covers at vtec canopyes

[Faber]

any pros and cons on covers when were talking LOW freefalling,PCA and SL-ing it?
I have a vtec which i jump like the above,but guess that a canopy whith covers will sink it in better than one whith out...

Should i be worryed about opening time when freefalling sub 200ft whith covers?(ie slighly longer opening),or is that just a kind of rumor?

I have no one to compare whith,thats why i ask.

[imported_Mac]

from my limited knowledge:

I thought people posting questions like this on BLiNC would normally be swarmmed with answers and discusions, but it seems not the case...........

so why do bul$hit subjects get everyone having thoughts on at DZ but serious questions like this get nothing? I bet if this was posted on DZ many people would give an opinion because they feel safe giving that opinion in the realms of DZ - the comfy BASE board.........

well Faber, i will stick my neck out and tell you what i think, please people flame me and disagree with what i say:

from what i know, freefalling or jumping sub200 is preferable without valves, especially if you are going down into the depths of low low freefalls, unfortunatly the giving up the valves will mean that flaring your canopy will give you less than soft landings due to the air escaping from an angled canopy.........

from what i hear, that valved canopies are ok for freefalls around the sub 200 mark, its only going to the BASEment of sub200 you need to think of valves - i mean the BASEDudes have been freefalling sub200 non-vented as have other people for sometime!!

My thoughts on the best valves are the MDV's which by their nature are multi directional!

I would love some people to rip my thoughts apart...............


Michael

[Faber]

cheers mate..

<from what i know, freefalling or jumping sub200 is preferable <without valves, especially if you are going down into the depths of <low low freefalls, unfortunatly the giving up the valves will mean <that flaring your canopy will give you less than soft landings due <to the air escaping from an angled canopy.........
<
<from what i hear, that valved canopies are ok for freefalls around <the sub 200 mark, its only going to the BASEment of sub200 you need <to think of valves - i mean the BASEDudes have been freefalling <sub200 non-vented as have other people for sometime!!

which is why im wondering.. its a huge step from non vented canopy to a vtec no valves/covers,and as im about to get myself a brand new canopy i want more insight on this subject.I know my vtec no covers work great for what i do,but if adding covers makes my jump range(thinking terminal and more dificult lz),will preform "good enough" i wilol serrius consider to get them,how ever if a canopy whith covers means much longer opening time and so on,then im not sure i want covers...

As you say Mac,its sad that people forget to speak here aswell,i think this is the best place to ask theese kind of Q´s,but if i get better respond on dz.com i might have to ask there aswell(even as i think this is the place and dz.com aint...).

come on guys whaths your thourghts?Im not gonna blame any for my choice in the end,im just trying to get oppinions and pros and cons,so i can perhaps make the best choice based on what i think..

[Skydawg]

Hi Faber, why don't you post this over at the ABA. You'll probably get a few more responses.

[BASE_689]

I had originally a Fox with Vtec only. As soon as it came available, I got the cover modification done.
With the Vtec-only I made 73 jumps: I am happy to have done the Vtec only mod and I would do it again because of the immediate pressurization you get on canopy as soon as it is "spread" over your head, notwithstanding the negative side effects that you get a much weaker flare (weaker compare to the standard non-mod Fox), especially if you (are compelled to) land downwind: in this latest case, the flare is really crap, plus the glide ratiois jolly worse tha a standard Fox.
As I said, as soon as the the "cover-on-Vtec" mod became available, I got it done on my Fox. Really, really happy about that.
Now, what are the side effects of covers-on-Vtec with respect to Vtec only? Theoretically none, if we are talking about "normal" low jumps.
Obviously, as Tom A. pointed out some time ago, the cloth of covers itself someway somehow inhibits a little bit of air from expanding into the canopy. Not in a measurable way, but in some extent, it does.
Now, it is again obvious that if we are talking (and jumping!) of something aggressively low, when you are at the limits of "safe" freefall from an aggressively low object, the covers-on-Vtec could make the difference with respect to a Vtec-only parachute, and, yes, could possibly ruin your day.
But, please, let me express my idea of a "safe" jump: if you are jumping an object so low that you are in the situation where covers-on-Vtec make the difference with respect to a Vtec-only, now, in my humblest opinion, it means that even jumping with a Vtec-only parachute you have shaven ANY possible margin of safety out of your jump.
The above means that the realm of sub 200ft-61m freefall jumps "shouldn't" be jumped on a regular basis, but rather they should be considered to be jumped once in a while. Because in the sub 200ft-61m freefall realm, having shaven off any other possible margin of safety, any small thing that can get possibly not going perfect is going to ruin your day, possibly winning a free ride in the white bus with flashing lights.
Any PC hesitation, any container opening small delay, any possible small off heading (to correct any offheading consumes you some height, and in a jump where you are arguing between covers-on-Vtec and Vtec-only it can possibly mean you are getting to meet mother earth not exactly at a vertical speed comparable weith the speed of a good flare) in such a very low jump could result in a bodily damage.
What do I/we do then?
Down to heights of 65 m - 213 ft, (someway somehow you could go safely down to a freefall from a 60m-197ft object with some safety to spare) we regularly freefall, below that height we go SL. I know it is more fun to freefall than to SLing, but that keeps quite a consistent margin of safety.I know that we have technology and packing techniques and evidence of opening time (after exit) of our parachutes so that we could freefall down to 50m-164ft, that sort of jump would have a margin of safety equal to zero.
Bottom line: we prefer to do some more SL jumps and keeping some margin of safety than to do more freefall and having zero margin for any inconvenient.
Just my 0.02€

Stay safe out there
Blue Skies and Soft Walls
BASE #689 :D
e-mail: base_689@yahoo.com

[Faber]

will do x post

Thanks for your oppinion 689

[baseninja]

I have little experience with this, my lowest freefall is a 230'E with a Blackjack, but... I was thinking that with the valves, it might somehow stop the potential outflow of air that might come with the rapid pressurization of a canopy? Similar to the jellyfish effect from a non-vented canopy?