v-tec

[chris]

so do i order v-tec or not?
anybody have any views good or bad on v-tec im jumping mostly sub 400ft so will i be better off with it or not?
i cant find anything in the archives thanks guys c-ya

[guest]

Chris,

I have to say I was VERY impressed with it's performance. I have not personally jumped one but observed one in action. The Friday before bridge day I made two jumps from Piney (~230ft) and was PCA'ed. One individual whom I jumped with freefell 0-1 sec delay. The opening of his V-tec was incredible. It pressurized immediately and began flying a little lower than I did with a PCA! Those vents have to be one of the greatest advancements made in the sport for low/short delay jumps right along with the tail gate and line mod. I'm fairly sure you'll find most who have jumped or seen one in action will have the same opinion. When I can pull some cash together I'll be getting one myself.

Be safe, flick on!

Rich

[guest]

" Once it's in your sac, you'll never go back"

The Vtec's place is sub-400. The pressurization is instantaneous, even with slight tailwinds and crosswinds, which is obviously important especially where this one particular crazy Aussie likes to live, sub-200'. Dwain's probably got the most fieldwork on the Vtec. Ask him.
386

[guest]

Ann sent me a 225 regular Fox to demo and I liked it just fine. I sent it back to her and she did the v-tech mod to it and mailed it right back out to me. I had a rare opportunity to really compare apples with apples.
All I can say is this canopy ROCKS! The quick pressurization makes for turning away from off-headings nearly instantaneous and the deepened stall point makes it real fun to fly on accuracy approaches.
Bad points? Well, to quote Ann: In thoery, it may snag a little easier in tree landings and it costs $200 more.
Well put. I sure can't think of anything else.
I'm in the process of ordering two.
Have at it!
C-Ya!
D~

[Dwain]

Stealing a quote from Yuri:
"Overall, the difference is so radical that jumping a BASE canopy without V-tec is now like jumping an old Cruislite in the era of first Mojos and Foxes".


The boundaries in BASE are defined by the participants skill level and the technology they use.

There is still so very far to go.

[guest]

Saw it in action from a 300 foot crane and you can totally tell the difference in opening. Got it put on one of my rigs to check it out and I love it, going to do the same to the other canopy. Deffinetly get it !!!!

[guest]

Vtec rules. It'll change your life, and could possibly save it...

573

[guest]

I chose to not jump any other conopy but my v-tec with the multi..andy......

[chris]

thanks guys n gals i guess after reading the above i'm pretty much sold on it BUT anyone have any thing bad to say about it at all?????????(other than it costs too much)

[guest]

sorry for my ignorance, but v-tec sounds great, but what is it? i jump a mojo 260. what kind of mod is it, exactly? thx for elaborating for us new-drops...

[guest]

http://www.basicresearch.com/vent_technology.htm

[guest]

Hey Andy!! what's up mate ?!i am steve from the Belgian crew...first night with us you were on heaven...:)

Hope to see ya soon again!

c ya
steve

[JJ]

The benefits are CERTAINLY worth the cost. When you're doing lower freefalls, how much money will you pay to decrease your inflation time? When you're yanking on the riser of a half inflated canopy to get away from the object, how much is $250.00 to you then? Think about it.

JJ

[guest]

I'll give a shot at presenting the negatives. Note that I have made only a few jumps on a Vtec, so my knowledge is theoretical only. Also note that I personally lean toward wanting the Vtec. However, critical evaluation of any system for potential drawbacks is (IMHO) essential prior to using the system.

Basically, the Vtec mod is a series of mesh vents in the bottom skin of cells 2,3,5 and 6, right at the B lines.

Theoretically, the advantages should come in faster pressurization, and better pressure maintenance at low or no airspeed (sinking into a tight landing, bouncing nose first down a cliff, or just stalling the canopy). This is because air can flow into the vents on the bottom skin, allowing pressurization from almost purely downward motion.

What are the possible disadvantages (aside from the obvious--any time you add complexity you add potential problems)?

1) Durability: Is the mesh vent as durable as the regular fabric of the bottom skin?

2) Snag potential: Do the vents have a greater chance of snagging (on bushes, trees, etc) than the bottom skin, hence creating the risk of tearing the canopy when stashing it?

3) Pressure outlet: Is there a situation in which the Vtec vents could become pressure outlets rather than inlets? Theoretically this would happen any time the pressure inside the canopy exceeded the pressure just outside the vents. Since the downward motion of the canopy should maintain a pressure flow into the vents, this should not be a problem under normal conditions. However, in strange wind conditions (I'm thinking a cross or tailwind blowing under the canopy) a low pressure zone could be created under the mesh, and the Vtec vents could theoretically act as an outlet, depressurizing the canopy in flight. I personally find this scenario unlikely, but it does seem to be a possibility.

Those are the only arguments I've heard against the Vtec. Anybody have any others?

--Tom Aiello
tbaiello@ucdavis.edu

[Dwain]

Rather than an advancement in BASE technology the Vtec is a patch for a fundamental flaw in BASE canopy design. It is the first example where a manufacturer has made any significant movement away from 20+ year-old skydiving technology.

The basic Ram-Air 7-Cell canopy was designed to meet the needs of skydiving in the late 70s.
The requirements were for consistent and comfortable deployments, superior glide ratio and soft landings. The requirements did NOT include deploying in very low airspeeds and avoiding object strikes on deployment.

A Ram-Air canopy is an inflatable wing and therefore in order to function it needs to be inflated. The higher the inflation pressure in the wing, the more rigid it is and the better it performs. The air intake vents for inflation should therefore be positioned where they can best capture air.

Skydiving canopies are typically flown in full drive. This results in more forward speed than downward speed. Therefore in skydiving canopies the air intake vents are correctly located in the nose of the canopy.

However in BASE we often deploy in very close proximity to a solid object. Using a life-saving device that requires forward speed to stay inflated (and therefore function) is a ridiculous concept. Ideally on deployment next to a solid object the canopy should have zero forward speed (and minimal descent rate) until you are satisfied that it is pointing in the correct direction and you are ready to start flying forward. (Its kind of like how you expect a car to be stationary when you get behind the drivers seat).

Prior to the Vtec, cutting edge BASE canopies relied upon a technological design built to meet the needs of skydiving with only a few minor changes. While incidents due to structural failures and line-overs were reduced/eliminated (due to improved structural re-enforcing, the line mod and subsequently the tail gate) experienced BASE jumpers continued to strike objects and die as a result.

Then for some reason the manufacturers/market decided that the next demon to fight in BASE was premature deployments. A high amount of energy was dedicated to the Velcro/Tuck flap/Pin BASE rigs even though premature deployments werent killing people (and the few incidents that occurred often could have been avoided with well maintained Velcro and proper canopy volume/container compatibility).
As the debate and focus on containers raged and intensified, BASE jumpers continued to strike objects. The explanation for each object strike was often They werent on to it fast enough or They went for their risers/toggles when they should have gone for their toggles/risers. These explanations were reminiscent of line over incidents pre tail gate days (e.g. They had a miss). BASE jumpers were dying because of forward speed on deployment, not because of premature deployments.

FINALLY in mid 99 Basic Research started taking significant steps in research and development towards fighting the demon of object strikes. The result was simple in concept (like so many good designs): Locate some of the air intake vents to capture airflow when forward speed is at a minimal.

The Vtec works not because it is revolutionary in design. It works because it is just plain common sense in the BASE environment. It is not the "be-all to end-all" in canopy technology. It is just a significant step in the correct direction.

BSBD,
Dwain