gday does anyone have the time to give me a simpleton version for foil aspects ie high aspect foil cheers
Great pic Hilly , low aspect on left with more low speed lift but slower top end speed . The higher aspect on the right might not have same initial lift but will carry more speed without blow out or breaching , they are also more efficient to pump. So overall once you have the speed it's easier to maintain it with a higher aspect wing.
No fizz on the go foil hilly but I do like the feel of those axis 900 wings! So good for pumping and damm fast!
Looking forward you your review Hilly.
Now back to the OP, I have read lots of good things on this thread about high aspect wings but surely there must be some trade-offs / compromises.
I have heard they don't turn as good as low aspect ?
Hi Hilly. Is it just the picture or is the new high aspect Axis 900 wing mounted on a shortened fuse?
There is actually quite a bit to AR and the Characteristics they hold. Some good insight above. Here's my findings.
During testing of the NEW Naish wings about to the hit the market any second, I had the chance to compare 3 x equal PSA (projected Surface Area) wings all with considerably different AR (Aspect Ratio). My findings were very interesting.
AR 4.1 - Super stable and a very easy lift. GPS bottom end speed for easy foiling approx. 12km/h +/-. Max speeds 25-27km/h +/-
AR 5.1 - Still quite stable, a little more lively. GPS bottom end not massively changed - approx. 12km/h. Max speeds 27-29km/h +/-.
AR 6.1 - Crazy lively. Very reactive to the point I got served quite a few times trying to push it. GPS bottom ends was amazing easily 11km/h or less. Top Speeds in the 31-32km/h.
I found that the higher AR wings had either the same or increased bottom end as well as adding increased top end. However the HA wings are increasingly harder to use. Significant enough that we went with the AR 4.1 for the production model. I always point out to riders when their feet are not centre, and this is why. I found even on the tiny offset that I might have (I am generally very centre), it would result in losing control as soon as things load up. The HA wings are so sensitive to any pressure that they react immediately and powerfully. Whilst this is great for the advanced rider wishing to push the limits, it is a learning curve and way more exact science.
Having the choice now is great, and I often go between wings to learn more. Basically my 1800 HA (different wing then above) is more powerful, faster and better bottom end than my 2000. But I have not had my ass kicked like this in ages.
There is so much that goes into wings, and they're all very different in so many ways. But to be really blunt with the concept,
Low Aspect = stable, easy to control, smooth lineal accelleration.
High Aspect = Fast, super responsive, aggressive accelleration.
I do believe HA wings will be a big part of foiling as our skills continue to improve. But there is a great simplicity in easy and comfortable also.
Ride safe,
JB
Its going to be really interesting to hear the ride reports once these high aspect wings hit the general public. You can't watch Derek Hama do his thing and say they don't work, but I have to wonder how many mortals will be able to make the jump. I can't help but wonder if this time next year we'll be hearing about the next generation of mid-aspect foils...
Tow-ins/High Aspect wings/Shimming, it's all discussed here...
Listen to Foiling Series Ep. 4 - James Casey Round 2 by The Progression Project on #SoundCloud soundcloud.com/progressionproject/foiling-series-ep-5-james-casey-round-2
The Aspect Ratio of a wing is defined to be the square of the span divided by the wing area and is given the symbol AR.
But should the projected area be used for that?
For instance for the Axis S102:
With projected surface: 102^2/2013= 5,168
In the foil database: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17xbTGEWSVeRhnYb_4vz_Gmby8UnrDys7Q1iB-6rC6F4/edit?usp=sharing
Some of the entries for AR are calculated with the right formula, with projected or 'normal' surface and some of then are just the number.
But some of these numbers are not right imo.
For instance Axis: