Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

forum for kitesurfers


kiterocky
Frequent Poster
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:25 pm
Kiting since: 2000
Gear: Wipika
Brand Affiliation: Wipika

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby kiterocky » Fri May 11, 2018 5:39 pm

pj sofine wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 11:28 am
Can somebody compare the woo 3 to reality?
They cant ..and of course they dont want.... :nono: :nono:
No reality test until now only faith :naughty:

User avatar
deniska
Frequent Poster
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:40 pm
Kiting since: 2011
Local Beach: Plumb Beach
Favorite Beaches: Cabarete
Gear: Ozone, Core
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby deniska » Fri May 11, 2018 9:17 pm

joriws wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:48 am
Only Woo 3 records a jump which would be on highlight screenshot: 13.7m & 10.94s.

*edit* missed 15.3m and 14m jumps on woo3-list - so not completely true -^. But still 10.94s hangtime would be reported.
Well, Technically woo never supported kiting on snow or hydrofoil.
What happens with some foils is the woo gets confused by dolphin pumping or similar moves and records it as a lofty jump..
I have seen people post 25m jumps this way.. Of course the honest ones will shortly delete those jumps..

User avatar
Peert
Frequent Poster
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:38 am
Kiting since: 2012
Local Beach: Kijkduin, IJmuiden, Schellinkhout, Wijk aan Zee, Marina, Mirns.
Style: Freeride
Gear: Best Roca 4m, Naish Boxer 6 and 9m, GA Pure 8m Naish Trip 10m, Gong strutless 11m Modded Waroo 14m.
Mako 135x38 Mako 140x40 & Mako King 165x45, Crazyfly Bulldozer, T40 Moses Vorace Hydrofoil + Gong Wings
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby Peert » Fri May 11, 2018 9:58 pm

zig zag wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 4:41 pm
well I'm glad I never bought into this gimmick!!!
Woo is in my opinion just an educated guess.
You need a proper multi thousands of € or £ instrument to measure height on decimeter level by inertial navigation.

trickcoach
Rare Poster
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:55 pm
Kiting since: 2013
Style: Unhooked
Gear: Switchkites Legacy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby trickcoach » Sun May 13, 2018 4:31 pm

deniska wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 9:17 pm
joriws wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:48 am
Only Woo 3 records a jump which would be on highlight screenshot: 13.7m & 10.94s.

*edit* missed 15.3m and 14m jumps on woo3-list - so not completely true -^. But still 10.94s hangtime would be reported.
Well, Technically woo never supported kiting on snow or hydrofoil.
What happens with some foils is the woo gets confused by dolphin pumping or similar moves and records it as a lofty jump..
I have seen people post 25m jumps this way.. Of course the honest ones will shortly delete those jumps..
completely agree , a proper woo comparison shouldn't be made on a foil board ...

kiterocky
Frequent Poster
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:25 pm
Kiting since: 2000
Gear: Wipika
Brand Affiliation: Wipika

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby kiterocky » Sun May 13, 2018 5:42 pm

We all waiting for a comparison with reality...when?

BudhaNl
Medium Poster
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:03 pm
Kiting since: 2008
Local Beach: WaZ Noordpier
IJmuiden
Gear: Naish Pivot 5-7-9
Airush Ultra 12
North Jaime 136
DSD Stallion 5'2
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby BudhaNl » Mon May 14, 2018 7:55 am

I did a double-sided t-test on the data sets to see whether the 3 samples are similar. I think that's the correct statistical test but might be wrong. Anyhow, Woo 1 results are statistically different from both Woo 2 and Woo 3. Woo 2 & 3 are not statistically different. Presenting the results like this with ranking colors gives that impression but they are not. I've only done this for height, not airtime or impact.

I would guess that the Woo team has refined the algorithm in the device with each version. I can't find a white paper or something on their site so I'm not sure.

Also, it was mentioned in a thread on Seabreeze that the Woo probably uses a Kalman filter to calculate height/airtime/impact and that filter is sensitive to placement of the device on the board. Thus, the results above may have been impacted by the place of the 3 devices.

I, too, would like to see a test where device results are compared to an independent way of measuring height/airtime.

User avatar
kjorn
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:42 am
Kiting since: 0
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: uk
Contact:

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby kjorn » Mon May 14, 2018 11:54 am

> I, too, would like to see a test where device results are compared to an independent way of measuring height/airtime.

Some sort of harness to pull the devices up and simulate a jump. Configure the harness as best as you can to simulate the chop of the water, launch off waves, gusts hitting you as you fly ...

https://youtu.be/tTESqN-24Zs

I've measured the height of my house by throwing my PIQ and Woo up and catching them. Both ignore throws that tumble the device over and over. But if you can get the throw pretty controlled they both give the same reading.

trickcoach
Rare Poster
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:55 pm
Kiting since: 2013
Style: Unhooked
Gear: Switchkites Legacy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby trickcoach » Mon May 14, 2018 1:43 pm

Don't you think woo and piq have made numerous cross tests in controlled environment ?!?

This is funny how someone sticks 2 devices not on the same spot on the board and then claim bogus stats ...

I bet you that woo crew has a handful of piq devices and often run them against their various versions of woo and likewise piq must have some woo in their toolkit !!!

fluidity
Medium Poster
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2016
Local Beach: Ngati Toa, Plimmerton, Titahi Bay, Waikanae, Petone, Seatoun, Lyall Bay, Eastbourne, Lake Wairarapa
Style: Wave, jump
Gear: Old Flexfoil 9, Switch Element V4 11m, Ocean Rodeo Prodigy 7m 2014, Nitro14m v6, Nitro9m v6 12mSwitch Legacy2
DIY CAD ultra-concave wave twintips 1500 and 130mm with my own fin designs. Easy upwind, awesome carving.

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby fluidity » Wed May 16, 2018 11:52 am

BudhaNl wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 7:55 am
*cut*
I would guess that the Woo team has refined the algorithm in the device with each version. I can't find a white paper or something on their site so I'm not sure.
Also, it was mentioned in a thread on Seabreeze that the Woo probably uses a Kalman filter to calculate height/airtime/impact and that filter is sensitive to placement of the device on the board. Thus, the results above may have been impacted by the place of the 3 devices.
It's concerning to see such different results, obviously more testing to see if it's board placement, swap the inside and outside woo versions for example.
Given that the WOOs take Bluetooth updates I'm wondering if we can really attribute the discrepancy to hardware?
I would have thought that hardware changes in the accelerometers and processor speeds would be quite incremental.
However, determination of take-off point and adjusting the moment by moment perceived average water level are more significant challenges that should be being dealt with primarily in software.
I've not experimented with this sort of maths before but I would assume that from the moment you turn the woo on, it should be making calculations of true sea/lake level independent of waves. It's very important that any form of cumulative averaging on this does not include time spent in the air as this would falsify the results with an incorrectly generated reduced height. Typically chip manufacturers release software libraries created by experts for the product manufacturer's developers to use, if these libraries are too rigid or incorrectly used then the results will be wrong.
As for take-off point determination, What would YOU use? Bottom of wave? When last bit of back of board leaves top of wave? Sea/lake level?
I suspect the woo2/woo3 differences are from different 3D algorithms being used in which case, unless the woo3 is using a significantly more advanced signal processor or 9axis accelerometer, it's quite possible that the woo2 could be updated to match(with some woo2 firmware changes)

User avatar
downunder
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:16 am
Kiting since: 1970
Gear: building my own
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Woo 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0

Postby downunder » Thu May 17, 2018 4:11 am

Thank you OP for presenting the results here.

I always suspected the same. As one of the first Woo customer, was greatly disappointed when woo2 arrived and everyone and anyone started jumping way higher than myself :)

Shall I throw out again AU$300 for a new one? No way. Thank you Woo. You could offer me some significant discount for misleading results with my Woo1, but now is too late...


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], experienced1, Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests

cron