigs with the collins lanyard, says (according to what you said) that it is essential. Infinity says that since risers almost never break it really doesn't make any difference. Both have a stake in their argument. I'm not saying either one is lying... I'm just saying that a manufacturer may not be the best place to ask for advice on this sort of thing. Dave Well, here's some basic history on RSL's and riser breakage: "back in the day" you could get your rig (any, I believe) equipped with an RSL and NON-reinforced Ty-17 risers. Then Ty-17 risers started to break and it was determined (at least at RWS) that RSL's and Ty-17 risers together were bad juju. RWS reinforced the Ty-17 riser with two additional layers of 1" Ty-3 tape, but still did not recommend them when an RSL was going to be used. After the Ty-17 riser was redesigned AGAIN in 8/98 to incorporate a third layer of 1" Ty-3. At this time RWS deemed Ty-17 risers strong enough to be used with an RSL. The Collins Lanyard was devised as a solution to a problem for TANDEM riser breakage. Even after the invention of the Collins Lanyard, it was not incorporated into Vector sport rigs that were built with an RSL (to the best of my knowledge- you can check by looking at any V-3 built after '98. It should have the velcro in place up the right side of the yoke for the RSL, and some sort of provision under the yoke for the left side cutaway housing to be split- like two anchor points for the housing to be attached to) until the Skyhook came along. I'm still not 100% sure on why it is so critical on one type of RSL and not the other (based on RWS's actions). FWIW, I've read the patent for the Collins lanyard and there now seems to be a rather large loophole that would allow other manufacturers to use the lanyard if a part of the container system was changed. Would it hold up in court? I don't know, and can't afford to find out, but as long as risers are staying intact, I don't see a need to push the issue. Another quick point about the Collins Lanyard- it adds another step when simply cleaning your cutaway cables during the monthly maintenance (we all do that, RIGHT?)- you have to make sure that the left side cutaway cable is routed back through the lanyard when reassembling the system.

Here was my Email response to Brad: "Hi Brad, We ship every Infinity with an RSL because we feel that we should give the jumper the option to jump with or without the RSL without having to pay extra for it. Currently, the Collins Lanyard is a patented device that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been licensed to any manufacturer outside of the Relative Workshop, so it is not available on the Infinity. For sport use, we feel that the RSL is sufficient due to the current construction method used for Type 17 risers. We have never (to our knowledge) had a riser failure in the field- either Type-17 or Type-8- and that includes some jumpers that are over the legal 254 Lb. TSO weight limit jumping Type-17 risers with Microlined canopies (all the bad no-no's). If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Blue Skies! Kelly" I'll also add that RWS didn't put the Collins Lanyard on sport rigs equipped with an RSL before the Skyhook became available, unless specifically asked for (to my understanding).

I want my 5 minutes back!

The early Infinity's were hit and miss as far as being Free Fly friendly. I know several people that have had good success with them, and others that would have issues doing RW. I think the best answer is to look at your own rig and how securely the flaps close. Make sure you stow your risers tight enough that they aren't free to flop around if the riser cover comes open, but not so tight that they pull the riser cover open when you put the rig on. If the bridle is stowed tightly also, having an inch or so of exposed bridle isn't a HUGE deal, but as mentioned before, a cover is a pretty easy fix.

Glad to hear it Jerry!

Roughly four times that Even if the patterns are made and the people know what they are doing. Different designs may require more or less time, depending on parts count and construction methods.

Eeeaaaaasy there slugger!

Hey, you'll have a new toy for that jump!

It looks like your reserve closing loop could (should) be a little bit shorter. You shouldn't be able to see the edges of the reserve PC. If the loop can't be shortened with the current pack job, it should be repacked with more of the canopy towards the outside of the rig. (assuming that it has the proper canopy in it)

The Infintiy was designed to have the main risers placed under the reserve top flap (pocket). This location makes the riser covers the most secure that they can be. The shape of the reserve top flap and riser cover tuck tab are significantly different than the V-3 that requires the risers to be placed on top of the pocket. If the jumper wants to place the risers on top of the pocket, that will work fine, but it will reduce the ability of the riser cover to stay securely closed, most likely not significantly. As far as excess wear on the reserve risers, I have never seen any wear on reserve risers due simply to main risers laying on top of them. You are more likely to find wear caused by the components of the release system (housing ends, riser inserts, etc.) and RSL's that use velcro