Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Here you can exchange your experience and datas about your home build boards
joriws
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:03 am
Gear: Flysurfer, HQ, Moses, Nobile, North, Ozone
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby joriws » Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:48 am

I tested woo3 on land & standing with 4.9m fishing pole + my height so optimum would be 7.1m. 10 "jumps" I did woo3 gave average 7.6m and highest 8.6m and lowest 6.3m. Not very accurate. Also there are woo3 sessions like 19m best jump and 2nd 13m and avg 7m, so very outlier type of "results" of sessions.

I am still waiting surfr mount to start cross testing and riding.
These users thanked the author joriws for the post:
Kamikuza (Thu Jul 02, 2020 11:48 am)
Rating: 8.33%

Kitemenn
Frequent Poster
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:21 am
Local Beach: Maasvlakte / Slufter
Gear: North Evo 11-7m / Lieuwe Shotgun
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby Kitemenn » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:37 pm

joriws wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:48 am
I tested woo3 on land & standing with 4.9m fishing pole + my height so optimum would be 7.1m. 10 "jumps" I did woo3 gave average 7.6m and highest 8.6m and lowest 6.3m. Not very accurate. Also there are woo3 sessions like 19m best jump and 2nd 13m and avg 7m, so very outlier type of "results" of sessions.

I am still waiting surfr mount to start cross testing and riding.
Sorry but tbh this doesnt sound like a "real" test, assuming you connected the WOO to the end of the fishing rod and lifting it up. The motions might be quite different when real kiteboarding. With that setup you should be able to test SURFR and PIQ too. Did you do anything like that?
These users thanked the author Kitemenn for the post:
Leon van Bergen (Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:25 pm)
Rating: 8.33%

joriws
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:03 am
Gear: Flysurfer, HQ, Moses, Nobile, North, Ozone
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby joriws » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:32 pm

No piq at hand and at the time surfr was not relesed.

Actually the motion is quite same, and device needs to align itself the rotating coordinates how fishing pole rotates like board above head. Accelerations you can mimic by lifting first faster.

Kitemenn
Frequent Poster
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:21 am
Local Beach: Maasvlakte / Slufter
Gear: North Evo 11-7m / Lieuwe Shotgun
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby Kitemenn » Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:01 pm

joriws wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:32 pm
No piq at hand and at the time surfr was not relesed.

Actually the motion is quite same, and device needs to align itself the rotating coordinates how fishing pole rotates like board above head. Accelerations you can mimic by lifting first faster.
Surfr is out...that was the whole point of this post right :lol:

It's not on iPhone but sure you know someone. You don't need to have a waterproof case as you are just using a test scenario (no water involved).

On your WOO test did you tape it to the rod or with a line (which makes it rotate even more)

TomW
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:43 pm
Kiting since: 2001
Local Beach: Vejbystrand, Lomma
Gear: TW Surfboards hydrofoil board 90cm, 110cm
Gong Pro M, 90 cm mast
Ozone Hyperlink 9mUL, 7m
Hyperlink V2 13m
Concept Air Wave 4,5m
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby TomW » Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:51 pm

joriws wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:48 am
I tested woo3 on land & standing with 4.9m fishing pole + my height so optimum would be 7.1m. 10 "jumps" I did woo3 gave average 7.6m and highest 8.6m and lowest 6.3m. Not very accurate. Also there are woo3 sessions like 19m best jump and 2nd 13m and avg 7m, so very outlier type of "results" of sessions.

I am still waiting surfr mount to start cross testing and riding.
That's not how the algorithm works, certainly. Its using accelerometer to measure height along with other sensor data. This is the secret sauce. You cant measure height standing still.
These users thanked the author TomW for the post:
Leon van Bergen (Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:27 am)
Rating: 8.33%

dice
Medium Poster
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:05 pm
Style: Freeride
Gear: Hadlow ID
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby dice » Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:43 am

joriws wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:32 pm
Actually the motion is quite same, and device needs to align itself the rotating coordinates how fishing pole rotates like board above head. Accelerations you can mimic by lifting first faster.
I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that the motion is not the same.

fluidity
Frequent Poster
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 pm
Local Beach: Ngati Toa, Plimmerton, Titahi Bay, Waikanae, Petone, Seatoun, Lyall Bay, Eastbourne, Lake Wairarapa
Style: Wave, jump
Gear: Old Flexfoil 9, Switch Element V4 11m, Ocean Rodeo Prodigy 7m 2014, Nitro14m v6, Nitro9m v6 12mSwitch Legacy2
DIY CAD ultra-concave wave twintips 1500 and 130mm with my own fin designs. Easy upwind, awesome carving. Switch Nitro 10m V7, Naish 5.3m Wing. Building my own foils from my CAD design and 3D prints.
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby fluidity » Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:29 am

dice wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:43 am
joriws wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:32 pm
Actually the motion is quite same, and device needs to align itself the rotating coordinates how fishing pole rotates like board above head. Accelerations you can mimic by lifting first faster.
I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that the motion is not the same.
Agree.
The Woo is reputed to use loss of board noise through water as the start point in a jump, not just G forces. It's reputed to fail to generate correct data kite foiling for this reason. So I would expect a simulation of much closer conditions to a board jump than fishing pole control to get any meaningful comparison. Gforces alone do not tell the whole story.

joriws
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:03 am
Gear: Flysurfer, HQ, Moses, Nobile, North, Ozone
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby joriws » Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:07 pm

Woo was taped to rod right side up.

Did shaking at start and end for surface g-noise and did lifting with 5s hangtime, faster acceleration at first then less. You can do also tests by your hand, kneel down, shake for couple of seconds, rise up and kneel back down and you get about 200cm jumps based on your height of course.

You are talking about algorithm like you know it (woo's implementation I mean). Generally speaking, basic thing is imu sensor orientation against gravity, then sensing acceleration against gravity direction, then based on samples and time integrate acceleration for accumulated speed, then integrate again for position, and all the time estimating from gravity-axis acceleration the sensor rotation and what part is the kite lift acceleration.

Detecting freefall jump is easy because at time of surface contact lost your accelerometer displays 0g. With kite acceleration moves from -1g to positive g if that is up. Shooting/throwing sensor makes freefall immediately after g force (impulse) ends on your throwing release or "barrel". Accelerometer shows 0g all the freefall so from initial acceleration upward speed is integrated and then algorithm must subract g all the time, but what direction if there is like 0.1g, is that kite lift, true wind acceleration, wind resistance or sensor noise.

Fishing rod does the same as kite, shaking at ground for surface contact is -1g +- some shake g. Then lift up to get positive g etc. Never hopefully zero g etc..
These users thanked the author joriws for the post:
Kitemenn (Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:40 pm)
Rating: 8.33%

Kitemenn
Frequent Poster
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:21 am
Local Beach: Maasvlakte / Slufter
Gear: North Evo 11-7m / Lieuwe Shotgun
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Surfr + burner phone = Poor Man's Woo

Postby Kitemenn » Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:40 pm

joriws wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 12:07 pm
Woo was taped to rod right side up.

Did shaking at start and end for surface g-noise and did lifting with 5s hangtime, faster acceleration at first then less. You can do also tests by your hand, kneel down, shake for couple of seconds, rise up and kneel back down and you get about 200cm jumps based on your height of course.

You are talking about algorithm like you know it (woo's implementation I mean). Generally speaking, basic thing is imu sensor orientation against gravity, then sensing acceleration against gravity direction, then based on samples and time integrate acceleration for accumulated speed, then integrate again for position, and all the time estimating from gravity-axis acceleration the sensor rotation and what part is the kite lift acceleration.

Detecting freefall jump is easy because at time of surface contact lost your accelerometer displays 0g. With kite acceleration moves from -1g to positive g if that is up. Shooting/throwing sensor makes freefall immediately after g force (impulse) ends on your throwing release or "barrel". Accelerometer shows 0g all the freefall so from initial acceleration upward speed is integrated and then algorithm must subract g all the time, but what direction if there is like 0.1g, is that kite lift, true wind acceleration, wind resistance or sensor noise.

Fishing rod does the same as kite, shaking at ground for surface contact is -1g +- some shake g. Then lift up to get positive g etc. Never hopefully zero g etc..
OK that is quite detailed :thumb: I understand the set up and think it should work more or less but why then not do the same for the SURFR app...you can get hold of a phone, tape it to the rod and replicate your test...shouldn't be a biggie. Then you can compare it to WOO.


Return to “Gear Builders”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests