PDA

View Full Version : FLiK Review Article



claus
July 7th, 2003, 12:15 AM
hallo jim

dont forget to tell ,that the flik stalls halfway because the sterring lines ,upper control lines are to short .
claus

AdamF__ CR
July 7th, 2003, 07:30 AM
Hi Jim, Well written article although it sounds like it belongs on the BR webpage rather than a discussion forum. However, I'm compelled to comment on the following statement:
...the success of Vent Technology has been so great that almost every other BASE canopy manufacturer has chosen to copy the Vtec without varying the size, location, or number of bottom skin vents; a tribute to the innovation and success of Basic Research.
[br]
This would insinuate that CR copied the Vtec as there are only two other altenatives when it comes to vented canopies. For the record, CR develped both a lower surface vent and a valve in 1996. It was publicly jumped on many occasions including two Bridge Days.
Prototypes of what we sell now had vent positions fore, aft, left and right of our current production design. Vent size and number were also varied. More relevant is the fact that the vents/valves on the [b]Black Jack are different in both size and position (both are similar, but different by design) from anything we saw on previous canopies.

No offense intended. You are entitled to promote your product, but verify your claims first.


Adam

truckerbase
July 7th, 2003, 08:17 AM
Thanks for standing up for yourself, Adam! I was going to jump in there myself. Wasnt it CR who added the fifth upper control line, too? And last I checked, the valve or "vent cover" was introduced by CR before BR, and a few other things as well, right? Thanks for the article, jim, it reminds me of why i dont do business with br.

JJ
July 7th, 2003, 01:13 PM
>dont forget to tell ,that the flik stalls halfway because the sterring >lines ,upper control lines are to short .

Sorry you have had a bad experience with flaring the flik.I however haven't experienced that problem myself. Maybe you should get in touch with anne in regard to that problem. Maybe your arms are too long ;-)

JJ

JJ
July 7th, 2003, 01:33 PM
Adam,

Thanks for the compliments, although I feel the article was rather hastily written and should have had a tougher edit before I posted it. I've heard about CR's claim to a vent in the late 90's. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific by saying "BR was the first to offer vents in the marketplace." With the obvious improvments to canopy inflation, one has to wonder why CR did not offer the vents after testing them.

Again, maybe I should have been more specific by saying something like "the blackjack and troll came out with vents of slightly different design and location than the FOX vtec, but are essentially the same in regards to performance."

BR's products are not my products. BR does not pay me for testing, only instruction. I am "loaned" a canopy to test and report feedback and eventually I have to return the canopy. I wrote the article because I like the FLiK and see it's design as an improvement of the FOX canopy and a superior design in regards to BASE specific canopies. This is only my opinion after jumping the FLiK, FOX, Dagger, Ace, BlackJack, Mojo and Troll.

Seems the article is generating discussion afterall.

JJ

truckerbase
July 7th, 2003, 07:06 PM
Curious. With such a superior and original product as the vtec canopy its a wonder the creative power of BR saw fit to modify its original perfection by following CR (again) by changing to the vent covers (valve) only after (again) the blackjack entered the market (first). Its hard to understand, really, with the "obvious improvements to canopy inflation" why BR would feel impelled to copy the introduction of the blackjack valves with their own version if the original was so superior. The original idea of the vent, invented by CR was originally discarded for technical reasons by CR. The valve (or covered vent) was CRs original improvement on their first idea, a concept that BR equally copied. For BR to then take credit for the entire sequence is offensive. Im sure that CR is amused by the folks who pick thru their trash...or at least very flattered. Your article is your opinion, but your opinion is neither well researched nor true in great part. Your credibility as an instructor, writer, and person is as equally suspect as your article. BR benefits from the untruth of your article, and by not speaking up to set the record or you straight, they become an accomplice in this sideways form of self promotion. It is clear from the tone of your article that you are fully aware as are most of the history of canopy development and introduction and intend the article in a mean spirited way...

Fennel
July 7th, 2003, 07:28 PM
JJ,

Your comments exemplify Basic Research's philosophy of self-promotion and great claims to advancements in the sport of fixed-object jumping.

Does BR build safe products? Yes.

Are they of good quality? Yes.

Are they as innovative as they claim to be? NO.

With the exception of the tail-gate which was more of a collaborative effort of many, what has Basic Research introduced to the market that is truly original? Please, tell me because I would like to know.

Reactor 4: Copy of the Perigee 2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Vented Pilot Chutes: BR claims to bring this to the market while CR clearly did it months if not a year plus before BR.

2 pin rigs: Introduced to the BR line of products since 2 pins ris were obviously the choice over single pin rigs.

H2O: Direct copy of the Phantom series rounds. Claimed to be designed by BR for BASE jumping from the links up yet remarkably so, there is not a single difference between the H2O and a Phantom...

And last but not least, Vents. Testing done by CR many years ago but dropped because with vents alone, extreme outpouring of air and a resulting decrease in performance was documented, and additionally so, CR felt the research necessary to overcome this was not worth the time and money as the market was simply not ready for this yet.

So BR comes along and brings it to the market place. While I'm of the opinion that their claims to fame are somewhat unfounded, it did introduce the technology to the marketplace and has since taken BASE jumping to a whole 'nother level. (low jumps,etc.)

Well, CR seeing this, decided to bring a product to the market that reaped all the benifits of this technolgy with NONE of the dreaded side-effects that the VTec Fox exhibits. And to top it off, they didn't just put vents and valves in a Mojo. They redesigned an entire airfoil to boot, and this has clearly taken things to a whole 'nother level.

So when BR introduces a canopy that claims to be the "next step" and all it has is a copied valve system and an adjusted trim angle on the same old FOX airfoil -AND- claims that is has once again revolutionilzed the BASE world, you bet I'm going to call BULL####.

Show me some ingenuity rather than claims to fame and I'll give BR some credit where credit is due. JJ, there is nothing wrong with you or the quality of BR's products, I'm just tired of BULL#### claims when after 10 years in this great sport, I know better.

Basic Research: Stop trying to grab glory from other people's accomplishments. It's painfully obvious and reflects poorly on your company and it's products.

Mike

JJ
July 7th, 2003, 09:44 PM
truckerbase,

>Curious. With such a superior and original product as the
>vtec canopy its a wonder the creative power of BR saw fit to
>modify its original perfection by following CR (again) by
>changing to the vent covers (valve) only after (again) the
>blackjack entered the market (first).

BASE equipment improvements work like that...one improves upon another. Luckily it works out that way instead of people totally trying to re-invent the wheel. Where do you think Adam and all other BASE specific canopy makers got the idea for the improvements and "innovative" canopy designs? Vents have been in accuracy canopies since the 1970's, I know people who have added 5th brake lines over 10 years ago to their skydiving gear for better flaring characteristics - and people were probably doing it long before then I'm sure, the idea of the multiple attachment point comes from that shiitty canopy the NOVA (I think it's that one), and when you talk to some old timer BASE jumpers they'll tell you they were using tape or something else to control their brake lines during slider down openings before the BR tailgate, I'm sure neither Adam or BR invented the round to use in water, didn't Dennis come up with that tuck flap feature for velcro rigs (doesn't really ever do anyting anyway - unless you fly a wingsuit with a velcro rig which isn't really recommended anyway), people have been talking about vent covers since the vtec came out - the FLiK's vent is an improvement on the BlackJack's, their has been a lot of duscussion about valved BASE canopies long before vents came out, etc. Point is the sport of BASE is progressing and canopies are SLOWLY getting safer and safer. The ideas take a lot of time and effort to test. I wish and hope all BASE specific gear manufacturers continue to try and solve all BASE related equipment problems.

I thank all BASE specific gear manufacturers for developing safer equipment, but I believe there are people other than manufacturers that deserve credit for innovation - thank Mark Hewitt for coming up with the line modification design and thank Dwain Weston for pushing the manufacturers to utilize many of the latest designs.

>Your credibility as an instructor, writer, and person is as equally suspect as your article.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll try to be a better BASE jumper and human being...

>BR benefits from the untruth of your article, and by not speaking up to set the record or you straight, they become an accomplice in this sideways form of self promotion. It is clear from the tone of your article that you are fully aware as are most of the history of canopy development and introduction and intend the article in a mean spirited way...

Again, your opinion. But, if this article was meant to be mean spirited, it would have included names and slandering remarks - which it did not. I suppose the article should have been more specific by saying that "BR was the first to bring the Tailgate, multiple bridle attachment, and Vtec to marketplace," and "BR only imporved upon the vent cover and vented pilot chute." - but nobody seems to notice that the vented pilot chutes don't really do much anyway and F111 is far superior (something BR has offered for over 5 years) but still not enough. We need a vent that actually works! A good ZP pilot chute vent design would vent the air where the air pressure hits the crown to prevent or minimize oscillation- not the center of the pilot chute - but that's only my opinion (and apparently too expensive for the manufacturers to test and produce).

I wouldn't call this article self-promotion (for BR) either since BR did not ask me to write it. I would say, "I (jim jennings) like the canopy and believe BR has superior products...and i was bored." The article is knowledge I have acquired over the past six years of becoming and being a BASE jumper - and aside from a poor edit and some small inaccuracies - I wrote what I believed to be true.

JJ
BASE 573

JJ
July 7th, 2003, 09:46 PM
Fennel,

>Show me some ingenuity rather than claims to fame and I'll give BR some credit where credit is due. JJ, there is nothing wrong with you or the quality of BR's products, I'm just tired of BULL#### claims when after 10 years in this great sport, I know better.

>Basic Research: Stop trying to grab glory from other people's accomplishments. It's painfully obvious and reflects poorly on your company and it's products.

Thank you for your opinion.

You're right this is a "great sport" - aside from the injuries and deaths... of which will be minimized as gear manufacturers develop better products.

Refer to above post and dropzone.com for further discussions.

JJ

JJ
July 8th, 2003, 04:08 AM
Title: "Building and Flying the FLiK - Basic Research's latest BASE
specific canopy" by Jim Jennings

Article:

Designing and Building a BASE canopy today requires a great amount of
testing, imagination, and canopy knowledge. As part of their ongoing
research and development process, Basic Research goes to great lengths to seek out the most advanced BASE jumpers today, provide them with a range of test canopies and capture their feedback in order to develop superior products.

The input used to design and develop new technology is backed by jumpers who are currently pushing the envelopes in BASE, jumpers who's talent has been proven at BASE competitions, and pilots with thousands of skydives and BASE jumps who have experience with multitudes of different canopy types. Also highly regarded by Basic Research are the contributions and viewpoints from the average, everyday jumper.
The end result of this extensive and continuous development, testing and feedback is the FLiK, Basic Research's newest BASE specific canopy.

Aside from the development of the Tail Gate several years ago to prevent slider down line overs, another major safety enhancing technology in BASE jumping canopies has been the introduction of bottom skin vents or Vent Technology, Vtec for short. Three years ago Basic Research introduced Vtec on the FOX canopy to improve slider down canopy inflation. Vtec has markedly improved inflation time during slider down or slider off BASE jumping, providing a steerable wing immediately to help avoid object strikes. Moreover, the past three years has provided plenty of occasions when this innovation has saved jumpers from serious injury or death by maintaining a rigid and steerable wing during an object strike. This occurs because air is rammed up through the bottom surface of the canopy, keeping it inflated while it is in a descending direction instead of flying in a more horizontal direction requiring forward speed to keep the canopy inflated, as with a conventional BASE canopy. Additionally, with faster inflation times Vtec has safely helped bring BASE jumping to a new level, more specifically a lower one, opening up a new range of objects previously thought too low to safely jump. Vent Technology has been proven to make BASE jumping a safer activity, regardless of the experience or skill level of the jumper. As with the Tail Gate, the success of Vent Technology has been so great that almost every other BASE canopy manufacturer has chosen to copy the Vtec without varying the size, location, or number of bottom skin vents; a tribute to the innovation and success of Basic Research.

After three years of Vtec in the field on the FOX canopy, Basic Research accumulated the feedback they needed to develop "vent covers" that restrict the outward flow of air during flight thus improving the glide angle and enhancing the flaring characteristics. As a participant of the test jumping, I flew fly several different designs of vent covers. The major concern in the design of the vent covers was the impact they may have on the opening characteristics, possibly slowing down inflation. Another concern is the efficiency with which it actually covers the vent to improve glide angle. After an extensive number of prototypes, the desired cover was found. The covers on the FLIK evolved into a design that does not change the opening as compared to a Vtec without covers, and they cover the vent completely when the canopy is in full flight when air would otherwise be escaping out of the vent. In my opinion, it is the ultimate vent cover design.

Often BASE jumping exits are far removed from optimal landing areas so a need to cover long distances is sometimes required, therefore the glide angle of a BASE canopy should be flattened. Improving the glide ratio or glide angle of the canopy has not only been achieved by adding covers to the vents, but also by slightly increasing the aspect ratio from 1.97 on the FOX to 2.04 on the FLiK. Basically this has made the canopy a more efficient wing in terms of glide ratio and flare. The aspect ratio is a sensitive variable to change because it can negatively change the on-heading opening performance. In addition for the need to land in often tight areas, this is one of the main reason why BASE canopies have seven cells instead of nine. The FLiK has an aspect ratio that improves the glide angle and flight characteristics, however testing has proven that the on heading performance has not been affected.

Another feature of the FLiK has been an increase in the size of the stabilizers as compared to the FOX canopy. Larger stabilizers improve the turning characteristics by reducing side sliding and making for a tighter turning radius. This is a desired feature in BASE jumping in order to avoid object strikes through quicker response to riser or toggle input, or when flying in restricted spaces (such as in a narrow canyon). Several stabilizer sizes and where the line attaches to it were tested to formulate the most efficient wing while increasing the performance level. The testing also established that the larger stabilizers did not affect heading performance.

The line length of a BASE specific canopy can also affect on heading performance and the risk and severity of line twists. Add a slider into the equation, and the potential for offheading openings and line twists is increased because the slider has more distance to travel and the time it takes for the slider to reach its final resting place is increased as well as the time to full inflation. These considerations were a factor in the invention of the FOX by minimizing the line length. Compared to the FOX canopy, the length of the FLiK's lines were further decreased to provide, in my opinion, a BASE canopy that has superior on heading openings and more consistent opening speeds compared to anything else on the market.

The other change of the lines on the FLiK has been the addition of a fifth upper control line. This line was added to pull down more of the tail during the flare. The line is located inboard of the existing upper control lines and makes a substantial difference in the flare characteristics and turn response. This added upper control line in addition to the larger stabilizers results in a "sportier canopy" from the words of the parachute's creator Anne Helliwell, co-owner of Basic Research. The fifth upper control line has made such a significant improvement on the FOX and FLIK in the testing phases that Basic Research is now offering the fifth upper control line as a retrofit option to all existing FOX canopies.

Another feature of the FLIK is reduced pack volume to help make handling during packing easier and to counter the addition of bulk from the added vent covers. The FOX canopy was built with extra reinforcement, beyond the forces that could be achieved in BASE jumping. The sport of BASE jumping is always being redefined and it has been determined that some of the reinforcements on the FOX were in excess. To reduce the size and pack volume of the FLIK, some of the overkill reinforcement has been reduced
resulting in a tighter, smaller, easier to pack canopy.

Production of canopies has been streamlined at Basic Research by the installation of a computerized hot knife cutting machine. This machine, provided and installed by Jyro (Paul Martin) from New Zealand Aero Sports, cuts a canopy out piece by piece with a computer controlled mechanical arm mounted with a hot knife – Jyro uses the same machine to cut out the Icarus canopies he produces. The computer software allows any pattern specifications to be entered into the system, allowing for easy alterations during the development of the FLIK test canopies, expediting the process. After cutting out the canopy, the pieces are handed over to the Basic Research sewing staff with ninety-three years of combined canopy sewing experience. This streamlined production process allows for test canopies to be produced immediately after the idea has been conceived, and it provides for an unparalleled turnaround time for custom orders. Basic research is now the only all in-house BASE gear producer, lending to the best customer service in the business, because the production timeline can be easily predicted and the manufacturer has complete control of the entire production process from taking the order to shipping.

During testing I personally performed nearly one hundred jumps on the FLIK, covering the complete delay spectrum from low freefalls and static line jumps to an array of delays up to terminal velocity, while often landing in small undesirable locations. I can now say that the FLIK out performs any canopy I have jumped by a wide margin. It has a reliably consistent and crisp opening with instantaneous inflation providing an immediate, rigid, and steerable wing, maintaining unsurpassed on heading performance. The response to riser pressure in stowed or unstowed brakes or via the toggles, is very quick, reliable, and predictable. Responsiveness to toggle pressure during the flare is also reliable and consistent, and the FLIK has an explicitly positive flare that holds deep until touchdown. This canopy has been nothing but a pleasure to fly, and to improve upon this canopy design in the future will require pioneering, imagination, and extensive testing. However I am confident that Basic Research's R&D team will be there mulling through the process.

david
July 8th, 2003, 03:36 PM
Who cares?! I like my Flik. If you don't like BR gear, don't buy it. (Do you think they will send me a free T-shirt for that) }(

I say that all gear manufactures should do what ever it takes to bring us the best an safest gear possible. I don't care who makes it. If the vents have been around so long how come we didn't start jumping vented canopies until 2000?( I think it was 2000) Anyway, I don't know who invented what or when and I really don't care. What I do know is that there have been some really great improvements in our gear the past three years. That's what matters! Just my two cents.:7

P.S. That same old Fox still kicks ass!

Dwain
July 8th, 2003, 09:46 PM
*Edited to update some inaccuracies and to add some more info*

Denpar wrote:
> Wasnt it CR who added the fifth upper control line, too?
> The original idea of the vent, invented by CR...

Mike also wrote:
>what has Basic Research introduced to the market that is truly original?

Firstly let me ask Mike:
What has ANY BASE manufacturer introduced to the market that is truly original?

Vented P/C's:
Vented BASE p/c's were used and sold in France and Germany for a number of years before being released for sale by CR. In fact when CR did release their range of vented PC's they were publicly accused of stealing the idea.
However before anyone claims ownership of inventing vented p/c's, one must look to the tandem drogue (arguably invented by Ted Strong and Bill Morrissey) that looks and acts suspiciously like a p/c and has a vent near the apex. But a tandem Drogue is somewhat similar to a round canopy that also has a vented apex. The apex vent on a round was invented by the French astronomer Lelandes in the year 1802 to counter oscillations.

So the question is raised; if Morpheus stole the idea from BR, who stole it from CR, who stole it from the French (or Germans) who stole it from Ted and Bill, who stole it from Lelandes, then from whom did Lelandes steal the idea?
Or perhaps if Lelandes were alive today he would say;
"Vous des bâtards avez volé mon idée!!!" x(

Bottom skin vents:
BR released them first to the market in 2000...
CR had a prototype in 1996 which they discarded...
I did a BASE jump on a canopy with a large tear in the bottom skin in 1995 and I noticed faster cell inflation - does that count? (ha ha) :P
Accuracy canopies had bottom skin venting in the 80's and these canopies were BASE jumped a number of times in Australia in the mid to late 80's (and possibly before that elsewhere).
So bottom skin venting has been BASE jumped for at least 15 years - well before CR and BR (or TNT rigging) even existed.

5th Upper Control lines:
Introduced into Australia in the late 80's as a standard BASE mod along with the tailpocket. Was standard on the Pooster BASE canopy (made by Parachutes Australia) that was released in 1993 and sold until 1998.
A number of jumpers were making this modification to American BASE canopies until the American (and Slovenian) manufacturers finally began to make them as standard in 2001 and beyond.
(In this one regard, American BASE canopies were seen as rather behind the times as Australians had worked out the benefit of a 5th upper control line in the 80's - I remember asking Adam for it when I ordered my first Mojo in 1997).

Tuck Flap:
Parachutes Australia sold a velcro BASE rig in 1997 with an extra flap on the top flap which tucked into a pocket on the shrivel flap (the reverse of the current design). CR followed with the Perigee 2, then GS, then BR and so on. However tuck flaps on BASE rigs looks suspiciously like the tuck flaps used on skydiving rigs, which looks suspiciously like, well - any other product with a flap that tucks.

Valves:
Has anybody ever seen a Jedei skydiving canopy? Also rumor has it that Vertigo experimented with valves on the Dragon some time ago.

Pin rigs:
First "modern" pin rig on the market was the Sorcerer by Mark Hewitt (late 80's/early 90's?). BR produced a couple of twin pin prototypes but decided to first release to the market their single-pin Prism in 1996/7. CR followed with their first dual pin BASE rig: the Perigee Pro and so on.
But before anyone starts making any claims about who was the first to release a pin-rig on-a-Tuesday-in-the-color-purple, look at the attached photo's (taken from Poynter's Vol 2).
The "Prism" like rig was manufactured by Steve West of Westway Parachuting Enterprises in 1990. The "Perigee Pro" like rig was manufactured by Stephen Stewart of Stewart Systems in 1982. Hmmm...it makes you wonder where Steve and Stephen stole their ideas from. ;)

BASE jumping dogs:
In 1779 the French physicist Sebastian Le Normand, together with Joseph Montgolfier studied about parachutes by throwing animals. Then in 1785 Jean Pierre Blanchard, famous balloonist and the first man who flew over the English channel, began to work on parachutes. After making successful tests with animals and even his own dog...
Whoops, I'm getting off track here ;)
(Sorry Rocket the Dog - but it turns out you just weren't that unique). :-(

To be honest just about everything has been thought off to some extent or another. (You just need to watch Road Runner cartoons to realize this).
Any idiot can come up with an idea. The real talent and innovation comes from searching through that massive pile of ideas, selecting the ones that show promise and refining it into a product that works well - and then having the guts to take that product to market and back your reputation on it.
In that regard BR, CR, Morpheus, Atair and Vertigo all deserve standing accolades for their efforts. The fact that anyone casts stones at any of these manufacturers makes me think that they themselves must have contributed to some pretty strong advancements in BASE technology.
All of these manufacturers are striving to make our sport safer through advancing the technology that saves our lives (and yes they do justifiably try to scratch out a living from it as well).
However without competition, and one manufacturer constantly leap-frogging the other with new releases, the advancement of BASE technology would be moving at an incredibly slow pace (yes, even slower than it is now).

Blind manufacturer loyalty by BASE jumpers seems odd to me (and reminds me of blind nationalism or religious fever that has kept wars raging throughout history).
It's the competition from the manufactures to win our business that keeps the technology advancing forward.
If a new manufacturer comes up with a better product (and you happen to be in the market to buy) then purchase it from them. Reward them for their progression and foresight, and not because they have the best advertising or are currently winning a popularity contest.

(Now back to my rocket-propelled-wingsuit prototype...Oh wait - Wile E Coyote has already beaten me to it!!!) ;(

Frog
July 9th, 2003, 04:52 AM
Well said, Dwain!!!! ;)

K
July 14th, 2003, 09:22 AM
To whom it may concern

I feel it is my place to address some of the comments that have been posted.
As the primary designer at Basic Research I will share some information to clarify some points of this discussion.

I do feel that BR has been a leader in innovative products and designs in the BASE community. Does this mean that we took what others (in BASE and skydiving) have done and either improved it or applied it to our equipment, yes in some cases.
Here is a quick list of some of the unique items I feel we have offered to the BASE community:

A BASE specific canopy
Multiple Bridle Attachment
Single pin container– Prism
Tail Gate
Floating pin bridle for multi pin closure
Saddlebags
Alpine harness
Anti line dump Tail Pocket
3 packing tabs for ease of packing


Multi– Is multiple bridle attachments on a canopy something we invented? No. CRW canopies have done this for a long time. CRW canopies used them for completely different reasons, they used them for a collapsible PC. Even the Unit had 2 bridle attachments. We offer Multi to help the free packed, tail pocket deployed parachute. Do I believe it was an original idea, design? Yes. Why do I consider it an original? We are the only one to produce such an item that uses a 4th point with the sole purpose of supporting the Tail Pocket.

Single pin– We built our first pin closed rig in November of 1995. It was for a Mt. Dew commercial. It was built using 2 pins, because it was easier with the short delivery time we were working with for the commercial. It was basically a 2 pin Reactor 3. After the commercial was completed I used the rig on numerous occasions. The overwhelming comment about the rig was, “Why 2 pins?” The answer is, it is easier to design and build a long container with 2 pins. I still believe the 2 pin offers no safety advantage over the 1 pin. That is why BR continues to offer both. The issue of single pin vs. dual pin has been addressed in skydiving. For years all reserves used 2 pins to close the container. When Troy Looney built the Centaurus (early 80’s) with a single pin reserve, almost everyone followed including the Vector, Talon,….
I believe the Prism single pin is simply ahead of its time.

Tail Gate- That is ours. We designed it. We tested it. We GAVE it to the BASE community and our competitors. This was a bad business discussion to give it away with no patent. But we felt it would save lives and that was worth the loss of dollars.
Were other people working on other systems? I would think so. People were getting hurt even dying from line-overs. I am sure others were working on it. But at the time the best the field had come up with was masking tape.

Saddle bags– That’s ours
Alpine– That’s ours.

Anti line dump tail pockets– This was simple design that at the time was only used by Rigging Innovations on their reserve freebags. The bottom Velcro on the Tail Pocket is attached to a piece of Type 3 tape which allows the weight of the line to force the Velcro closed during deployment, rather than tear it open. We used RI’s idea and implemented it on our first FOX, now both industries see it as the norm.

3 packing tabs– That’s ours.

So does BR only copy? I do not think so.

The FLiK. It does have a condensed control range. Meaning if you are used to having 3– 4 feet of control range it will be smaller (2-3 feet) on a FLiK. It is due in part to the 5th upper control line, and because it has a higher aspect ratio than the FOX.
One comment on the board was “the upper control lines are to short”. This is not true. Lengthening the upper control lines is most definitely not the solution, this will create far more problems than it would solve. If the jumper is uncomfortable with the flare or stall point of the FLiK, the solution is lengthen the distance between the brake setting and the toggle. This would put the flare and stall point lower in the stroke. To lengthen anything above the brake setting would change opening characteristics, and could create problems with the slider’s ability to come down. More specifically the ability of the rear slider grommets to pass cleanly over the junction of the upper and lower control lines and the CD cascade.

Vtec- We offered the Vtec at first with no covers or valves. Why? The best inflow of air and quickest inflation was achieved this way. We tested both with and without covers. All cover (valve) designs restrict inflow. At the time max inflow was the objective. After several years and thousands of jumps we (as others) determined that a vast number of jumper were willing to lose some inflow for the benefits of covers. Were we aware it had draw backs? Yes, but we proved to the BASE community that a vented canopy had its place. A non covered Vtec still has certain benefits over a covered Vtec. But for a majority of the jumpers a covered vent is a better option. To think we copied something that was taken to Bridge Day a couple of times is ridiculous. If they are testing something do you think they would lets us know about it? The inspiration for the Vtec was from circa 1970 canopies that had cross-port style vents cut into the bottom surface.

Basic Research is not a typical company. We started this company as jumpers and have tried to maintain that element. Meaning, if you own our gear we will always try to offer retrofits to keep that gear up to date with the latest technology. From a business stand point this is stupid. Does Microsoft offer you an update to your slow computer? NO, they tell you to buy a new one. That is good for them. At Basic Research we have offered retrofits (such as Vtec) to existing canopies so the consumer is not forced to buy a new one or jump something that is not state of the art.
One issue that Dwain mentioned is who (which company) is willing to put their butts on the line by being the one to introduce the product to market. Let me explain. When we introduced the Vtec (the same holds true for any major item FOX, Tail Gate, Multi, Prism, Alpine….) it was a serious potential liability to our company to be the first. No one was offering these items and we put our necks on the line. After it was out there for a year or so other manufacturers followed offering their version. The ground work had already been laid, therefore it is easier for the follower than the leader. So it was easier for us to follow with Vtec covers, but we had already shown the BASE industry that there was a need and a market.
While on the topic of business approach we try to adhere to common business ethics such as paying royalties on patents when necessary. Case and point, Basic Research is the only BASE manufacturer to pay for the right to use the patented articulated harness (according to Brenda Reid at Rigging Innovation on July 10, 2003). RI’s Sandy Reid holds the patent and we pay it every time we sell an articulated harness. Basic Research has lobbied hard, over the past decade, to get the powers to be to understand that BASE jumping is a legitimate sport not a reckless activity. We have done this by being full voting members of the Parachute Industry Association, and lecturing at the PIA Symposium. Once again I feel we can hold our heads high for the way we have conducted ourselves and have represented this sport.

We try our hardest to provide the BASE community with good products that are safe and reliable. We do not care who was first. But I will admit it strikes a sour note for someone to think or state that we have not done our part to advance the sport, or to think that we are riding on the coat tails of others.


Todd Shoebotham
Basic Research