Moses release new 607 and 740 wing, where's the wings for prone and winging?

[addictedtofoil]

Moses release new 607 and 740 wings for kiting, where's the new wings for prone and winging that are over 1350cm2?

I think it is really time for me to change brands for other disciplines than kiting.

I don't know why they are neglecting this part of the market, anyone with industry insights have an idea?

[gmb13]

Moses release new 607 and 740 wings for kiting, where's the new wings for prone and winging that are over 1350cm2?

I think it is really time for me to change brands for other disciplines than kiting.

I don't know why they are neglecting this part of the market, anyone with industry insights have an idea?

I am not sure what you are talking about. SABFOil has 2 new Wings for Surfing. I hate having to repeat this, but surfance are means nothing.

The 945 is the big surf wing and works great for heavier riders and light wind winging. You can compare its to most mid aspect wings with around 1600-1700cm2 if you still feel the need to use that as a comparison.

--
Gunnar

[addictedtofoil]

Hi Gunnar,

I respect your opinion as you are a more qualified foiler than me at winging and kiting, but I have to disagree with you. I bought the 950 (1350cm2) thinking it was 1600cm2 and it needs a lot of wind to work for someone weighing 95-100kgs for winging. There is a big gap between the 1100 and the 950.

I just can't see how a wing that is 1300cm2 (945) is comparable to a wing that is 1600-1700cm2, I just don't believe it. It is only 0.25 higher aspect than the 950. I would be happy to demo a 945 to try this theory but I am not buying one hoping it will work as it just doesn't compute to me.

I have the 548/633/695/799/800/950/1100 for reference and I am selling the 1100/950 if anyone is interested.

Not everyone has smooth constant wind as in Tarifa, try winging in Sydney winds, it is a complete different story.

This is a reference to the gusty shifty conditions we have http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60701 ... 4767.shtml

[slowboat]

Moses release new 607 and 740 wings for kiting, where's the new wings for prone and winging that are over 1350cm2?

I think it is really time for me to change brands for other disciplines than kiting.

I don't know why they are neglecting this part of the market, anyone with industry insights have an idea?

.... I hate having to repeat this, but surfance are means nothing.



--
Gunnar

This is a stunningly incorrect statement. Just goes to show that you can be an accomplished foiler without understanding the very basics of foils.

The fundamental thing a foil has to do is LIFT. Surface area is an important determinant of LIFT. Not the only determinant, but an important one.

[grigorib]

…
I think it is really time for me to change brands for other disciplines than kiting.

I don't know why they are neglecting this part of the market, anyone with industry insights have an idea?

It’s funny they play more with wing thickness/profile - if you remember 548 released after 550 when market actually needed a larger area 695 wing. 695 is still scaled up 550 and would make a perfect 550-695 pair. And they should have made the 637-800 pair for folks who ride faster. And add a large lightwind wing for both crowds mountable onto kite fuselage.
Of course extra thickness adds more lift but simply scaling up wings and spacing them at 30% size difference is much easier and practical path.
Maybe they chose marketing path “let’s not allow folks to have everything good at once too soon and drag them through years of baby step upgrades” and that strategy brings competition we need. I like and enjoy riding Moses but I like more riding wings that I actually need and Moses hasn’t been listening much, otherwise we’d have our great old 425 stabilizer back.
I think Gunnar switched brands too

[Matty V]

Moses release new 607 and 740 wings for kiting, where's the new wings for prone and winging that are over 1350cm2?

I think it is really time for me to change brands for other disciplines than kiting.

I don't know why they are neglecting this part of the market, anyone with industry insights have an idea?

.... I hate having to repeat this, but surfance are means nothing.



--
Gunnar

This is a stunningly incorrect statement. Just goes to show that you can be an accomplished foiler without understanding the very basics of foils.

The fundamental thing a foil has to do is LIFT. Surface area is an important determinant of LIFT. Not the only determinant, but an important one.

So just forget about drag, range, roll stability and Yaw

Chord thickness is probably the biggest performance differentiator any way and Gunnar and SAB gets that, not sure you do..

Two identical area foils one with a thicker chord section which one has more lift?

Now two wings one smaller area by 200cm with a 30%thicker chord
Which one creates more lift?

The constant marketing of surface area as the only thing that matters is what’s at fault. SAB are actually honest enough to buck that trend yet they are the ones getting criticised.

[grigorib]

The constant marketing of surface area as the only thing that matters is what’s at fault. SAB are actually honest enough to buck that trend yet they are the ones getting criticised.

But they don’t specify/publish profile thickness! They don’t publish AR and they even changed claimed wing area.
Thicker wings have more lift and have lower cruising speed so I’d pick larger thinner wing instead of smaller thicker one. Because I don’t want fat wings to start with. That’s why 873 thick wing is dead as dead and 1100 made it.
So I think SAB is wasting investors money on releasing highly overlapping wings. It’s not wisdom - it’s either art or inefficiency, yet there should be someone paving the way and proving wrong approaches.

I liked 548 which was slightly thicker 550. I liked slightly larger 590 too but it was 695 which made me ride kite fuselage again after two years on 633->683s/679. Gunnar would be right if he said “wing area is not everything” yet saying

I hate having to repeat this, but surfance are means nothing.
--
Gunnar

he gets rightful negative feedback. They don’t make Jumbo jet with tiny fat wings - they add more wing area and of course scale up thickness of that given profile for longer chord.

…Now two wings one smaller area by 200cm with a 30%thicker chord. Which one creates more lift?

And to your question of “200 sq.cm smaller 30% thicker” I tried a fat 170 Fish Lift wing vs 200 Lift and the first one sucked ass, it might have had comparable lift but it was draggy and not much rideable so I’m persuaded for most folks wing area is main simple identifier which tells the most in just one number

[addictedtofoil]

I'm not into bashing people online and Gunnar is a valued member of the foiling community and look forward to his future reviews and videos.

The point of this thread is to address the elephant in the room, or the gap between the 950 and 1100 for winging.

A quick google on "relationship between surface area and lift" brings us to NASA, and the first sentence is
"The amount of lift generated by an object depends on the size of the object." and another interesting sentence is
"Takeoff and landing are times of relatively low velocity, so to keep the lift high (to avoid the ground!) designers try to increase the wing area."
"Lift is directly related to surface area"

The article continues to explain the lift coefficent if you are interested.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airpl ... the%20lift.

And NASA has a simulator to use https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/foil3.html

Now, back on track for winging with Sabfoil/Moses, the following are the wings in question

1250 = 2400cm2
1100 = 2100cm2
790 = 1550cm2 - this needs to be replaced as slow and down turned wingtips
950 = 1350cm2
945 = 1300cm2
799 = 1100cm2
1000 = 987cm2
800 = 840cm2

For my needs specifically for winging, in light-medium wind weighing 95-100kg I need MORE lift as there is less power/lift generated by wings in this wind range both in your hands and under water.

Moving to a 945 with less surface area (-50cm2) is simply not a rational thing to do.

2100cm2 - 1350cm2 = 750cm2 GAP

There is a 750cm2 gap between the 950 and the 1100 and this is almost a 695 (770cm2) wing!

It's just like kite foiling, using the same foil e.g. W800
< 15 knots = 11m kite, less wind need more surface area to generate power
>= 15 knots = 9m kite, more wind need less surface area to generate power

I need to do the opposite for winging for my weight
< 18 knots ? = 1600-1750cm2
> 18 knots = 799/950 (799 is better than the 950)
> 23-25 knots 800/1000
> 30-35 knots = any kite wing if you are brave lol

I'm sure I'm not the only person for winging who believes there is a GAP in the range that needs to be addressed. I wish I had the CAD software and
machinery to design my own foils...

[Matty V]

The constant marketing of surface area as the only thing that matters is what’s at fault. SAB are actually honest enough to buck that trend yet they are the ones getting criticised.

But they don’t specify/publish profile thickness! They don’t publish AR and they even changed claimed wing area.
Thicker wings have more lift and have lower cruising speed so I’d pick larger thinner wing instead of smaller thicker one. Because I don’t want fat wings to start with. That’s why 873 thick wing is dead as dead and 1100 made it.
So I think SAB is wasting investors money on releasing highly overlapping wings. It’s not wisdom - it’s either art or inefficiency, yet there should be someone paving the way and proving wrong approaches.

I liked 548 which was slightly thicker 550. I liked slightly larger 590 too but it was 695 which made me ride kite fuselage again after two years on 633->683s/679. Gunnar would be right if he said “wing area is not everything” yet saying

I hate having to repeat this, but surfance are means nothing.
--
Gunnar

he gets rightful negative feedback. They don’t make Jumbo jet with tiny fat wings - they add more wing area and of course scale up thickness of that given profile for longer chord.

…Now two wings one smaller area by 200cm with a 30%thicker chord. Which one creates more lift?

And to your question of “200 sq.cm smaller 30% thicker” I tried a fat 170 Fish Lift wing vs 200 Lift and the first one sucked ass, it might have had comparable lift but it was draggy and not much rideable so I’m persuaded for most folks wing area is main simple identifier which tells the most in just one number

Of course it’s a blend of lift vs drag. something that matey criticising Gunnar completely overlooked

Choose a wing that suits your style/requirements. End of.

[Axis1050]

For me I found the wing to fill the gap between the 950 and 1100, its the Axis black series 1050 for Windwing.
I have the 950 and 1100 so easy for me to compare.