jakemoore wrote:I'm not sure there is a convention? I think of it in terms of fraction of bar travel for a mixer gallery, B,C,Z
4:2:1 I think of Psycho 4 - 1/4 A : 1/2 B : 1/1 A Most of the speed 1 mods were done this way.
6:2:1 I think of Speed 2. - 1/6 B : 1/2 C : 1/1 A
6:3:1 I think of my mod for Speed 1 which differed from most other mods and kites. IMO the gallery spacing worked better with a 3:1 pully between C and Z with that Speed 1.
I’ve got a 10m Speed 1 with 6:3:1 mod and it depowers enough, but I don’t have a before mod reference point. I talked to a guy who has 17m Speed 1 with a 4:2:1 mod and WAC line limiters between the A's and B's to limit overfly. He said it feels like 60% depower, similar to his Pulse and Psycho 3, with some loss in the low end. He also said the original 17m Speed 1 was overpowering him at10 knots, and by then he felt like he was managing a huge fixed bridle kite.gwicke wrote:I believe the ratio I specified is consistent as a short form of "fraction of movement of bar movement". 6:2:0.66 means that for one unit of bar movement, B moves 1/6, C moves 1/2, and Z moves 1/0.66 = 1.5. Perhaps more clearly, you could also write it as 1/6 : 1/2 : 3/2…
Why throw fractions in when you already have a ratio?gwicke wrote:I believe the ratio I specified is consistent as a short form of "fraction of movement of bar movement". 6:2:0.66 means that for one unit of bar movement, B moves 1/6, C moves 1/2, and Z moves 1/0.66 = 1.5. Perhaps more clearly, you could also write it as 1/6 : 1/2 : 3/2.
Firstly it is not specified to bar movement or the brake line nor is it specified to Z. It is the ratio of Z to C to B which is the "specific mixer ratio"gwicke wrote:To me, specifying ratios relative to Z movement rather than the bar movement / brake line is confusing , and doesn't uniquely identify a specific mixer's ratios.
gwicke wrote: For example, in 4:2:1 with Diablo line engaged B and C end up having the same relative movement to Z as 6:3:1 without Diablo
B becomes 0 the same as A. If you really want your ratio as say 1/4 : 1/2 : 1 you should simplify it to 1:2:4. OMG. Writing it as 4:2:1 and expecting people to automatically assume they all fractions of 1 is just totally wack and you won't find anyone anywhere who uses ratios like that.gwicke wrote: Another issue with these notations is that we typically leave out A (as it is normally not moving), but with the WAC line engaged this is not actually true. So, once the WAC line engages, 0 : 1/4 : 1/2 : 1 (aka 4:2:1) becomes 1/4 : 1/4 : 1/2 : 1.
This is not to do with mixer output per say but the ratios hence the use of :::gwicke wrote:foilholio, I maintain my point that sticking with a conventional definition of mixer output changes (A, B, C, Z movement)
nor have front or back lines been represented in mixer ratios, though you are welcome to.gwicke wrote:relative to mixer input (movement between front & back line)
What is confusing is to redefine how RATIOs are written as you are doing. If a person understands ratios, which are quite simple, then finds people discussing mixers, which also are quite simple, but are being talked about with a unique definition of ratios then well a simple subject becomes unnecessarily difficult.gwicke wrote:remains more useful and less confusing
this makes no sense.gwicke wrote: and captures substantial differences in behavior between different mixers that other definitions do not.
No there is no alternate method other than your misunderstanding.gwicke wrote:I think the alternate definition in terms of the Z output came up when the Diablo line changed the Z output ratio from 1 to 3/2
This is not how you write a ratio. 4:2:1 does not equal 1/4:1/2:1 if it is 1/4B:1/2C:Z1. 1/4B:1/2C:Z1 could equal 0.25B:0.5C:1Z or 1B:2C:4Z or 4Z:2C:1B or 16Z:8C:4B. 4 does not equal 1/4 ok?gwicke wrote: The short form notation (4:2:1 for 1/4 : 1/2 : 1)
??? the only awkward thing is why a couple here can't understand how ratios are written!gwicke wrote:became awkward at that point
Again you don't understand how ratios are written and I am not sure why I am explaining this over and over as it is basic basic math. You don't need a faction or decimals in ratios though you can, you don't even need a 1.gwicke wrote: which prompted the effort to re-scale the ratios to avoid a fractional Z output ratio.
This is math the most universal language in the universe. If in some other "language" A=4 and B=1/4 A still does not =B.jakemoore wrote:Maybe more people in the world speak Chinese and Spanish but no sense telling kite forum people they should change their ways.
Congratulations you may or may not have had a unique use of RATIOs that no one except your tiny little corner on the web talking about a tiny little corner of a tiny little sport understood! Now for the good of helping people better understand "mixers" do you think it is wise to continue abusing how RATIOs are written?jakemoore wrote:I think most of the people who did the Speed 1 mods talked about the mixers in terms of fraction of movement relative to the bar.
E.G. 6:2:1 means
A moves 0
B moves 1/6
C moves 1/2
Z moves 1/1
There is more to this than matching a mixer to a kite. Mixers seem to work well with many bridle positions but the bridle positions themselves have a huge effect on the kite particularly like on the P4 where the A positions move forward on the tip areas to help allow the tips "collapse" into their C shape.jakemoore wrote:Even more relevant is the chord wise position of the bridle inserts. I had a picture once on foil zone of a prototype kite. It had many bridle inserts along the chord. The designer optimized the inserts so the airfoil and camber change is optimized for the mixer.
People who are interested in aerodynamics have wind tunnels. Kite-experts spend a life time fiddling with kites like Peter Lynn did. People who call themselves kite-experts are pretentious twits. Aerodynamic experts are people that spend a lifetime fiddling with wind tunnels and the alike. Apparently you don't need to be a aerodynamic expert nor even grasp the basics if you want to design kites professionally, ,in fact I think it may even hinder your chances in getting the job!jakemoore wrote:People who are kite-experts have wind tunnels. Who knows what language they speak? They don't appear to share their secrets in the public domain.
More like matching the kite to the mixer it seems to me.foilholio wrote: jakemoore wrote:
The designer optimized the inserts so the airfoil and camber change is optimized for the mixer.
There is more to this than matching a mixer to a kite. Mixers seem to work well with many bridle positions but the bridle positions themselves have a huge effect on the kite particularly like on the P4 where the A positions move forward on the tip areas to help allow the tips "collapse" into their C shape.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest