ok , 12 is a typo of course, I will correct, thanks. I will swap to "+" for B and C " closer to the kite to align with you , no worry with me.foilholio wrote:Don't mean diablo : "0:-20" not "12:-20". I think you should use the terms + for things that are closer to the kite.
I globally agree with your analysis of camber impact, and pro/cons of higher camber; but not sure we need to detail so much here to keep in the topic. I just assume that (with or without CFD), kite manufacturer have found a "good profile" in their design; so I just compare the camber evolution of diablo and WAC wrt the original design camber (without trying to find , in this topic , the optimum, which depends a lot on wind range, board type, skills and preferences: jump, speed, light wind, tolerance to gusts, ect ... ) What is clear is that diablo and WAC will increase the camber at the end of power stroke, and WAC will "send" the B far above C, far beyond the set-up range that is recommended by flysurfer when tuning the kite. Again, this could indeed depend on the kite design, I do not know all of them.foilholio wrote:I think you are making some assumptions about what is the best profile. Some CFD would be needed to tell us that but I will give you the basics. From the point of highest or best L/D, you want flat or a bit of negative camber. For most lift you want as much curve as you are going to get or high camber, so in that regard WAC is superior to Diablo line because B is held longer/looser. The problem with a standard mixer is if it is set for a flat profile it can not transition to a high camber(without stalling) and if it is set for high camber it can not achieve a flat profile. There is distinct advantages to each profile and the addition of either of these mods allows them to be accessed but differently. The main advantage to a flat profile is to be lightly powered and fast flying, it allows efficient flight. This would be when you are riding and going fast or sineing the kite to go upwind. The main advantage of higher camber is when the flight speed is low and lift is hard to generate, like trying to get up on the board or landing a jump or heading downwind. It also has the curious effect of lowering the stall speed, which allows the kite to fly in even less wind. The exact shape of the camber is perhaps not so important for this lift at low speeds, but for relaunch maybe. The camber shape of the WAC relaunches much better than the standard mixer and of course diablo line which is worse.
This is interesting, but this also means that if engagement starts when all nodes aligned, you will then have to use the flysurfer in a higher AoA than the maximum design ; why not, but this should then be compared to an over stroke available when sheeted-out with standard Speed system, with the drawback to loose depower ability if you do not increase the trim length or your arm length or . I think the beauty of the system is if it works within the design AoA, hence engage the line "before" all ABCZ even.foilholio wrote: The engagement point should be set for when you want the profile to change. Interestingly this is good at all even ABCZ on flysurfers.
Stall point depends on wind as you know ... so hard to start from it, or maybe in the light wind range of the kite as it could be (for me at least) the main condition were the kite needs optimisation...foilholio wrote: The all even point is also where flysurfer recommends sheeting the bar in should stop to prevent backstall. I had been wondering how flysurfer set this point, I guess it must probably be in relation to stall. So in that regard you could notice at what point the bar sheeted in stalls the kite, or for any other point for that matter, and from there you could work out the mixer state at that bar point and set the WAC/diablo line to engage at or before it. Some where near the stall point is actually I think a good place for these to engage as it lowers the stall, further extending the bar throw before stall.
I think there is just a little little bit of truth ...foilholio wrote: This is COMPLETELY incorrect. I tell you from experience they are much the same but maybe WAC is lighter. WAC exposes B pulley to the load of A. Only 1/4 of the force on B makes it to the bar. There is of course the increased force on B ,C and particularly Z as the COL(center of lift) moves back and increase far beyond what the standard mixer can muster. This is of course the exact problem the diablo line will have but in a way worse. I will say quickly, a kite like the A15 is uniquely able to handle these forces better as the supported area between A and B is much wider and so cover much more COL change, C is also further back , and because it carries force to the bar at 1/2 offers even more protection. Z is of course 1 to 1.
back to serious, I made a typo sorry that I will correct : I find instead +50 % on WAC and still +10% on diablo ; actually the impact on bar pressure is :
- WAC : +25% of tensions on A
- diablo +50% of tension on Z.
So, all depends on tension partition between A B C and Z; and you get different results with different tensions assumptions. It is difficult to get right figures on this partition, I'll come back to this point in the next answers.
But I still think that tension in A is far more than the double of tension in Z, so WAC (+25% A) is certainly higher bar pressure than diablo (+50% Z)
I think you are wrong, otherwise that would lead to full instability of the kite, which would never have been a solution for F-one Diablo... to me Z tension is far less than others, so Diblo keeps 50% C and 25% B (so diablo ratio remains 6:2:1:0 otherwise you should not use Diablo SS at all on this kite)foilholio wrote:The problem the Diablo line faces is the Z is at 150%, and eventually C gets at 100% instead of 50% and B 50% instead of 25%.
this part I do not agree with as you understood from abovefoilholio wrote:Lets assume 60% of the lift is over B and C even with the remaining 40% on A and Z even.
I believe that A has more tension than your figures ; I personally used Z 5%, C10%, B20% and A65% (during a ride forward of course), which leads to about 20% bar pressure with standard SS, but I might be wrong, and it depends on kite design; on the other hand, if you apply the partition you propose on the standard SS, you get indeed either 42% of kite traction in the bar or 35% in your second case, which still remains too high I believe. I bet more around 20-25% on the Speed and Aurora at least.foilholio wrote:So A has 20 B 30 C 30 Z 20. Standard mixer exposes you to A0 B 7.5 C 15 and Z 20, so 42.5 at the bar. WAC A and B 12.5, C15 and Z 20, so 47.5 at the bar. Diablo line best A0 B7.5 C15 Z30, so 52.5. Diablo worst A0 B15 C30 Z20, so 65. Hmmm.
All depends what you mean by "better Profil" . For example the L/D ratio will certainly suffer ... and I have seen nowhere that an optimization of design camber could be to increase B far more than C ... On turning impact, why not it is possible I do not know (but to me Z is the dominant parameter, i.e. B and C combined)foilholio wrote:I think WAC has a better profile and tighter turn, but turning is not so important for racing and also their bars have plenty of trim to tolerate WAC.
if ratio has changed, that means that there is a "balance point" of high instability, where gusts or turbulence will move drastically the camber from one position to the other... in that case this kite design is not adapted to diablo SS, but it is unthinkable that the phenomenon appears on the f-One Diablo. on which kite has it appeared ? we could imagine that it requires a race kite but I doubt at first sight.foilholio wrote:There is one fundamental thing you missed from your analysis , the diablo is only 6:2:1:0 at best, roughly 4:4:2:0 at worst , and I have witnessed something like this from using it. The WAC cambers more than it and never changes ratio once engaged.