Pansh Genesis and some tuning

[foilholio]

I'm not saying you are blind, foilholio.

No I am saying you are and you are doing a starling job at proving it.

You have just invented your own way to explain kites, unfortunately it is weird and not very much (if at all) related to reality

No I haven't invented it. It is all based on physics principals. And I am quite certain is closer to reality than you are.

I'm not saying everything you write or give advice here is wrong

I honestly couldn't care. I am only countering upon what I disagree with.

Your basis is however wrong and it is not useful starting point to develop kites.

As I said you can't make a blind man (you) see.

Don't you see how complicated your explanations become?

The principals are simple, being the explanation. The implementation is difficult, the physical world is far more demanding. I know you have asserted how easy it is to design kites etcetera. Making a mockery of kites design by most others, like Benoit Tremblay and Armin Harich to name a few. What you think is wrong with their designs and ultimately their understanding, I think is you are actually displaying your own lack of understanding. I can see reasons for how they have done things, yet you can't and only see errors, only see your line of thinking, only see that the bridles should really be like this or that because "less line is less drag"...you are only looking at things in one light.

Most people struggle to understand what do you mean.

Could be my fault or theirs. Like recently someone said just do a drawing. It is more effort to do this. If someone was to reach out to me and really desire a better explanation I would and have been quite forthcoming. I went through a really long amount of posts in private helping someone understand my thinking. I would have preferred it in public but they contacted me there.

These new mixers have at least couple of issues: they are not new and they are not needed in proper kites.

We are really only talking about one mixer, this new one. What indication do you have or proof that it is not new? What issues does it have? and why do you think it is not applicable to kites? How do you define what is a "proper" kite?

If kite is small or if it has high AR (short chord) even this normal mixer is too effective, usual bar travel has to be limited to avoid over steering and over sheeting.

Well should the same mixer be used for all kites? NO! Altering bar travel is easy, use a shorter bar! Do all kites use the same bar length? I mean seriously you are not sounding at all like a "kite expert" at all.

Increase bar travel is easy too.

Using something even more efficient would be completely foolish.

I don't know it would depend on preference. I quite like how my 6m feels but I will try it with this new mixer and let you all know. Many people prefer and only know LEI kite feel so I think from that angle they will prefer this new mixer. Look at s2000kiters comments for proof of that. Bridle placement like A15 (which may be higher performance) will be more suited with this new mixer . It will improve the ratios for 3 row kites (though as a diablo line) but relaunch needs to be tested. There is so many potential uses that there is absolutely no way this is not new because kites would be otherwise thoroughly using it by now. You are just trying to save face that in your 15 years as a "kite designer" you missed such a simple rearrangement of the mixer. Me, Regis and I am sure many other people tried the Malabar but we all missed this. I even tried this for the diablo line, running it directly to B, but could not make the connection to the Malabar. I think I even tested them both at the same time! Still missed it. Someone completely new to foil kites comes in, discovers the malabar and then also this both all on his. I think that is more evidence that too much thinking or "education" in things can block one to discovering new things. Just like I am certain your "education" on aerodynamics is blocking you. Have you even revisited aerodynamics? It is even today still not a settled science, but some of the more new or should I say older theories (Newton) are much more useful to designing things. Vortexes are another thing of great value.

However this shorter bar travel may lead to unintentional back stalls and at least it makes system more critical to small changes.

Um no. Have you even tested the Malabar? or this mixer? More bar force means less backstall. And aswell the tow point is restricted further forward from the TE so less backstall. I mean with the Malabar you can not reverse the kite, that is proof of that. The mixer has the effect that as you get closer to the rearest tow point it gets harder to reach.

Apparently I must say it clearer: your method to announce pulling ratios (with bar ratios?) is bad.

No it is fine. They are never usually mentioned with the line ratio. Mathematically I should use colons : but anyone with half a brain can understand it without. No mixers used have 2 decimal places for a single ratio. I am not going to start always ::: just to please a few.

[kitexpert]

The bridle isn't everything but if you knew kite design you'd know the way it is designed usually defines practically the whole structure of kite. There is two school of thoughts how to do it: 1) to have bridle on every rib and to not have any inner structures (like CA does it) or 2) to have fewer bridle lines and more inner structures.

First method has of course much more bridle drag but kite itself becomes simple and cheaper to produce, it has much less parts and design work. Kite can be made very light weight as well. However if kite has higher AR and more cells amount of bridle lines can and will get too big.

How harmful excessive bridle drag is to kite performance is a debatable question. Some don't care if kite has a bit lower L/D, for some it is a very bad thing.

Second method (which is used by practically all else) can decrease a lot of bridle lines and line drag. However kite becomes much more complex to design and produce. Only with great effort and high tech materials light weight can be achieved, like FS has shown with Soul. This method has practically no limits to AR and cell count, you can have over 100 cells without making bridle too messy or draggy.

The goal for every (foil) kite is to make it as rigid as possible. Diagonal inner structures, span wise strapping and LE stifferners are used methods for foil kites. This is of course against foilholio's view of kites working with flexing/tension (what ever that even means).

I've never made any "mockery kites" , copying kites is a bit too laborious hobby. However I've seen quite similar designs like mine have been produced lately. I made over ten years ago mid-AR foil kites which for example never front stalled or had folding wing tips or other silly issues. Structurally very similar to Hyperlink and Nova (about same AR, same cell count, advanced inner structure and low drag bridle).

So if I'm not so excited about all new kites it may be understandable. But I do appreciate a lot how well nowadays big manufacturers execute their kites, they are very well fine tuned and optimized products. One example is known snow kite Ozone Frenzy, originally quite bad kite and not even last ones were anything special for their structure or specs. But Ozone developed Frenzy constantly for over a decade and last versions of it were actually very good kites in its class.

This new mixer is a simple modification of old Malabar. And it is apparently a silly modification because it pulls less Z, when more preferably it should pull it same or even more. To use it in unfinished or poorly designed kite like Genesis doesn't mean much, almost any change makes it better. And of course Genesis can be made work acceptably with its original normal 1:2:4 mixer. I don't use Malabar or pulley bar because I don't have such kites which need or could benefit them (OK, I have but I'm not going to dig out old giants from the warehouse, no )

I always think how much of the bar movement any mixer will have movement in a kite, line row by line row. When we have different mixers with very different pulling ratios, like 2:1 and 1:2, and if you announce them both with same number 2 possibility for misunderstanding is evident. When you write 421 for Malabar you only give ratios of line rows to each other but you mess ratio to the bar movement - which is the essential thing, which moves the kite and changes AoA of it. For normal mixer usual way to write ratios "1:2:4" gives BOTH line row ratios to each other and ratios to bar movement.

I'm afraid you foilholio are just too unclear person to be able to deal with these kind of things. However advice, discussion and some potentionally usable weird inventions which may arise are not worthless. I also support very much all experiments in practice, not many have time or motivation for them. But many times I've wondered why I'm doing this, why it is my part to clarify and explain these things here (with few others, thanks to them).

[foilholio]

You are a confused person. You offer no evidence that this is not a new invention. You talk as if you are the top of top foil kite designers, but I doubt you have any foil kites of note to your name. Me I have never designed a foil kite but even I can see the holes in your understanding. I wouldn't be so surprised if even the tube kites you design aren't that good.

Oh and keep arguing on the semantics of how to write ratios. I am sure you are an Englishexpert and Mathexpert too. LOL. Pathetic.

[drsurf]

images.jpg (11.41 KiB) Viewed 697 times

[foilholio]

521mixer.

[Regis-de-giens]

Thanks for the schematics. Have you tested these 1:2:5 mixers ? There might be a relaunch degradation on some kite designs in light wind since you do not pull on Z directly (and a possible "transfer" of your pulling from the bar to the B instead of the Z= less AoA reverting for relaunch in light wind ). This is the same issue as Malabar, like for any mixer including a pulley on Z, unfortunalelly ( like i tried , without success, to convince you with the instabilities due to uncontrolled tensions transfers between bridles ).

We could also include and discuss here the very interesting mixer of the diablo (f-one), which provides a "partial" 1:2:6.


Interesting idea since :
- it is based on a standard 1:2:4 mixer on half "sheet out" bar stroke (i.e camber approx constant, normal bar throw and pressure 1:1 on Z)
- then when the turbo line engages : a 1:2:6 mixer on half "sheet-in " bar stroke (i.e camber increase when fully sheet in) and above all a doubled bar throw and bar pressure 2:1 on Z to double AoA and shorten turning radius (useful in short lines / race jibes hence on the diablo certainly )
- a partial direct drive of Z still "guarantee" the relaunch (even if you pull on prelines, reversed AoA remains like a 1:2:4, hence good relaunch)
- bar pressure increases only at the end of bar stroke, hence good for muscle fatigue or bar piloting with one hand on a hydrofoil (toe side). But then very hard during a turn , because upper slack rear line still has a low tension (turbo not engaged) so does not compensate for the rear line you pull (turbo engaged).

Overall you obtain a kite that behaves classically on part of the stroke, and playing with trim / untrim of the bar or seize preline when trimmed, you engage the turbo line at one defined bar stroke location, and thus impose a shorter turn radius or kite deeper in window in the last sheet-in stroke for example.

If i had time, and still need of a turbo bar (for reminder more agile, more depower on less stroke, but twice bar pressure), I would try the Malabar (similar as turbo bar but bar is standard hence cleaner) with this additional direct Z bridle to allow the relaunch. I am quite sure it is a very good improvement for relaunch and more "wind range " than the 1:2:3 mixer proposed initially in this post.

[S2000kitesurfer]

I completely lost track with all this tech talk .
Are we not wanting to get on the water at the best possible price.
Are we not just trying to change a well made but poor handling 0 feeling Genesis.
My poorly made video needs to be reposted to prove my point.
For the bumbling around people that require a easy to use/relaunchable kite that (drifts) with added depower.

Now Luchezar Jackov tells me this modification is even better on the A15

[kitexpert]

521mixer.

Ratios are correct in theory but this mixer looks very suspicious. To pull massively Z by using B as a fulcrum point may pull B down, making a fold there. B pulley line will very probably go slack and kite shape will be distorted in that area. This also means pulley ratios in practice will be who knows what, in clear words rubbish - only thing which surely stays is C which is pulled 1:1.

Don't you foilholio see the difference and reason why proper mixers pull line rows either directly or on a fixed fulcrum, on A, not on B? I'm afraid your "tension" view of kites just gave you a slap in the face.

Turbo bridle works on top of C, but there pulling it down isn't harmful but very probably a good thing, making effect of Z less aggressive. And this effect works only on the last part of the sheeting range.

And also you Regis mess around with pulley ratios If you write standard mixer ratios "1:2:4" (which is fully acceptable) you can't write "1:2:6" for turbo mixer 1:2:6 is a mixer which has 1:3 on top of 1:2 for B (so 1:6).

[foilholio]

I completely lost track with all this tech talk

Don't worry it's normal round here ignore/skim through. Ask questions directly if you want something.

Now Luchezar Jackov tells me this modification is even better on the A15

Yes it is perfect for the A15. I think kites will likely go to this design, BCZ moved back, with the new mixer.

Thanks for the schematics. Have you tested these 1:2:5 mixers ?

No but I might, I sense it will rebalance the forces between B and Z affecting relaunch. The higher ratio can allow more stability or camber which is good.

There might be a relaunch degradation on some kite designs in light wind since you do not pull on Z directly

It still pulls on C directly like the Jackomixer just not sure if B gets pulled too much by Z.

We could also include and discuss here the very interesting mixer of the diablo (f-one), which provides a "partial" 1:2:6.

We have done plenty discussing that...viewtopic.php?f=197&t=2390597

The turning and bar feel does not compare between the Jackomixer and Diablo line. Had you used the Jackomixer on the A15 you would have had ZERO complaints about turning speed or reactivity.

I would try the Malabar (similar as turbo bar but bar is standard hence cleaner) with this additional direct Z bridle to allow the relaunch. I am quite sure it is a very good improvement for relaunch and more "wind range " than the 1:2:3 mixer proposed initially in this post.

I don't think adding a diablo line will make a malabar relaunch. You could add a fifth line directly to the Z bridles to allow relaunch but I think it is too complicated. Maybe if the Z bridles where directly on the TE and it could also function as a safety but again most don't want the extra line.

To pull massively Z by using B as a fulcrum point may pull B down, making a fold there. B pulley line will very probably go slack and kite shape will be distorted in that area.

How exactly can B both be pulled down and also go "slack". You are implying 2 opposite things. I agree that B can be pulled but this will only occur at steep AoAs like for relaunch, then the possible bad effect will be when relaunching.

Don't you foilholio see the difference and reason why proper mixers pull line rows either directly or on a fixed fulcrum, on A, not on B? I'm afraid your your "tension" view of kites just gave you a slap in the face.

? Not exactly sure what you are saying but A is fixed because the kite could not depower or function right without it like that. We have been over this point before.... Tension is the correct view, you get their by changing lengths yes but tension is the principal at play. Fabric or lines do not have natural compressive strength.

Turbo bridle works on top of C, but there pulling it down isn't harmful but very probably a good thing, making effect of Z less aggressive. And this effect works only on the last part of the sheeting range.

It works fine on B too.

And also you Regis mess around with pulley ratios If you write standard mixer ratios "1:2:4" (which is fully acceptable) you can't write "1:2:6" for turbo mixer 1:2:6 is a mixer which has 1:3 on top of 1:2 for B (so 1:6).

Next you will be arguing over the meaning of words #Englishexpert. I mean seriously.

[kitexpert]

If you pull a lot of Z using B as a fulcrum point, original B pulley line may go slacking. The silly Malabar modification which pulled much less Z (under pulled it) has much less force on B, it may work in that rescpect. It is very difficult to say how much B gives in because tensions in line rows change as AoA changes but anyway B is not a solid point to anchor other end of the Z pulley system.

Original Malabar is sound and it supports kite correctly. Possible problems with relaunch I don't know and I don't care because normal mixer works flawlessly in proper foil kites.

My criticism for Regis is not at all semantic issue but purely critique for misusing mathematical or mechanical equation. 1:2:6 mixer is a 3 pulley system in which B is pulled 1:6, C 1:2 and Z 1:1 of the bar movement. I used it in the early days, for certain kites is (or was) very usable system. In Regis's post it obviously wasn't about it, perhaps he could clarify what he meant.