Did not mean to attack you. I also do know your post was not brand vs brand, but you did post general comments in a thread about a specific kite without knowing anything about that kite...Hansen Aerosports wrote:Hi Taut:
1) Attacking the messenger rather than the message is a debate tactic. Please research my work on numerous kites with varying strut numbers, etc.
2) My post was not a Switch vs Naish / BRM / Airush comment. It was my personal and totally independent analysis of the strutless configuration. FYI, Switch introduced it's first model, the three-strut Method to the market 2 years ago. It was in development for a year before release.
3) My post is based on a body of knowledge regarding kite design which is common and well-known to those working in the field. The compromises are real rather than conjecture. Again, I stand by it 100%.
tautologies wrote:blah blah blah dont dis my precious naish kites!! blah blah blah 8000 posts worth
tautologies wrote:Wait are you also posting as Aumm?Gigi;) wrote:@ tautologies - I'm talking only for the stuff I've already went thru.
@ bill - Kudos +1 you are correct - most of the people don't know but you have to make various compromises to the kite (type). Even the thing like thinner/thicker strut has its meaning in the design (not talking about the weight).
I completely agree that there are tradeoffs in design. My point is the choices one make when considering tradeoffs depends on the design goals. There are some HUGE advantages to making a lighter kite and different desgns can and should have different goals. I respect all the stuff that you guys have done, but wait until you have actually flown the kites before saying what works. As in any kind of research when your selection is limited you have no basis for a generalized conclusion. You can base your conclusion on your experience with your design. That is it.
Like BWD is saying how does having flown a different kite really apply to any of these? I am not even sure Bill has even seen the BRM nor the Naish. It is a stretch to start talking about the kites if that is the case. One can talk about designs in general, but do not make it look like tradeoffs are not affecting all kite designs...
I have flown the Ride extensively. Park even more so...The canopies are tight as hell. The switch 3 strut only came out with a 3 strut I think less than a year ago. I am willing to bet that the industry will more towards lighter shapes. Instead of adding shit, just allow the canopy to breathe. If it is well designed the canopy will be tight. However saying that the BRM 17 is limited to 5 knots windrange without having flown the kite seems odd to me. Especially since people on that thread already state they can fly it in 20 knots.
I do not mean to be aggressive about this, but you guys are talking about kites you have not seen or flown. Even if you probably do know more than most kiters about shapes, you still have not seen these kites. I think discounting them before you have actual experience is a mistake.
tautologies wrote:Gigi: so what you are saying is that you have not flown the kite, but you have made your own and you think it might be similar except you have not really seen the trip?
I totally get it. I'm just trying to make sure we are talking about the same things.Gigi;) wrote: Third one is well known depowering flutter when you make negative AoA to the kite, profile can't hold, canopy structure, TE is loose. Now, one of the good things of struts is that they prevents at least some flutter making the kite a bit more controllable in these situations and also prevents too much unwanted noise at the bar.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 11 guests