GWTW Forum
October 25, 2014, 08:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Forum Info Login Register Chat  
Welcome to the GWTW Forum.
Guests (non-registered users) can view the forum but are unable to post.  If you don't have anything to say then why would you bother to register?
One of the most popular sections of the GWTW Forum has long been the Swap Meet.  A great place to sell old, seldom flown kites or to get great deals on used (gently flown) kites.  Only registered users can see the Swap Meet section, let alone wheel and deal.  1000's (literally) of kites have changed hands thanks to the Swap Meet.
There are several more benefits to being a registered user, but you'll have to join our little community to find out all the "secrets".
Questions or concerns? Contact Steve ... just drop an email to: forum.gwtwkites@gmail.com

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eliminate standoff connectors?  (Read 1767 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chilese
Global Moderator
Trade Count: (+5)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3074


Location: Las Vegas, NV

WWW
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:12 PM »

If you drill a small hole in the lower spreader to accept the standoff, could we eliminate the standoff connector? Yes, I know there would be a stress riser effect at the hole. Has anyone tried this?
Logged

John Chilese: Las Vegas, NV
http://picasaweb.google.com/chilesej
whitebirdlover
Trade Count: (+19)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 484


Location: Mpls, Mn. / Riverfalls, Wi.

WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2013, 01:29 PM »

Seems like the hard contact of the spreader to standoff would create an extreme stress/shear point on the standoff. Secondly, the drill point may be difficult to calculate. No room for trial and error.  Wink
Logged

Anthony
dragonfly
Trade Count: (+6)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


Location: 52N 737'W (Ireland)

WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2013, 01:40 PM »

Nice thinking ... less is more. A bit like the trend of tied centre-Ts.

Should be worth a try.
Logged

:: a carbon framed out-of-body experience ::
indigo_wolf
Trade Count: (+10)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1199


Location: North of Washington, DC (USA)

« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2013, 02:13 PM »

Who would be responsible for drilling of the standoff holes in the spreader?  The kite manufacturer or rod supplier?  If the latter, I suspect that Jon T would visit your house with a large vat of pasta and repeatedly flog you with wet noodles.  Huh

The wind related adjustments to stand-off positions would become a thing of the past.

In addition the stress on the spreader, less than perfect alignment of holes in multi-stand-off kite would add stress to the actual stand-offs.

User replacement of spreaders from naked rods would become more difficult.

ATB,
Sam
Logged
chilese
Global Moderator
Trade Count: (+5)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3074


Location: Las Vegas, NV

WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2013, 02:37 PM »

Genius. Negative space.
Logged

John Chilese: Las Vegas, NV
http://picasaweb.google.com/chilesej
harveystubbs
Trade Count: (+10)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


Location:

« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2013, 03:02 PM »

I think both this idea and the idea of tied centre t's are highly questionable. The weight saving is negligable, they are both at crucial stress points, points where rigidity is key and they don't allow for any modifying or changes. The tied centre T is the only part of the TNT design which I don't like. What's more there are lighter weight standoff fittings available.

There is stress on the middle of the Lower Spreader when the kite is rolled up or when performing lazies.

Sorry I don't mean to sound harsh ! Cool
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 05:28 PM by harveystubbs » Logged
HiFly
Trade Count: (0)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


Location: Germany

WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2013, 04:53 PM »

windfire's backbow
Logged

Mike
harveystubbs
Trade Count: (+10)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


Location:

« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2013, 05:01 PM »

windfire's backbow



Brilliant design. How does it fly? Cool
Logged
Ca Ike
Trade Count: (+24)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705


Location: Stockton, CA

« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2013, 05:15 PM »

The kite I fly most of the time has no stand-offs.
It relies on the flex of the framing to give the sail shape.
There must be a more elegant way to induce sail shape than using stand-offs.
Look at the Synergy Deca: it has a 3 dimensional shape and no stand-offs.
Oh well, it's a problem for loftier minds than mine, I'm going to fly a kite.
Can't compare the Deca since it uses lines instead of standoffs.

If you drill a small hole in the lower spreader to accept the standoff, could we eliminate the standoff connector? Yes, I know there would be a stress riser effect at the hole. Has anyone tried this?

Drilling would not create stress on the standoff but a weak point in the spreader and a 90% chance of failure on assembly.  Not to mention the tuning cost nightmare it would create for a builder.

windfire's backbow

NIce design but it still has a single standoff at the center T


I came up with an idea I'm trying out on one of my own designs that should eliminate the traditional stand off and leech line if it works.  Kind of a modified batten idea.
Logged
thief
Board Moderator
Trade Count: (+25)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648


Location: North Shore of Massa-WHO-setts

WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2013, 05:27 PM »

Decas:  there are different types of systems on the decas but the main design is around 'tensegrity'.....there was a couple of threads on the kitebuilder forum where people attempted to come up with a new tensegrity based design....

Another issue I would foresee is that the depth a standoff could go into a rod is not very much......that could be popped out with a wind gust.....
Logged

Kites kayaks & corgis again!!!
Allen Carter
Board Moderator
Trade Count: (+19)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1828

Location: Half Moon Bay, CA

« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2013, 05:39 PM »

Of all the things that totally aint broke!

Spreader/Standoff connectors are one of the simple things that just work in the kite frame. If there are snagging problems, well take a look at all the crazy stuff we tried on LEs ten years ago. The french guys were using pieces of plastic cut from a soda bottle ferchrissakes.  Cheesy
Logged

Allen, AKA kitehead
Hadge
Trade Count: (0)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


Location: Lincolnshire, UK

« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2013, 03:11 AM »

Of all the things that totally aint broke!

Spreader/Standoff connectors are one of the simple things that just work in the kite frame. If there are snagging problems, well take a look at all the crazy stuff we tried on LEs ten years ago. The french guys were using pieces of plastic cut from a soda bottle ferchrissakes.  Cheesy


+1

I have to agree with Allen here as I can see what we are trying to achieve.  The standard system works well enough.  If you are trying to save weight, then the gain would be minimal and you would probably have to use a stronger/heavier spar to reduce the almost certain failure that drilling would cause, so no advantage.

If you are trying to reduce snags, well I can't remember snagging on standard type fittings - the only time standoff snags were a problem was when I tried a different type of standoff fitting that clips onto the spar - they were awful! 



and these



Keep things simple, stick to what works. Smiley
Logged

Age and cunning will always overcome youth and skill!

In the bag - HQ Shadow, Prism 4D, Flying Wings Soul Mid Vent, HQ Jive (1), Spiderkites Zodarion, 'Paw' modded HQ Maestro ll, HQ Delta Hawk.
vigli
Trade Count: (0)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 311

Location:

« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2013, 10:29 AM »

Cut a hole in the spar and You will destoy it a lot of its strenght. You will cut carbon fiber which hold spar for leght stiffnes-it will be much weaker. Also very very possible that rod will split by force if kite touch ground little harder..
Healthy spar is spar whithout holes. If You made hole You need to wrap up and down some carbon roving or aramid (Kevlar) to prevent spliting or crack.
No need for that holes but good idea.
On radiocontrol hand launch glider with hole on the fuselage on the tail part for commands- week tail conus must be secure with carbon or aramid wrap- up and down next to hole!!!
Without it it tend to split and crack!!!
boris
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 10:32 AM by vigli » Logged
John Welden
Trade Count: (0)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


Location: Seattle, WA

« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2013, 06:39 AM »

That's a neat idea John. If you somehow reinforced the area by glueing in a little tube or something, it could be the lightest way to go for a SUL. Maybe it would weaken the area too much...

I could easily make a jig to drill the tubes perfect.

Logged
boomertype
Trade Count: (+26)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


Location: Seattle area

« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2013, 07:34 AM »

I've never felt the need to fully assemble a kite. I frequently leave both the lower spreaders and the standoffs in the bag. It opens up a whole new world of control.
 Wink Cheesy Grin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


items purchased through the links below help support the forum

Cal Custom

Our forum is made possible by the good folks whose ads appear below and by the members of our community (PayPal donation button at bottom)
In case you missed it each ad is linked to the sponsors web site.  So please, take a moment and visit our sponsors sites as this forum wouldn't be possible with out them.
Interested in running an ad for your business or kiting event?  Contact Steve at advertise.gwtwkites@gmail.com for a quote.

kmacFab
kmacFab

Kite Classifieds Ad
Kite Classifieds

A Wind Of Change
A Wind Of Change

Kitebookie
Kitebookie.com

Untitled Document

Untitled Document
Untitled Document

A Wind Of Change
skyshark

Untitled Document
Untitled Document


Untitled Document
DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB

Support the GWTW Forum

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.2.1 © 2008-2009
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!