Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Kite Classification Proposition

Expand Messages
  • Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@village.uunet.b
    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
      were buying.
      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.
    • Peter Frank <pf@4u.net>
      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
        > were buying.
        > 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.
      • tallakt <tallak@tveide.net>
        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
          > > were buying.
          > > 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.
        • dixon76710 <dixon76710@yahoo.com>
          ... 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


            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
            > > > were buying.
            > > > 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 Cormon <emet.cormon@village.uunet.b
            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
              bad things about the 2002 models.
              That's why I always buy the 200x-1 models after reading about 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
              > > were buying.
              > > 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.
            • Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@village.uunet.b
              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.
                Give me a good proposition to start with.
                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
                > > were buying.
                > > 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 Cormon <emet.cormon@village.uunet.b
                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
                  > > > were buying.
                  > > > 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.
                • Chris Glazier <cglazier@canada.com>
                  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
                  • theflyingtinman <thorpes@arklogic.com>
                    ... 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.
                    • drsurfau <dave@machelp.com.au>
                      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
                        particular kite's character when a few users have made their comments
                        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
                        > bad things about the 2002 models.
                        > That's why I always buy the 200x-1 models after reading about 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
                        > > > were buying.
                        > > > 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.
                      • Eddy Cormon <emet.cormon@village.uunet.b
                        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.
                        • Peter Frank <pf@4u.net>
                          ... 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
                            differ, if a customer asks.
                            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
                          • purdyd <tpurdy1@gte.net>
                            ... 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
                            • drsurfau <dave@machelp.com.au>
                              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
                                advertising from the manufacturers. As a buyer of magazines you are
                                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.
                              • Greg Walsh <Greg.Walsh@bigpond.com>
                                ... 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
                                • Peter Frank <pf@4u.net>
                                  ... 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.