20_kN

I assume you mean that in the same size those 2 canopies are too loose for your container? Both manufacturers recommend a larger size due to the non-zp construction so if you did this you should have no issue. I had the same problem and went with a winX in ZP. If you are newer to the sport and haven't downsized over the years then there isn't really room to upsize. I had a 190 zp safire before the winX. I understand the upsize if you are on a small canopy but if you already have a larger canopy than you cant really go that much bigger. I just wanted a new wingsuit canopy not a new rig after buying one 7 months prior. Yep, bingo. These LPV canopies are made with the assumption that everyone downsizes to like a 120 or whatever and now they need to upsize with a wingsuit, but not everyone does that. Some people are fine flying larger canopies and never downsize beyond a 170 or 150. In that case a ultra LPV canopy doesent work as there is no room (or need) to upsize. The other issue, which I consider to be quite legitimate, is that if you are using an ultra LPV canopy in a small container, you're going to have a disproportionately small reserve. Like a 170 Epicene with a 126 PDR or whatever. Personally, I think that is risky. I much rather prefer to have my reserve the same size as my main on a wingsuit jump.

I was thinking of stopping by one of the Perris or SD Arizona Christmas boogies, but I cant go to both as they are happening at the same time. Recommendations for which might be better? I am not too big into the party and get wasted scene. Mostly there for the jumping. Interested in wingsuiting.

I once saw a student on a Navigator 230 WL somewhere around 0.8 cut away a spinning canopy. I dont recall if it was so bad that he was on his back, but it was defiantly in a dive and spinning around. Any canopy can dive under some situations. I learned this the hard way during my FFC. I had bad twists on a Lotus 170 (WL about 1.1), and the canopy instantly spiraled down and put me on my back until I was able to clear it. Prior to this issue I had 275 jumps on the canopy without a single issue. Below is a video showing it (and yes my deployment was bad. I was still a student ). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22g4qCb8OU4 About 80 WS jumps later my deployment technique improved a bit after working with some coaches, but I had the same thing happen. The canopy opened fine, but then I spun a few times under it (bodytwists) and once again it started to spiral down with me spinning around on my back. But this time it was even more violent. It was spinning fast enough that my leg wing started to reinflate. I ended up cutting it away and after that I called it quits with that canopy. Again, this being on a 170 with a WL of about 1.1. I ended up getting a Pilot 7 to try which has been treating me well on openings so far. Anyway, not to hijack, but I've wondered how the WinX and Pilot 7 compare to the Epicene and Horizon in terms of openings. At this point I'm mostly just concerned with openings. I am not really looking for anything sporty. However, both the Horizon and Epicene are LPV fabric and so the canopies wont fit in my rig which leaves me with standard ZP canopies only.

So I noticed that most manufacturers trim the RSL slide cutaway cable longer than the non-RSL side. The benefits of that are obvious--less likely to cutaway the RSL side before the non-RSL side and end up with a main-reserve entanglement due to a partial cutaway. But with the case of an RSL that has a collins' lanyard, would it make sense to trim the cables the same length or possibly make the non-RSL side longer? The collins' lanyard is designed to cutaway the non-RLS side riser and so the advantage here is that by making the RSL side cutaway first (or both at the same time), there is no chance of accidentally cutting away the non-RSL side and leaving the RSL side still attached. This is just theoretical. I have an RSL Skyhook and the cables are trimmed as shown in the manual for the container, but I am curious why the manufacturers trim the cables that way if the rig has a collins lanyard.

I believe the point of airlocks is solely to help prevent collapses and increase stability in turbulence by keeping the cells pressurized. I am not sure that airlocks are intended to have much benefit on performance. I dont see how having them would change the flight of the canopy under normal conditions. Anyway, the Renegade has three sections in the outer cells (as opposed to two in the other five cells), making it unique. I dont think I've seen that before. Here is another video of the canopy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=BxhfCpOJFjI

Any opinion of the Pilot 7? I agree that pull technique is more important than canopy selection. I had trouble with the technique at first, but feel confident with it now after working with a coach. I can fly the suit straight and symmetrically through the deployment process. Of course there is some argument as to what the best deployment process is as I've been told many different methods to deploy my parachute, but I found something that seems to work fine for me so far. I do plan to get into an ATC once I am ready and so I cant imagine the openings getting any better. If switching to something like a Pilot 7 or WinX is legitimately a waste of money and wont do anything for me, then great, I wont buy one. But I think it's an idea at least worth looking into considering just one cutaway could mean having to replace my canopy where I jump, and the coach that Lyosha said I should get is the one who specifically told me he recommended buying something different (as well as 3-4 other WS guys on the DZ who all told me to get an Epicene).

I recently got into wingsuiting. I went on a trip and knocked out 50 WS jumps (10 on a Hatch, 40 on my Swift 3). Anyway, on my first Swift 3 jump I had a hard opening which lead to massive line twists putting my canopy into a spin with me trying to fix it on my back. I was able to fix it in time (mostly because I pulled at 4500'), but I was getting fairly close to cutting it away. After speaking with my FFC coach and some of the other WS experts on the DZ, they recommended a different canopy if I want to get serious about WS. I did put 50 WS jumps on the canopy and it opened fine without linetwists on 47 out of the 50 jumps, but the heading control sucks. It opens off heading 50%+ of the time on WS jumps and when it does open in serious twists it spins up. I am jumping a Lotus 170 with a WL of slightly under 1.1 to 1. Anyway, I got a brand new Icon I5 which is intended for a 170 ZP main and 175 LPV reserve, which is exactly what I have. I was looking into a Horizon, but its pack volume is so small that I dont think it would fit in my container without a pad or something installed. I asked about the Pilot 7, but most of the WS experts on my DZ said it's not that much better than what I already have and they all seem pretty adamant about recommending a 7-cell with F111 style fabric like the Horizon or Epicene Pro. I do not want to upside to a 190 as my WL is already quite low and any larger would be too large. So what is a good option? Install a pad and go with a 170 Horizon or something else?

I am told that HMA is just the material name for a product called Technora. Does anyone know if this is true? I know that Vectran, Dactron and Spectra are just brand names. Vectran is a liquid crystal polymer and Spectra is a type of UHMW polyethylene. Dacron is polyester. Anyway, does anyone know the differences between Vectran and HMA as it related to skydiving? My understanding is that both lines stay in trim until the lines need replacement (unlike Spectra). So what is the advantage of one over the other? Why would one chose HMA over Vectran or vise verse? I know that Vectran is less prone to spontaneous failure than HMA, but that's the main difference I know about.

I am curious what you think about Brian's training videos. He has several on his website. I was thinking of picking up a few related to canopy work. I have 350 jumps and I am comfortable piloting my canopy in the way that I use it, but I still have tons to learn for sure. Thanks.

I am getting a new Icon and I noticed that the wingsuit option includes converting the container from the standard shape to the long shape. I am not that serious into wingsuiting yet. I am still a beginner and fly a small suit. I also intend to use the container for other stuff like freeflying and such. Accordingly, since I am getting the extended bridle and open corners, it looks like it is the same cost regardless of what shape container I get. If I buy the long version of the rig, is it going to suck for everything not related to wingsuiting? What would be the best option--standard shape or long shape, for an all-around rig that will be used for some low level wingsuiting?

I have looked at the Optimum. However it is $300 some more than the Smart LPV, so I am not sure what the benefit would be. Is the Optimum a better reserve than the Smart LPV? I have an Icon I5. Right now I have a Nano 193 on my old rig. It would probably fit in the I5, but Aerodyne says the maximum they recommend is a Smart LPV 190. Aerodyne says the recommended size is a Smart LPV 175. I have a 170 main, so my options are to try to stick with the larger 193 Nano knowing it will be a tight fit, or go down to the 175 Smart LPV as Aerodyne recommends. My WL is pretty light. A hair over 1:1 on the 175.

Has anyone tried the new Smart LPV or know anything about it? I was thinking of getting one and wanted to know how it compares to other reserves. Thanks.

I am not sure I would be able to double stow with a small band. The small bands are hard to get my fingers in, and double stowing with one would seem really hard. I could possibly triple stow the outer stows and double stow the inner ones? Another option might be to just buy the next size smaller D bag.

I have an Aerodyne Icon I6, a standard pack volume ZP 170 main and 193 LPV Nano reserve. The I6 is intended for 190 - 210 canopies. The d bag is clearly too large, but I am wondering if it's safe to use. The issue is more that I am not sure if I am getting enough tension on the locking stows. I double wrap all of the locking stows, and the two center stows seem tight enough, but the two end stows are barely strong enough to pick up my bag off the ground by the lines (the bag weighs 7 lbs). I find that the two outer locking stows are pulled all the way to the grommet (show in pic). When I first put a new rubber band on, the two outer stows seem tight enough. But after a few jumps the rubber band stretches out enough that the bands barely provide enough tension to lift the bag off the ground (and in some cases I cant even do that). That's with them double wrapped. So I am wondering if the bag is fine as is, I should get an I5 D bag, or I should just downsize my reserve and get a smaller container. I am able to close the rig and have enough tension on the closing loop. I had to shorten it a bit, but the main seems fine in the container with a shorter closing loop. Photos: https://imgur.com/a/eZB918b

He expressed interest in jumping again but he has not logged in since 2012. My best guess is that he never ended up jumping again and he probably has a lifelong condition. This was an interesting thread to read. Too bad the hard way was the only way for him.