Kite Classification Proposition

Expand Messages
• It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite you were buying. It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width. Now our manufacturers
Message 1 of 16 , Dec 29, 2002
• 0 Attachment
It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite you
It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different definitions
for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)

Still I would like to have a classifcation.

There are 2 imortant things: the alongation of a kite and the depth
or flatness of a profile.

Still you can have the same allongation, but the one with long
vertical ears will be less high performance than one with short ears.
So as an easy measurement I would suggest to measure a fully inflated
kite on the ground (as it is difficult to measure once airborn.

Flat profiles versus deep profiles.
Well flat profiles give you much more windrange.
Deep profiles give you more comfort and probably less windrange.

What should be measured:
1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground
This would give a good estimation for the AR
AR= length / span

3) depth of profile
Again take the middle batton.
Measure the deepest point of the profileholding a stick from batton
tip to underside of front tube.
This is expressed in:
depth / length of batton.

Classification:
1a) low AR and deep profile
Wipika Hydro
1b) low AR and flat profile
Maybe non-existant
2a) medium AR and deep profile
Aero (?)
2b) medium AR and flat profile
Takoon Skoop
3a) high AR and deep profile
RRD Type 4.1
3b) high AR and flat profile
Airblast & F-One Mach2

These examples are just my guess, as I never could have measured
these kites all by myself.

So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still can
change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
And then just measure up your kites.

What is it good for:
1a) beginner /learning
1b) two liner for wave riding ?
2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
3a) don't know
3b) the professional

Eddy C.
• It would be nice with a general mesurement method yes, but is nt it a bit overkill ??? Why measure it ? Every kite has its own behaviour in the air, depending
Message 2 of 16 , Dec 29, 2002
• 0 Attachment
It would be nice with a general mesurement method yes, but is'nt it a
bit overkill ???

Why measure it ?

Every kite has its own behaviour in the air, depending on the total
of all design aspects, and the way they interact.

So I think the way it is done today - by a review (stating whether
they are easy relaunchable, high performance, medium etc.) from the
kiters who has flown the kites - is much better !

The only thing that is common, is the flat area measurement.
Apart from that, I think a kite should be classified by its behaviour
in rough terms - instead of measurements.

Noone is using the written AR for anything today, because we all know
that it does not say anything about the kites performance, and
besides that - there are different ways of measuring AR.
So we don't even bother reading the number anymore, as we know it is
good for nothing.

You would not buy a kite, based purely on strict measurements anyway,
would you ? (I certainly would not !)

:-) Peter Frank

--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
<emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite
you
> It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different definitions
> for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
>
> Still I would like to have a classifcation.
>
> There are 2 imortant things: the alongation of a kite and the depth
> or flatness of a profile.
>
> Still you can have the same allongation, but the one with long
> vertical ears will be less high performance than one with short
ears.
> So as an easy measurement I would suggest to measure a fully
inflated
> kite on the ground (as it is difficult to measure once airborn.
>
> Flat profiles versus deep profiles.
> Well flat profiles give you much more windrange.
> Deep profiles give you more comfort and probably less windrange.
>
> What should be measured:
> 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground
> This would give a good estimation for the AR
> AR= length / span
>
> 3) depth of profile
> Again take the middle batton.
> Measure the deepest point of the profileholding a stick from batton
> tip to underside of front tube.
> This is expressed in:
> depth / length of batton.
>
> Classification:
> 1a) low AR and deep profile
> Wipika Hydro
> 1b) low AR and flat profile
> Maybe non-existant
> 2a) medium AR and deep profile
> Aero (?)
> 2b) medium AR and flat profile
> Takoon Skoop
> 3a) high AR and deep profile
> RRD Type 4.1
> 3b) high AR and flat profile
> Airblast & F-One Mach2
>
> These examples are just my guess, as I never could have measured
> these kites all by myself.
>
> So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still can
> change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> And then just measure up your kites.
>
> What is it good for:
> 1a) beginner /learning
> 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> 3a) don't know
> 3b) the professional
>
> Eddy C.
• Another thing that might complicate things wrt aspect ratio and area of kites: I remember reading a book about sailing, and for sails, the curvature of the
Message 3 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Another thing that might complicate things wrt aspect ratio and area
of kites: I remember reading a book about sailing, and for sails, the
curvature of the sail (cord length??) as seen from the top has a big
impact of the sails lift to area ratio and also lift to drag ratio,
and finally how the sail behaves at differemt angles towards the
wind...

--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
<thorpes@a...> wrote:
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
<emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite
you
> > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
definitions
> > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> >
> > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
>
>
> The correct formula for aspect ratio of a planar wing is and
> always was (span**2 / area) This only equates to span/chord
> for a rectangular wing.
>
> Not that that helps in kite classification, since manufacturers
> do seem to have cooked up some custom formulae to which they
> have referred, erroneously as, as "aspect ratio".
>
>
> Steve T.
• ... area ... Looks like Peter is mucking it up even more. Maybe we could classify them based on what fruit or vegetable they most closely resemble?
Message 4 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "tallakt <tallak@t...>"
<tallak@t...> wrote:
> Another thing that might complicate things wrt aspect ratio and
area
> of kites:

Looks like Peter is mucking it up even more. Maybe we could classify
them based on what fruit or vegetable they most closely resemble?

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?
CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=WO02096753&ID=WO++02096753A1+I+

Geez...looks like a cut and paste needed on the link. Its a Peter
Lynn Patent on a leading edge shape I saw over on foildesign group.
MARK

> curvature of the sail (cord length??) as seen from the top has a
big
> impact of the sails lift to area ratio and also lift to drag ratio,
> and finally how the sail behaves at differemt angles towards the
> wind...
>
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
> <thorpes@a...> wrote:
> > --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
> <emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of
kite
> you
> > > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
> definitions
> > > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> > >
> > > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
> >
> >
> > The correct formula for aspect ratio of a planar wing is and
> > always was (span**2 / area) This only equates to span/chord
> > for a rectangular wing.
> >
> > Not that that helps in kite classification, since manufacturers
> > do seem to have cooked up some custom formulae to which they
> > have referred, erroneously as, as "aspect ratio".
> >
> >
> > Steve T.
• Subjective magazine statements won t help. It is only in the magazines testing the 2003 gear, you can read the bad things about the 2002 models. That s why I
Message 5 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Subjective magazine statements won't help.
It is only in the magazines testing the 2003 gear, you can read the
200x. This I have done since many years (>15) for windsurfing.

I would just like to get a simple Classification started. As the
manufacturers will not do it, somewhere this should start.
In windsurfing the German SURF magazine was the first to actually
measure the volume of the boards. This is a real measurement they do
in a big bath. Now we know volume is very important in windsurf
boards. For windsurf sails there is nothing.

We need the same things for kites.
If one is buying in a shop, the needs some guidelines.
Not the marketing hype from the manufacturer.

Eddy

Eddy
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Frank <pf@4...>" <pf@4...>
wrote:
> It would be nice with a general mesurement method yes, but is'nt it
a
> bit overkill ???
>
> Why measure it ?
>
> Every kite has its own behaviour in the air, depending on the total
> of all design aspects, and the way they interact.
>
> So I think the way it is done today - by a review (stating whether
> they are easy relaunchable, high performance, medium etc.) from the
> kiters who has flown the kites - is much better !
>
> The only thing that is common, is the flat area measurement.
> Apart from that, I think a kite should be classified by its
behaviour
> in rough terms - instead of measurements.
>
> Noone is using the written AR for anything today, because we all
know
> that it does not say anything about the kites performance, and
> besides that - there are different ways of measuring AR.
> So we don't even bother reading the number anymore, as we know it
is
> good for nothing.
>
> You would not buy a kite, based purely on strict measurements
anyway,
> would you ? (I certainly would not !)
>
> :-) Peter Frank
>
>
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
> <emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite
> you
> > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
definitions
> > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> >
> > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
> >
> > There are 2 imortant things: the alongation of a kite and the
depth
> > or flatness of a profile.
> >
> > Still you can have the same allongation, but the one with long
> > vertical ears will be less high performance than one with short
> ears.
> > So as an easy measurement I would suggest to measure a fully
> inflated
> > kite on the ground (as it is difficult to measure once airborn.
> >
> > Flat profiles versus deep profiles.
> > Well flat profiles give you much more windrange.
> > Deep profiles give you more comfort and probably less windrange.
> >
> > What should be measured:
> > 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> > 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground
> > This would give a good estimation for the AR
> > AR= length / span
> >
> > 3) depth of profile
> > Again take the middle batton.
> > Measure the deepest point of the profileholding a stick from
batton
> > tip to underside of front tube.
> > This is expressed in:
> > depth / length of batton.
> >
> > Classification:
> > 1a) low AR and deep profile
> > Wipika Hydro
> > 1b) low AR and flat profile
> > Maybe non-existant
> > 2a) medium AR and deep profile
> > Aero (?)
> > 2b) medium AR and flat profile
> > Takoon Skoop
> > 3a) high AR and deep profile
> > RRD Type 4.1
> > 3b) high AR and flat profile
> > Airblast & F-One Mach2
> >
> > These examples are just my guess, as I never could have measured
> > these kites all by myself.
> >
> > So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still
can
> > change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> > And then just measure up your kites.
> >
> > What is it good for:
> > 1a) beginner /learning
> > 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> > 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> > 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> > 3a) don't know
> > 3b) the professional
> >
> > Eddy C.
• Steve shouldn t we try to stop this cooking ? It s like going to a car dealer and think you drive home with a family car, but they have put in an
Message 6 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Steve shouldn't we try to stop this cooking ?
It's like going to a car dealer and think you drive home with a
family car, but they have put in an superoverboost engine.
Cars have HorsePower. Ok it doesn't tell everything, but it sure
helps to make a first difference.
For example: A Naish Aero is something different from the AeroII
(this is almost an X2).
This sure will get people confused.

Eddy
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
<thorpes@a...> wrote:
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
<emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite
you
> > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
definitions
> > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> >
> > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
>
>
> The correct formula for aspect ratio of a planar wing is and
> always was (span**2 / area) This only equates to span/chord
> for a rectangular wing.
>
> Not that that helps in kite classification, since manufacturers
> do seem to have cooked up some custom formulae to which they
> have referred, erroneously as, as "aspect ratio".
>
>
> Steve T.
• Ofcourse you have flat sails and round sails. This also exists in windsurfing. Flat sails you can use to higher winds, but don t count on getting early
Message 7 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Ofcourse you have flat sails and round sails.
This also exists in windsurfing.
Flat sails you can use to higher winds, but don't count on getting
early planing.
This is why I added the profile depth.
Flatter kites will have a bigger windrange.
Airblast & Skoop are flat.
The new Mach2 probably too.
Eddy
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "tallakt <tallak@t...>"
<tallak@t...> wrote:
> Another thing that might complicate things wrt aspect ratio and
area
> of kites: I remember reading a book about sailing, and for sails,
the
> curvature of the sail (cord length??) as seen from the top has a
big
> impact of the sails lift to area ratio and also lift to drag ratio,
> and finally how the sail behaves at differemt angles towards the
> wind...
>
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
> <thorpes@a...> wrote:
> > --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
> <emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of
kite
> you
> > > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
> definitions
> > > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> > >
> > > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
> >
> >
> > The correct formula for aspect ratio of a planar wing is and
> > always was (span**2 / area) This only equates to span/chord
> > for a rectangular wing.
> >
> > Not that that helps in kite classification, since manufacturers
> > do seem to have cooked up some custom formulae to which they
> > have referred, erroneously as, as "aspect ratio".
> >
> >
> > Steve T.
• Eddy The problem is that a few numbers cannot really define a shape. The only kite parameter that is helpful to me is the flat area which gives me a rough idea
Message 8 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Eddy
The problem is that a few numbers cannot really define a shape. The
only kite parameter that is helpful to me is the flat area which
gives me a rough idea of the kite size.

The aspect ratio value is of little use since two very different
shapes can have the same aspect ratio. Kites can be called low,
medium or high aspect ratio and any attempt to be more precise is a
waste of time.

And all other measurements may be of interest to kite designers, but
they don't tell much the user about how a kite behaves. That is the
same reason why detailed parameters are also not published for
snowboards, skis, wakeboards and other sporting products.

Chris G
• ... Eddy, there is a great deal more to the behaviour and handling of a wing than any finite combination of measurements you can make on that wing. ... It
Message 9 of 16 , Dec 30, 2002
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>" wrote:

> ... What should be measured:
> 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground ...

> ...These examples are just my guess, as I never could have
> measured these kites all by myself.
>
> So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still can
> change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> And then just measure up your kites.

Eddy, there is a great deal more to the behaviour and handling
of a wing than any finite combination of measurements you
can make on that wing.

> What is it good for:
> 1a) beginner /learning
> 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> 3a) don't know
> 3b) the professional

It should theoretically be possible to do a much better job of
categorizing various aspects of kite behavior than is presently
done, e.g. launch performance, flight performance and handling
(in various wind strengths), etc.

The trouble is the resources required to evaluate every kite to
the same benchmark standards are impossibly prohibitive at present.
You don't just invent a categorizing system and then expect all
manufacturers to magically know where their kites fit on the
scale. The only way for such a categorizing system to have any
validity is for a single, independant agency to be charged with
the responsibily of grading every kite manufactured. Who would fund
such a venture? This is not a small task. If the rating system
is not centrally administered there will always be discrepencies
in the many criteria used for evaluation, especially where much of
the data collected are highly subjective. And if the manufacturers
get involved then you will not only have discrepencies due to
the distributed nature of administering the system but the system
would inevitably suffer from the appearance of bias.

The only equivalent of what you are proposing that I can think of
offhand is (of course ;-) a paragliding (and hanggliding) parallel.
Due to the very obvious necessity for some kind of safety
classification for foot-launched gliders a number of independant
agencies have, over the years, provided internationally accepted
safety ratings (don't ask me who funded them - I don't know) the
currently most recognised system is the DHV rating system ...

http://www.dhv.de/english/testberichte/index.html

described as
...LBA Approved Testing Laboaratory for Hanggliders and
Paragliders Under a Mandate of the Austrian Aviation Authority

Despite the current extensive scope of this organization it
still only addresses safety-related issues and does not attempt
to categorize perfomance and/or non safety-related handling
characteristics of gliders - e.g. Min-sink, glide ratio,
thermalling ability etc. That is still left up to manufacturers
and as such the numbers they give are taken with the proverbial
pinch of salt by prospective buyers.

Of course what you are asking for would be great for consumers
and something like it may eventually evolve out of demand
but don't look for it to happen overnight. Proposing it is
easy, anyone can do that job ;-) ...

Steve T.
• Eddy, don t look for reviews in magazines, check out user reviews in other kitesurf websites such as KiteForum and the review section on kite-surf.com as well
Message 10 of 16 , Dec 31, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Eddy, don't look for reviews in magazines, check out user reviews in
other kitesurf websites such as KiteForum and the review section on
kite-surf.com as well as this forum.

Sure some of them might be plants but you can get a good idea of a
on it. You can always ask questions as well. If you are always a year
behind you may also be missing out on a years fun as some new kites can
be particularly good performance wise as well as well constructed. Not
to mention the fact that many new kites have better safety systems.
Windsurfing is not progressing at the development speed that
kitesurfing is. Kitesurf equipment cycles seem to be about 6mths long
compared to about 12mths for windsurf gear.

Even better still try the gear first. If you are a competent kitesurfer
some shops and teamriders will allow you to demo gear and you can also
ask other kitesurfers politely as well.

Getting into some analaytical ratings system is more what I'd expect
from a magazine as it would be such an easy system to distort the
reality with.

Have fun, Dave (Dr Surf Australia)

--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>" <
emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> Subjective magazine statements won't help.
> It is only in the magazines testing the 2003 gear, you can read the
> 200x. This I have done since many years (>15) for windsurfing.
>
> I would just like to get a simple Classification started. As the
> manufacturers will not do it, somewhere this should start.
> In windsurfing the German SURF magazine was the first to actually
> measure the volume of the boards. This is a real measurement they do
> in a big bath. Now we know volume is very important in windsurf
> boards. For windsurf sails there is nothing.
>
> We need the same things for kites.
> If one is buying in a shop, the needs some guidelines.
> Not the marketing hype from the manufacturer.
>
> Eddy
>
> Eddy
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Frank <pf@4...>" <pf@4...>
> wrote:
> > It would be nice with a general mesurement method yes, but is'nt it
> a
> > bit overkill ???
> >
> > Why measure it ?
> >
> > Every kite has its own behaviour in the air, depending on the total
> > of all design aspects, and the way they interact.
> >
> > So I think the way it is done today - by a review (stating whether
> > they are easy relaunchable, high performance, medium etc.) from the
> > kiters who has flown the kites - is much better !
> >
> > The only thing that is common, is the flat area measurement.
> > Apart from that, I think a kite should be classified by its
> behaviour
> > in rough terms - instead of measurements.
> >
> > Noone is using the written AR for anything today, because we all
> know
> > that it does not say anything about the kites performance, and
> > besides that - there are different ways of measuring AR.
> > So we don't even bother reading the number anymore, as we know it
> is
> > good for nothing.
> >
> > You would not buy a kite, based purely on strict measurements
> anyway,
> > would you ? (I certainly would not !)
> >
> > :-) Peter Frank
> >
> >
> > --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
> > <emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> > > It used to be simpel: Aspect Ratio used to tell what kind of kite
> > you
> > > It was/it is: height of kite in middle / span width.
> > > Now our manufacturers just killed it by using different
> definitions
> > > for AR. Some even use height/(span width**2)
> > >
> > > Still I would like to have a classifcation.
> > >
> > > There are 2 imortant things: the alongation of a kite and the
> depth
> > > or flatness of a profile.
> > >
> > > Still you can have the same allongation, but the one with long
> > > vertical ears will be less high performance than one with short
> > ears.
> > > So as an easy measurement I would suggest to measure a fully
> > inflated
> > > kite on the ground (as it is difficult to measure once airborn.
> > >
> > > Flat profiles versus deep profiles.
> > > Well flat profiles give you much more windrange.
> > > Deep profiles give you more comfort and probably less windrange.
> > >
> > > What should be measured:
> > > 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> > > 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground
> > > This would give a good estimation for the AR
> > > AR= length / span
> > >
> > > 3) depth of profile
> > > Again take the middle batton.
> > > Measure the deepest point of the profileholding a stick from
> batton
> > > tip to underside of front tube.
> > > This is expressed in:
> > > depth / length of batton.
> > >
> > > Classification:
> > > 1a) low AR and deep profile
> > > Wipika Hydro
> > > 1b) low AR and flat profile
> > > Maybe non-existant
> > > 2a) medium AR and deep profile
> > > Aero (?)
> > > 2b) medium AR and flat profile
> > > Takoon Skoop
> > > 3a) high AR and deep profile
> > > RRD Type 4.1
> > > 3b) high AR and flat profile
> > > Airblast & F-One Mach2
> > >
> > > These examples are just my guess, as I never could have measured
> > > these kites all by myself.
> > >
> > > So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still
> can
> > > change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> > > And then just measure up your kites.
> > >
> > > What is it good for:
> > > 1a) beginner /learning
> > > 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> > > 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> > > 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> > > 3a) don't know
> > > 3b) the professional
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > Eddy C.
• Hi Steve I m a paraglider too. Yes you have DHV from germany and AFNOR from France. Still there a big differences in their definition. Most paragliders now buy
Message 11 of 16 , Dec 31, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Hi Steve I'm a paraglider too.
Yes you have DHV from germany and AFNOR from France.
Still there a big differences in their definition.
Most paragliders now buy DHV1-2 even those comming form DHV2 or DHV2-
3.
In the paragliding world it took already several years to get the new
CEN norm defined and it will take again several months to get the
first real tests and certifications.

However the best guidelines you can find in the French "Vol Libre".
These measurements and their opinions are quite realistic, which
cannot be said of Parapente Mag.

Now in the kitesurf there is nothing at all.
This month I saw a french maginzine rating the CO2 2003 as
intermediate to specialist kite and the German Kite rating it almost
beginenr to intermediate !

Still my best sources of information are the kite magazines when
testing the new models and telling the throoth about last years model.
Read what they now write about the Fuel 2002: depower was almost in
existent.

So I'm still hoping someone comes up with some classification.

Eddy
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
<thorpes@a...> wrote:
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
wrote:
>
> > ... What should be measured:
> > 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> > 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground ...
>
> > ...These examples are just my guess, as I never could have
> > measured these kites all by myself.
> >
> > So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still
can
> > change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> > And then just measure up your kites.
>
> Eddy, there is a great deal more to the behaviour and handling
> of a wing than any finite combination of measurements you
> can make on that wing.
>
> > What is it good for:
> > 1a) beginner /learning
> > 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> > 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> > 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> > 3a) don't know
> > 3b) the professional
>
> It should theoretically be possible to do a much better job of
> categorizing various aspects of kite behavior than is presently
> done, e.g. launch performance, flight performance and handling
> (in various wind strengths), etc.
>
> The trouble is the resources required to evaluate every kite to
> the same benchmark standards are impossibly prohibitive at present.
> You don't just invent a categorizing system and then expect all
> manufacturers to magically know where their kites fit on the
> scale. The only way for such a categorizing system to have any
> validity is for a single, independant agency to be charged with
> the responsibily of grading every kite manufactured. Who would fund
> such a venture? This is not a small task. If the rating system
> is not centrally administered there will always be discrepencies
> in the many criteria used for evaluation, especially where much of
> the data collected are highly subjective. And if the manufacturers
> get involved then you will not only have discrepencies due to
> the distributed nature of administering the system but the system
> would inevitably suffer from the appearance of bias.
>
> The only equivalent of what you are proposing that I can think of
> offhand is (of course ;-) a paragliding (and hanggliding) parallel.
> Due to the very obvious necessity for some kind of safety
> classification for foot-launched gliders a number of independant
> agencies have, over the years, provided internationally accepted
> safety ratings (don't ask me who funded them - I don't know) the
> currently most recognised system is the DHV rating system ...
>
> http://www.dhv.de/english/testberichte/index.html
>
> described as
> ...LBA Approved Testing Laboaratory for Hanggliders and
> Paragliders Under a Mandate of the Austrian Aviation Authority
>
> Despite the current extensive scope of this organization it
> still only addresses safety-related issues and does not attempt
> to categorize perfomance and/or non safety-related handling
> characteristics of gliders - e.g. Min-sink, glide ratio,
> thermalling ability etc. That is still left up to manufacturers
> and as such the numbers they give are taken with the proverbial
> pinch of salt by prospective buyers.
>
> Of course what you are asking for would be great for consumers
> and something like it may eventually evolve out of demand
> but don't look for it to happen overnight. Proposing it is
> easy, anyone can do that job ;-) ...
>
> Steve T.
• ... probably ... Maybe - maybe not ! In windsurfing we don t have any classification of sails, even though the parameters and differences are exactly the same
Message 12 of 16 , Dec 31, 2002
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
<thorpes@a...> wrote:

> > So I'm still hoping someone comes up with some classification.
>
> So am I, but don't hold your breath ... what we really need is not
> something that someone can just "come up with". But we will
probably
> have it eventually.
>
> Steve

Maybe - maybe not !

In windsurfing we don't have any classification of sails, even though
the parameters and differences are exactly the same as in kitesurfing.
And it is a 25 year old sport now...
The point is, that noone needs or asks for this classification, as it
is not needed.
All dealers know what the sails are for, and how they behave and
And based on experience, it seems that windsurfers don't want numbers
for their sails, as it is much more important with an explanation of
how the sail behaves, than how it performs in numbers.

I think this will be the same with kitesurfing, really.

:-) Peter Frank
• ... not ... though Well at least we do have size in windsurfing. I suggest that the windsurfing model works. That is, everyone seems to know the difference
Message 13 of 16 , Dec 31, 2002
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Frank <pf@4...>" <pf@4...>
wrote:
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
> <thorpes@a...> wrote:
>
> > > So I'm still hoping someone comes up with some classification.
> >
> > So am I, but don't hold your breath ... what we really need is
not
> > something that someone can just "come up with". But we will
> probably
> > have it eventually.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Maybe - maybe not !
>
> In windsurfing we don't have any classification of sails, even
though

Well at least we do have size in windsurfing. I suggest that the
windsurfing model works. That is, everyone seems to know the
difference between race sails and wave sails but they are measured
the same.

I think kites should be the same. Lay them out on the ground and
measure the area, period.

Just like windsurfing, everyone will understand the difference
between kites.

David
• Eddy, you ve got to realise that Kitesurf magazines are funded by advertising from the manufacturers. As a buyer of magazines you are merely paying for the
Message 14 of 16 , Jan 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Eddy, you've got to realise that Kitesurf magazines are funded by
merely paying for the distribution costs and some production costs.

Therefore you might as well assume that the manufacturers are paying
for favourable reviews. If you want to change the situation you want a
magazine that purely exists on funding from the readership and does not
rely on advertising from any sources which could be said to have an
influence on reviews/testing.

This is a rare thing in todays commercial world.

Once again go to the Internet where there are real people like yourself
testing and reviewing kites and kitegear and try different kites/gear
yourself. It's the only way.

Have fun, Dave (Dr Surf Australia)

--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>" <
emet.cormon@v...> wrote:
> Hi Steve I'm a paraglider too.
> Yes you have DHV from germany and AFNOR from France.
> Still there a big differences in their definition.
> Most paragliders now buy DHV1-2 even those comming form DHV2 or DHV2-
> 3.
> In the paragliding world it took already several years to get the new
> CEN norm defined and it will take again several months to get the
> first real tests and certifications.
>
> However the best guidelines you can find in the French "Vol Libre".
> These measurements and their opinions are quite realistic, which
> cannot be said of Parapente Mag.
>
> Now in the kitesurf there is nothing at all.
> This month I saw a french maginzine rating the CO2 2003 as
> intermediate to specialist kite and the German Kite rating it almost
> beginenr to intermediate !
>
> Still my best sources of information are the kite magazines when
> testing the new models and telling the throoth about last years model.
> Read what they now write about the Fuel 2002: depower was almost in
> existent.
>
> So I'm still hoping someone comes up with some classification.
>
> Eddy
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "theflyingtinman <thorpes@a...>"
> <thorpes@a...> wrote:
> > --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@v...>"
> wrote:
> >
> > > ... What should be measured:
> > > 1) the span from tip to tip in one straight line
> > > 2) the length of the top of the middle batton to the ground ...
> >
> > > ...These examples are just my guess, as I never could have
> > > measured these kites all by myself.
> > >
> > > So I propose to agree on the methods of measurement. They still
> can
> > > change. Measurement methods have to be simple.
> > > And then just measure up your kites.
> >
> > Eddy, there is a great deal more to the behaviour and handling
> > of a wing than any finite combination of measurements you
> > can make on that wing.
> >
> > > What is it good for:
> > > 1a) beginner /learning
> > > 1b) two liner for wave riding ?
> > > 2a) easy intermediate for once you've started
> > > 2b) intermediate for those who know how to rip
> > > 3a) don't know
> > > 3b) the professional
> >
> > It should theoretically be possible to do a much better job of
> > categorizing various aspects of kite behavior than is presently
> > done, e.g. launch performance, flight performance and handling
> > (in various wind strengths), etc.
> >
> > The trouble is the resources required to evaluate every kite to
> > the same benchmark standards are impossibly prohibitive at present.
> > You don't just invent a categorizing system and then expect all
> > manufacturers to magically know where their kites fit on the
> > scale. The only way for such a categorizing system to have any
> > validity is for a single, independant agency to be charged with
> > the responsibily of grading every kite manufactured. Who would fund
> > such a venture? This is not a small task. If the rating system
> > is not centrally administered there will always be discrepencies
> > in the many criteria used for evaluation, especially where much of
> > the data collected are highly subjective. And if the manufacturers
> > get involved then you will not only have discrepencies due to
> > the distributed nature of administering the system but the system
> > would inevitably suffer from the appearance of bias.
> >
> > The only equivalent of what you are proposing that I can think of
> > offhand is (of course ;-) a paragliding (and hanggliding) parallel.
> > Due to the very obvious necessity for some kind of safety
> > classification for foot-launched gliders a number of independant
> > agencies have, over the years, provided internationally accepted
> > safety ratings (don't ask me who funded them - I don't know) the
> > currently most recognised system is the DHV rating system ...
> >
> > http://www.dhv.de/english/testberichte/index.html
> >
> > described as
> > ...LBA Approved Testing Laboaratory for Hanggliders and
> > Paragliders Under a Mandate of the Austrian Aviation Authority
> >
> > Despite the current extensive scope of this organization it
> > still only addresses safety-related issues and does not attempt
> > to categorize perfomance and/or non safety-related handling
> > characteristics of gliders - e.g. Min-sink, glide ratio,
> > thermalling ability etc. That is still left up to manufacturers
> > and as such the numbers they give are taken with the proverbial
> > pinch of salt by prospective buyers.
> >
> > Of course what you are asking for would be great for consumers
> > and something like it may eventually evolve out of demand
> > but don't look for it to happen overnight. Proposing it is
> > easy, anyone can do that job ;-) ...
> >
> > Steve T.
• ... wrote: snip ... though snip Windsurfing does classify sails: race slalom wave-slalom wave convertible and a few hybrids of the above with some cam/no-cam
Message 15 of 16 , Jan 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Frank <pf@4...>" <pf@4...>
wrote:

snip

> In windsurfing we don't have any classification of sails, even
though

snip

Windsurfing does classify sails:

race
slalom
wave-slalom
wave
convertible

and a few hybrids of the above with some cam/no-cam variations. Add
the size and some advice from stores and magazines etc and you get a
good idea of what the sail is for and how it will perform.

Kites are little similar in that you have:
2-line
4-line low AR
4-line high AR

Add the flat area and some marketing background and you have a pretty
good idea of what a kite is and how it is likely to perform in a
given situation.

You could replace AR with a performance designation like "high
performance" or "wake style" or whatever. You still get an idea of
what the kite is supposed to handle like. That's the job of the
stores and magazines and this group to add experience and knowledge
in interpreting the bull.

The situation is the same in paragliding. A DHV 1-2 or DHV 2 rating
is not an absolute measure of the suitability of a wing for a given
pilot. You have to ask your local dealer and take a few test flights
and scour the web for knowledge.

Regards

Greg
• ... Yep - but classified in exactly the same (very simple) way as kitesurfer kites are now. Not in numbers nor detailed topics, as the original posting was
Message 16 of 16 , Jan 1, 2003
• 0 Attachment
--- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Walsh <Greg.Walsh@b...>"
<Greg.Walsh@b...> wrote:
> --- In kitesurf@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Frank <pf@4...>" <pf@4...>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > In windsurfing we don't have any classification of sails, even
> though
>
> snip
>
> Windsurfing does classify sails:
>
> race
> slalom
> wave-slalom
> wave
> convertible
>
> snip
>
> Regards
>
> Greg

Yep - but classified in exactly the same (very simple) way as
kitesurfer kites are now.
Not in numbers nor detailed topics, as the original posting was about.

:-) Peter
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.