NYKiter wrote:Great to finally see this. I like the no hook spreader option but I think the release balls could cause confusion under rider stress. One might be fumbling for the correct ball. I would think two distinct shapes would help the rider discern which is which. Something more ergonomic for the palm would be better instead of fine motor finger tips hitting the switch. Gregs an innovator.
tomatkins wrote:To many kiters, the idea of not having a "stopper ball" might be a deal-breaker. A stopper is handy for a number of reasons, like spinning the bar, tethered (ghost, dog stake, etc) self-launching, etc... so these kiters may demand a stopper device.. or may reject the whole system, along with the clever innovations based on "simplicity"....
BRM control system
Sooo, for those that want a "stopper", there may be a simple modification to the system, where the "stopper" would be placed on only one of the two power lines, and secured with the "internal to the rope insert", like Naish used, at one time a few years ago. A LARGE ring or specially designed "funnel tube" would be placed at the junction of the two front lines… and this device would be designed so that the stopper could PASS THROUGH, when the "front line safety" system was activevated. This stopper device could be sold separately and easily assembled, by those who want such a device.
I will reawaken the thread "Stoppers… the good, bad and ugly" where a collection of ideas about the subject of "stopper balls" are located, and present my thoughts on this modification:
BWD wrote:I think it's pretty cool but share the concern with the 2 releases being placed so close together.
To me it would make more sense to have the total release a bit farther from the flagging release.
The lack of a stopper is suggested as being one of the benefits of the system by BRM.
At the other end of the scale, the Cabrinha chickenloop and adjustable bar ends are examples of the high tech engineering approach.
Users browsing this forum: JamesVegas and 22 guests