Toggles vs. Risers revisited

[Yuri]

Yo !

Correcting off-headings: toggles vs. risers.

There has been a lot of discussion on the subject. Opinions seem to vary a lot from pro-toggle (Adam?) to pro-riser (Tom?) and everywhere in between. I have been struggling (and unable) to find a simple bulletproof solution for myself that would work in all situations. After witnessing a few cliff strikes recently i have tried to formalize my thoughts on off-heading correction. Here is how i see it:

Risers are easy to grab, you can start using them a second or so before you would get to the toggles. This timing can vary a lot, and will be extremely important when deciding between risers and toggles. Risers are also reliable - they do not jam.

On the down side, riser turns are much slower than toggle turns. They also consume more altitude - a very important factor on any jumps. Finally, riser turns often result in stalls where canopy doesn't turn much but drops down like a rock. This has been a factor in numerous cliff strikes i have observed.

Toggles take a moment to grab, and they can jam. However if you do get them fast enough, they will turn your canopy very quickly with minial altitude loss. A second that you loose reaching for the toggles has an unexpected benefit: your canopy fully pressurizes and starts to fly - thus consuming less altitude in a flat turn.

I believe that neither risers nor toggles can cover all situations. There are 2 specific areas where one approach works better than another:

#1. If you find yourself very close to a vertical wall and you have plenty of altitude directly underneath, risers are more likely to save you. One shouldn't be in this situation in the first place, though - take a longer delay and track! ;-) I notice that many people doing aerials end up opening high and close to the wall.

#2. Another situation is a jump where you take a good delay, open relatively far from an object but low over some ledges, trees, talles and such. Toggles appear to work much better in this case, giving you precious altitude to fly away from the stuff below and make the landing area.

Then there are situations when you are both close to the wall and the stuff below. Eagle's Nest (260ft cliff with rocks/trees on your left, right and below) is a fine example. I have used a riser to correct 90 right there. Canopy turned, but lost considerable altitude and barely cleared trees on a ledge below - i had to flare over them. Today i would probably go for toggles. It's a judgement call: are you more likely to hit the wall in front of you or the ledge underneath? It would be interesting to hear different opinions about this place and the subject in general.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[Dwain]

In my personal experiences (and given the 17 object strikes I have witnessed) I would have to agree with Yuri's comments.

You generally know when to go for the risers. There is a large piece of rock coming at you fast and you are going to hit it in the next second. Sometimes you need to stall the canopy backwards to avoid impact (via both rear riser input) before turning the canopy.
Basically if on opening I find my body automatically starting to brace for impact then I go for the risers. There isn't time to evaluate vertical and horizontal height.

Getting a bona fida 180 on a vertical wall after a short delay with half a line twist (canopy facing the wall, you facing away) is an extremely difficult situation to deal with and only immediate and correct action will avoid an object strike. If you do enough BASE jumps then you will eventually find yourself in this situation (it may take several thousand BASE jumps but it will occur). When it does both luck and skill will play a part.

The main problem is not that serious off-headings occur, or our speed or technique in dealing with them. The main problem is with the technology we use to jump vertical/underhung walls with a short delay. The fact is no matter how good you are, you will find yourself in situations where a serious off-heading will result in injury. This is the fault of the technology, not the participant.

Imagine that the sport of BASE jumping was invented from scratch (i.e. not as an advancement of skydiving). Given the fact that we are very close to objects on deployment, the concept that our life saving device will need forward speed to exist (i.e. stay inflated) would seem totally unacceptable. It's a bit like a car that starts driving in a random direction before we are allowed to steer it.
We can reduce the forward speed by setting the brakes deeper but then we risk a stall and loose responsiveness.

I believe the V-tec is a step in the right direction, although it still has some way to go.

[Tom B]

Yo Yuri / Dwain


1 Lets just assume that we are talking about very experienced jumpers with rapid reflexes.... That jumper should be able to make their own minds up. The mere fact that they are very experienced indicates that they have probably done the right thing (or have been lucky) until now.

2 Now, what about the majority of jumpers (and especially students). Their experience, skills, and psychological make up will determine what technique is better. So will the site they are jumping and the type of jump they are doing. A high % of jumpers would be "freaked out" by a 180 on something close by - this will probably add time to their thought and action process. They might even have a bit of a short circuit such that the mental thought of "put fingers in toggles or hands on risers, pop and turn" does not reach the arms!!!!

Lets look at all fatalities and incidents. You will probably find that in the absolute majority of cases, the person jumping was responsible. Reasons are plenty, too slow, no response, poor body position and no recovery, poor canopy control, packing or use induced mal, poor equipment, poor decision to jump due to weather/mental state/physical state/equipment, etc.

Sure, there are exceptions to everything, but you should teach new people what works 99% of the time.

Analogy: risers v toggles is like student square v high performance elliptical. I know which one I prefer. But I also know which one is safer in most cases.


Someone else states >>>The main problem is with the technology we use to jump vertical/underhung walls with a short delay. The fact is no matter how good you are, you will find yourself in situations where a serious off-heading will result in injury. This is the fault of the technology, not the participant.>>>>>>

I disagree with the statement quoted above.

Teaching a student to go for toggles on an underhung cliff with a max of 7 secs freefall (i.e not a great deal of tracking) is a higher risk option IMHO.

How many people have we seen fumbling for toggles (or doing nothing), for up to 4 or 5 seconds, before impacting or turning away? Many of them have been using the latest in BASE technology too. The tradesman is the MAJOR factor on 180's not his/her tools.

But it is also very important to have the right tools too.

So,whatever takes your fancy. Learn the pros and cons of each and make a logical/sound decision. Don't go risers or toggles because that is the popular thing to do.


Good Luck
Stay Safe
Have Fun

[guest]

High Presssure moves to low pressure
If ONLY I were a weather man....Nostradamus(merci)

V-Tech institutes quicker top skin pressurization and therefore faster complete cell inflation....higher pressure..by definition
With slow forward intake, or infact any intake......ie a stall ....could one not infer that the cells are at a higher relative pressure to the surrrounding enviroment, therefore in a stall type situation the inlet( v-tech) MAY become an outlet, leading to instability and therefore possible lateral slide.........ie my buckets got a hole in it Jamimer Jaminer......( obviously this depends on intake vs cell vs bottom skin pressure ratios...

Also known in Portland as "tis only your bloody opinion mate and until you can prove it...then I'll jump from the rail"

2 sugars and a spalsh of milk please
NIK



Opinions ...are like??????

Nik

[guest]

Yuri, I would agree with most of what you said. I want to clarify my position on the toggles vs riser issue though. Unfortunately, It is not as simple as one-or-the-other.

My own rule is to set the canopy up so as to tolerate riser input (ie brakes not too deep). Before BEFORE (that was intentional) exit I determine which method I will use to correct an off-heading. Generally, if the object is either not solid or affords good clearance I will use toggles because the canopy was designed to steer with toggles and therefor will respond better and I do not risk an over-control scenario. I'm refering to the scenario where the jumper generates so much control input that the canopy becomes uncontrollable. I've seen this result in adverse yaw (unwanted turns), violent stalls, fatalities and severe injuries.

On the other hand if the object is solid or an off-heading will result in a high possibility of object strike, I will use risers to either turn or stall away from the object. This is a radical way of turning a canopy but it works if you are in a hurry, you can't drop a riser and it can be executed through line twists. However, this approach does have a penalty in altitude loss during correction.

This issue with altitude loss has led me to PCA objects that could be freefallen. However, due to confined areas and low altitude, radical corrections were virtually imposible. Either one would hit the object or hit the ground midway through the avoidance manuever. Then it becomes a question of how hard do you want to push it. If an off-heading (90 or greater in this particular situation) will probably result in a crash you have to ask your self if your willing to work with those odds.



Adam Filippino
Consolidated Rigging, Inc.
http://www.crmojo.com

[460]

Good comments Dwain.

But there is no solution as
long as we rely on the airfoil
concept to get the turn. At the
other extreme is the round, which
doesn't rely on the airfoil but
loses a lot of altitude in a turn.
I can think of a couple techical
solutions to solve the problem
but I don't see them as practical.
Moreover, they may create more
problems than they solve.

Regarding Tom B's comments, when
did students start jumping
underhung cliffs?

-Chris



>The main problem is not that
>serious off-headings occur, or our
>speed or technique in dealing
>with them. The main problem
>is with the technology we
>use to jump vertical/underhung walls
>with a short delay.
>The fact is no matter
>how good you are, you
>will find yourself in situations
>where a serious off-heading will
>result in injury. This
>is the fault of the
>technology, not the participant.
>
>Imagine that the sport of BASE
>jumping was invented from scratch
>(i.e. not as an advancement
>of skydiving). Given the fact
>that we are very close
>to objects on deployment, the
>concept that our life saving
>device will need forward speed
>to exist (i.e. stay inflated)
>would seem totally unacceptable.
>It's a bit like a
>car that starts driving in
>a random direction before we
>are allowed to steer it.
>

[Yuri]

Yo !

Tom, i see where you are coming from. Risers are definitely easy to grab and pull on and thus _appear_ more reliable in student's hands. Unfortunately, my post was prompted by a few very similar accidents where lower-experienced people tried to turn off-headings (some were only 90 or so!) with risers. In all cases canopy has stalled, did not turn much and eventually collided with an object or the ground at a high rate of speed. Using toggles in all these cases would have saved a day. So would risers - possibly - if they were used correctly, if brake settings were different etc.

My point here is that for students, risers ARE NOT an easy and bulletproof solution as they may seem! The only way to prevent some/most of those accidents is NOT TO JUMP and object where you don't want 180, can't deal or afraid to deal with an off-heading. You MUST be able to assess the situation quickly and decide on a proper course of actions no matter how stressful or scary it is. Until then, DON'T JUMP!

I will restate it - in some situations only risers will save you, in others only toggles will help, yet in others neither one may help you much! Learn to make a proper judgement before you jump or else...

Anything can be jumped once. The trick is being able to repeat it.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[Dwain]

My dear friend Nik wrote:
>> "With slow forward intake, or infact any intake......ie a stall ....could one not infer that the cells are at a higher relative pressure to the surrrounding enviroment, therefore in a stall type situation the inlet( v-tech) MAY become an outlet, leading to instability and therefore possible lateral slide.........ie my buckets got a hole in it "

A stall results in a higher vertical descent rate and therefore more air should be forced through the bottom inlets.
In recent test jumps on the V-tec I have purposely induced a stall and noted the recovery of the canopy. In my experience a stall is harder to induce on a V-tec canopy (compared to a standard FOX or Mojo) and recovered much quicker.
Apparently there was a cliff strike at Norway with a V-tec canopy. According to eyewitness reports the canopy stayed noticeably more inflated and the vertical descent rate was slower down the wall compared to other cliff strikes.

It's easy to hypothesis about the possible pro's and con's of a new technology but the best way to form opinions is just to get out there and test jump the crap out of it in a variety of conditions. Nothing like actual experience versus hypothesizing.


Obviously a modification to a canopies design will have both positive and negative effects.
However BASE technology demonstrates it's adolescence and immaturity by being one of the few sports in the world where beginners generally use the same equipment as experienced people.
As people become more experienced and progress down different paths and avenues in BASE their needs will become more specialized.
We are reaching the point where one canopy design does not meet all needs. Specialist canopies for different types of objects and jumps are needed to be developed. On a personal note I have reached a point in BASE where I feel very confined by the limits of the technology I use. I want to move forward but the current level of technology is holding me back.

Currently we are in a situation where the manufacturers build equipment and then we, the users, are confined to the limits of that equipment. As the manufactures release new technology then our limits are extended slightly. In other words we are reactive to the releases of technology.
However we need to be proactive with technology. We should decide what we want to do then ask the manufacturers to design and build technology that meets those needs.
In other words it is the users of the technology that should be dictating to the manufactures their needs and the future directions of the technology. NOT the manufactures building technology then dictating the limits of the technology (and what can be done with that technology) to the BASE community.
Power to the People Baby!!!

One small example:

Current situation:
Manufacturer: "It is not safe to regularly freefall sub 200' objects, therefore you should not do it. End of story - period."

Desired situation:
Jumper: "I want to regularly freefall sub 200' objects. Please attempt to design technology that will allow me to do it."


It is very easy to foresee the future of the sport of BASE jumping. Just review the history of other sports and note their progression to current day. BASE will and is, following the same trend.

BSBD,
Dwain Weston.

[Tree]

Having stalled a canopy on a very simple 90 right with a riser I've thought long and hard about what to do on future jumps, as well as the events that bounced me off a cliff. I had more than ample time to go for toggles on a 400' cliff with a 2 sec delay. The initial riser turn stalled, I released the riser and the canopy recovered quickly but was crabbing towards the cliff. I looked at the toggles again, but went for the risers because that was the instinct I had been trained for. The canopy simply stalled again and I hit. Plenty of time was available to go for toggles the first or second try on the riser. Before I jump any more low solid stuff I have to re-train myself to go for toggles instinctively (which I will be doing at Perrine Labor Day weekend).

That being said, my Mojo flew very well backwards away from the cliff after the strike using both rear risers. In a full on 180 on a sub 300 -400' object I think I would rather land flying backwards than hit an obejct and land with a deflated (no) canopy. Right now I choose to jump taller stuff and track. The low stuff will be there if after enough "re-training" I am confident that I will respond appropriately.

Having watched several freefalls from 250' and seeing how quick the jumpers grabbed the toggles to make the most of their 4 - 5 second canopy rides, I PCA. They make it look easy, but it is clearly not.

Thanks everybody for a good discussion on a subject near and dear to my right tib/fib.

Tree out

[Nik]

Dwain could not have said it better; to develop a safer "Mouse Trap" we therefore have an obligation to suggest and ask for development in the field.


Regarding DEEP stall: Then at some point will there not be a laminar flow from the inlet towards the nose, essentially reducing pressure in the tail....that is if the horizontal flight is reduced enough so as the inlet has a higher relative flow. We all know how a canopy without inlets feels in deep brakes ;;...equivalent of English Peas...MUSHY

Again Dwain jumps the V-tech and HAS the experience ..I just wonder as to what we can do to improve on such advances and enjoy dusting off the cerebral cobwebs.. "Nothing like actual experience versus hypothesizing. dw"..... I'M JUST NOT ALLOWED TO JUMP AT WORK


cheers Nik

[Dwain]

My unequaled freefall cameraman Tom wrote:
>How many people have we seen
>fumbling for toggles (or doing
>nothing), for up to 4
>or 5 seconds, before impacting
>or turning away? Many of
>them have been using the
>latest in BASE technology too.
>The tradesman is the MAJOR
>factor on 180's not his/her
>tools.

Prior to the tailgate being invented when people got hurt from a line-over the response was "Oh they weren't onto it fast enough - they didn't use release the offending line quick enough via the line mod".
People were getting hurt from line-overs and their reaction speed and method was blamed. Then Basic Research invented the tailgate and suddenly people were not getting hurt from line-overs anymore.

So was the problem with the user or was it with the technology?

Same for object strikes.
People hit a wall and the response is "They weren't onto it fast enough or they went for their toggles/risers when they should have gone for their risers/toggles". Perhaps the solution is the same as for line-overs - it's easier to upgrade the technology rather than change the people who use it.

For those people who aren't fast enough to deal with a problem in BASE (with the current technology), natural selection has always been a good argument. Natural selection eventually deals with people who aren't suited to BASE in a swift and brutal manor. However many people don't realize they aren't suited until they have an accident.
Unfortunately they aren't the only victims as accidents have the worst detrimental effects on legal access to sites. And for every unsuitable newbie that frappes in there are more waiting to take his or her place.

BASE jumping has recently become so accessible that screening potential jumpers is not sufficient. We need to improve the technology to protect the unsuitable jumpers and thereby protect our legal sites.

Skydiving took the same step with the creation of rules and regulations and the invention of various technologies such as the Cypress. Skydiving tried to idiot proof itself to ensure its continuation. In doing so skydiving lost a great deal of its purity and adventure.

Unfortunately BASE must and will follow this path.

BSBD,
Dwain Weston

[guest]

>Skydiving took the same step with the creation of rules
>and regulations and the invention of various technologies
>such as the Cypress. Skydiving tried to idiot proof itself
>to ensure its continuation. In doing so skydiving lost a
>great deal of its purity and adventure.

>Unfortunately BASE must and will follow this path.

So long as there are madmen jumping old 228's, there will always be purity and adventure...