Page 1 of 1

Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 am
by slowboat
Zeeko claims the Spitifire foil is safer in crashes as it is less likely to come after you. Also, it is more tolerant of breaches so one is less likely to crash. Can anyone with real world experiences comment on this? Thanks

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:12 am
by bigtone667
slowboat wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 am
Zeeko claims the Spitifire foil is safer in crashes as it is less likely to come after you. Also, it is more tolerant of breaches so one is less likely to crash. Can anyone with real world experiences comment on this? Thanks
I would generally agree with the first statement, and strongly agree with the second statement.

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:05 pm
by 3InletsWindsports
I use two straps and have found I’ve tended towards not detaching from board in crashes. So I’m ready for quick restart. This is due to the softer way the Spitfire crashes IMHO.
Also on many breaches the Spitfire has recovered lift before board touchdown so you keep going.

Plus all my shin scars are from contact with the rear wing of Std. Foils so since being a Spitfire pilot no new scars.

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:17 am
by GJibb
*NOT from experience*
The Spitfire is less likely to shoot away during a crash like a traditional hydrofoil do to both of its wings having lift, where a typical hydrofoils front wing lifts while the back wings for is downward.
I've certainly noticed with my Zeeko Blue and White that it is happy to shoot away (quite far on occasion) during falls, where the Spitfire stays closer to the rider for retrieval.

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:50 am
by borist
slowboat wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 am
Zeeko claims the Spitifire foil is safer in crashes as it is less likely to come after you. Also, it is more tolerant of breaches so one is less likely to crash. Can anyone with real world experiences comment on this? Thanks
Spitfire indeed tends not to follow after a dismount/crash.
The second part is bit more murky. With XLW wings I'd say yes, it often sort of "burps" if you exceed the limits (too close to surface or small breach or too slow) yet it continues without stalling completely.
With standard wings it gets trickier because they are rather quick reacting so the tolerance to breach is rather narrow and very dependent on rider's skills

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:34 am
by bragnouff
borist wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:50 am
With XLW wings I'd say yes, it often sort of "burps" if you exceed the limits (too close to surface or small breach or too slow) yet it continues without stalling completely.
(...)
That's quite handy indeed, an audible warning to not raise any further. Most of the time, there's margin for corrective action after the burp.
In terms of safety, at least for the XLW wing set is that they have blunt tips, thick profiles, and quite a short wingspan so you'd have to be very unlucky to get a cut from these whenever you bang your legs around the wings.

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:51 pm
by Jzh_perth
For me it was negligible. I bought the spitfire in a December 2016 - not long after launch- and rode it 12 months.

Had 2 years foiling experience prior.

I’ve never had a foil chase me down in a crash so can’t comment.

Spitfire is more tolerant of front wing breaches.

At the end of the day it was a fun foil but I could t say it’s safer than regular design. I don’t think foiling is particularly dangerous in itself. Any foil in breaking waves and whitewater is an nightmare. I prefer to ride My Zeeko Green and white.

Re: Is a Spitfire safer?

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:27 pm
by flying grandpa
As Spitfire is alu foil, it tends to sink faster then carbon foils due to its weight = safer as its foils stick less from water surface and for shorter periods during crashes.

But in shore-brake the weight has negative value, as it happens to me few days ago - the foil hit my helmet when I lost control in shore-brake crossing.