Moses 2019-2020-2021

[dave1986]

W940. Surf wing

[Wazza Foil]

For the people using the W950, which stab are you using it with?

400

[grigorib]

15% and 19% size gaps between 1100-1300-1600 sq.cm are kind of too narrow for 940-???-950 wings, aren’t they?
I understand those are 170-200-250 sq.in wings but why bother copying Lift including 37” wingspan when it’s possible to create better

[gmb13]

15% and 19% size gaps between 1100-1300-1600 sq.cm are kind of too narrow for 940-???-950 wings, aren’t they?
I understand those are 170-200-250 sq.in wings but why bother copying Lift including 37” wingspan when it’s possible to create better

Surface area means next to nothing on the wings. The 940 and 950 are the spans, which also say very little about the wings performance or use cases.

--
Gunnar

[grigorib]

I’d say wing area, AR and profile/thickness would pretty much define wing performance and use, am I wrong?

Area defines lowend and stall speed for a given rider weight
AR impacts efficiency, stall speed, and roll stability
Profile thickness impacts cruising speed, high end and volume (flotation)

Then there are less defining items such as washout, dull wingtips for safety, wing resistance to damage, arrowhead shape of LE for better seaweed shedding but I feel 940-???-950 are just literally following Lift 170-200-250 HA wings path in area and wingspan to say the least. Don’t get me wrong - Lift 170-200-250 HA are excellent and Moses has been behind in that range.
But why merely following when you can get ahead right away and copying areas and wingspan can’t be just coincidence for all 3 wings, is it?

I’m sure lighter wingers, surfers and windsurf foilers would appreciate these new wings

Kite foilers would appreciate larger wings like 900 and 1200 sq.cm mountable onto kite fuselage. For me the 800 wing at 840 sq.cm covers my need for ~900 area and a 1200 wing is on the way to cover lightwind without having to use different fuselage/adapter

[Frankieboy]

W940. Surf wing
SmartSelect_20210213-181625_Instagram.jpg

is this surf or kite fuselage?

[grigorib]

W940. Surf wing
SmartSelect_20210213-181625_Instagram.jpg

is this surf or kite fuselage?

Surf fuselage

Compatibility list here
viewtopic.php?p=1075851#p1075851

[grigorib]

15% and 19% size gaps between 1100-1300-1600 sq.cm are kind of too narrow for 940-???-950 wings, aren’t they?
I understand those are 170-200-250 sq.in wings but why bother copying Lift including 37” wingspan when it’s possible to create better

Surface area means next to nothing on the wings. The 940 and 950 are the spans, which also say very little about the wings performance or use cases.

--
Gunnar

Hi Gunnar,
You’re one of the people who rode wide variety of wings and your conclusions and experience are valuable. It was your personal feedback which boosted my curiosity into actual ordering of 633 three years ago and 800 last spring.

Can you please share your perspective on wing characteristics?

[gmb13]

15% and 19% size gaps between 1100-1300-1600 sq.cm are kind of too narrow for 940-???-950 wings, aren’t they?
I understand those are 170-200-250 sq.in wings but why bother copying Lift including 37” wingspan when it’s possible to create better

Surface area means next to nothing on the wings. The 940 and 950 are the spans, which also say very little about the wings performance or use cases.

--
Gunnar

Hi Gunnar,
You’re one of the people who rode wide variety of wings and your conclusions and experience are valuable. It was your personal feedback which boosted my curiosity into actual ordering of 633 three years ago and 800 last spring.

Can you please share your perspective on wing characteristics?

Hi Grigorib,

Of course.

Regarding Surface area. It is basically saying that the size of a car can tell you a lot about how fast it can go.

The area the brands tell you are flat areas. Basically 2 dimensional sheet. It is not the actually full area (top and bottom) of the wing. So it basically tells you nothing about the lowend or highend of the foil.

We really need some other metric to compare foils now. It is starting to get confusing. You have wings with about 1200-1500 cm2 which have more lowend than 2300cm2 wings now. Profile shape and thickness, Span, aspect ratio and outline shape and also surface area all combine to define how a wing performs. We need a number that can compare two wings properly. Maybe Lift/Drag or a new Number that can be calculated from the glide ratio of the wings. Using surface area as the go to metric no longer works.

--
Gunnar

[dave1986]

Surface area means next to nothing on the wings. The 940 and 950 are the spans, which also say very little about the wings performance or use cases.

--
Gunnar

Hi Gunnar,
You’re one of the people who rode wide variety of wings and your conclusions and experience are valuable. It was your personal feedback which boosted my curiosity into actual ordering of 633 three years ago and 800 last spring.

Can you please share your perspective on wing characteristics?

Hi Grigorib,

Of course.

Regarding Surface area. It is basically saying that the size of a car can tell you a lot about how fast it can go.

The area the brands tell you are flat areas. Basically 2 dimensional sheet. It is not the actually full area (top and bottom) of the wing. So it basically tells you nothing about the lowend or highend of the foil.

We really need some other metric to compare foils now. It is starting to get confusing. You have wings with about 1200-1500 cm2 which have more lowend than 2300cm2 wings now. Profile shape and thickness, Span, aspect ratio and outline shape and also surface area all combine to define how a wing performs. We need a number that can compare two wings properly. Maybe Lift/Drag or a new Number that can be calculated from the glide ratio of the wings. Using surface area as the go to metric no longer works.

--
Gunnar

I think it would be helpful for Moses to publish the following data (i think they already published those marked with stars *)

• Wingspan*
• Actual area*
• Projected area
• Volume
• Max chord length
• Aspect ratio*
• Max chord thickness (profile thickness)

But then if you wanted to get super technical there are lots of other variables which are also super important such as:

• Thickness-to-chord ratio (I.e. the ratio between the chord length and the chord thickness)
• Max chord thicknesses % from leading edge (i.e how close to the leading edge is the maximum chord thickness).
• Chord length taper (i.e. how the chord length tapers to the wingtips)
• Chord thickness taper (i.e. how the chord thickness tapers to the wingtips).
• Details of wing curvature shape
• Details of winglets.
etc. etc.....