OK I need someone to explain what SAB is thinking when it comes to their Tuttle head on their Kraken system. Why does it have a flange and/or shims?
i was told by very smart people in the Windsurfing/Wingfoiling/Windfoiling design and manufacturing industry that the Tuttle system is designed very well and is based on the load being transferred at the front & rear ends of the mast/fin once the mast/fin is seated in the box.
So how does a flange that could stop the mast from going all the way in, and hence seating properly, make sense? And if by some chance the flange is in the right spot how dose inserting a shim to adjust the mast angle but also move the mast out from the seated position make any sense?
Also when removing the mast I have always wiggled in back and forth a bit however with he flange i run the risk of damaging my board with the front or rear edge of the flange. Any suggestions.
SABs old masts worked great but some Kraken designer, who is way smarter than me, added the flange - Why?
Kind of has to be there due to the Kraken being a two piece design. Without the flange there would be very little thickness and strength to hold the mast.
The Kraken system was never designed to be user friendly, it was designed to make manufacturing and retailing easier. Only one type of mast of various length is required to be manufactured and stocked by retailers with adapters to allow for fitting to different board types.
Sabfoil is not the only manufacturer that puts a flange on their Tuttle box connection. Severne and Fanatic/Duotone to name two. The flange engages the whole base of the Tuttle box so should be as least as strong as a connector without a flange. In my experience, damage during removal is limited to paint scratches, as the Tuttle box consists of carbon fibre and or high density plastic and high density foam covered with multiple layers of carbon fibre and or fibreglass.
Select to expand quoteJohn340 said..
Sabfoil is not the only manufacturer that puts a flange on their Tuttle box connection. Severne and Fanatic/Duotone to name two. The flange engages the whole base of the Tuttle box so should be as least as strong as a connector without a flange. In my experience, damage during removal is limited to paint scratches, as the Tuttle box consists of carbon fibre and or high density plastic and high density foam covered with multiple layers of carbon fibre and or fibreglass.
Thanks for your thoughts John. I probably did not explain it very well.
According to the experts the Tuttle system is designed so the two angled ends seat into the box tightly the sides don't need to be tight and the load is all taken on these rounded ends. This is how they worked with fins well before foils. This elegant design allows for manufacturing intolerances or wear to be forgiven. The bottom of the board/box is not intended to take any of the load.
Also what are the odds that a flange is exactly at he right depth to allow for the ideal seating of the fin/mast and even if it is, this friction fit will change over time. And then SAB says you can install a shim between the board and the flange to change the angle of the mast; well that will definitely ensure that the ends of the Tuttle head will not seat.
I don't think any of these manufactures understand how a Tuttle system works, I did not until it was explained to me. It's simple the Tuttle system provides the best connection when the ends are firmly seated anything not allowing this to happen is a compromise. The flange is actually designed to stop the the Tuttle head from going in any further - why?
My test is usually what are the best in the world doing. I don't know of a PWA racer using anything but a Tuttle and none of have a flange.
Oh, SAB/Slingshots early masts had a huge pointy flange and I put a crease in the bottom or my board removing the foil. So I have personal experience that a flange can damage a board.
I've had the Mini Tuttle base installed on all my boards since the Kraken system came out years ago.
I've used it in all kinds of conditions, including jumps, and I've never had a single problem.
The system is designed so you don't have to remove the deck, but it's very easy to do if necessary, and it hasn't damaged any of my boards.
Select to expand quoteHess said..John340 said..
Sabfoil is not the only manufacturer that puts a flange on their Tuttle box connection. Severne and Fanatic/Duotone to name two. The flange engages the whole base of the Tuttle box so should be as least as strong as a connector without a flange. In my experience, damage during removal is limited to paint scratches, as the Tuttle box consists of carbon fibre and or high density plastic and high density foam covered with multiple layers of carbon fibre and or fibreglass.
Thanks for your thoughts John. I probably did not explain it very well.
According to the experts the Tuttle system is designed so the two angled ends seat into the box tightly the sides don't need to be tight and the load is all taken on these rounded ends. This is how they worked with fins well before foils. This elegant design allows for manufacturing intolerances or wear to be forgiven. The bottom of the board/box is not intended to take any of the load.
Also what are the odds that a flange is exactly at he right depth to allow for the ideal seating of the fin/mast and even if it is, this friction fit will change over time. And then SAB says you can install a shim between the board and the flange to change the angle of the mast; well that will definitely ensure that the ends of the Tuttle head will not seat.
I don't think any of these manufactures understand how a Tuttle system works, I did not until it was explained to me. It's simple the Tuttle system provides the best connection when the ends are firmly seated anything not allowing this to happen is a compromise. The flange is actually designed to stop the the Tuttle head from going in any further - why?
My test is usually what are the best in the world doing. I don't know of a PWA racer using anything but a Tuttle and none of have a flange.
Oh, SAB/Slingshots early masts had a huge pointy flange and I put a crease in the bottom or my board removing the foil. So I have personal experience that a flange can damage a board.
All good points Adrian. I can only relate to my experience with Severne and Fanatic foils on my Severne Alien. Also my friend Jason used the Sabfoil Kraken Tuttle adaptor on his Starboard Foil-X. In all cases the flange of the Tuttle adaptor (Severne, Fanatic and Sabfoil) engaged the bottom of the board. You are correct that the insert doesn't engage the ends of the Tuttle box. It doesn't seem to matter. The connection of the foil to the board is still solid.
PWA race foils do not have flanges. Racers shim the insert to tune the angle of the mast. It's not a simple adjustment and requires a digital level and expertise to get right.
For freeride foiling, I think the suppliers simplify the process by adding the flange so you set and forget the mast angle. It's interesting that Sabfoil provide shims for the flange. Eugenious' comment about not removing the Kraken base between sessions is valid. Fitting the mast only requires fitting one bolt.
I upgraded for my freeride foiling also the tuttebox board with a tuttle kraken system. With the kraken bolt it is mutch easyer to release the mast from the board and leave the adaptor on the board compared to release or mount a tuttle head mast from the board. This combination tuttle box and the kraken mast is rock Solid, my mate Gertjan jumps a lot with the kraken foil and no problem
Tuttle box was designed for large fin. The only reason it is used for foiling is that in the early days of windfoil, we used what board we had that were thought as being the most fit for foiling, mainly formula or slalom with some adjustment.
Ever since no foil designer ever succesfully produced a foil that would require a specific box even if more suited. There were some powerbox foil that are even worse than tuttle.
But foilboard tuttle box are specifics : bottom reinforced to manage the load, because indeed nowadays foils are designed to sit at the bottom of the box, the forward and back side of the box definitly and intendedly not in contact obviously, rake shims prevent this. And every top rider do use rake shim.
The story for dual track is the same : at some point someone wanted to experiment foil with other board, and made a prototype with what was on the shelf : us track. Just fit two of them, and now we are stuck with this stupid 4 screws design, witch makes no practicle or mecanical sence.
I really doubt any brand will ever have enougth impact to design and impose a better foil head, it would be to risky to produce some gear not compatible with what is available with such a niche market.
But at least there is some commonality along how to fit a foil on a board.
Kraken is somehow not optimal (lot of weight were you wouldn't want any) but at least it does make it easy if you leave the head on the board.
May be a board manufacturer will one day include the Kraken head directly in the board, and SAB mast top become the standart head. I doubt that.
Tuttle foils without flanges need to engage the top of the box, none of the manufacturers recommend against this only a few people on the Internet who don't manufacture anything.
With a flange you're engaging the entire vertical component of the box which I consider much stronger. I once ran a completely standard Starboard shallow tuttle for several hundred hours of foiling why using a flanged foil and I'm not light.
The whole Kraken system is designed for ease, you can remove the foil mast with 1 screw and leave the base attached. But!!!!! in the case of the tuttle system the bit you leave in the board is aluminium.......corrosion nightmare!!!!! They do the twin track base in forged carbon, why not the tuttle version ????
Select to expand quotemr love said..
They do the twin track base in forged carbon, why not the tuttle version ????
Or more simply a box system that you can include in your DIY foilboard.
I agree that a forged carbon tuttle head would be nice. The aluminum should be fine if you use some sort of marine grease. Plus doesn't it have a zinc anode like the other components?
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
Select to expand quoteHess said..
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
The manufacturing process is too hard and expensive for a carbon Tuttle head. You then need a range of mast lengths to suit everyone, Sabfoil needs to manufacture and distribute these masts all over the world, and they are only used for windfoil, a tiny section of the foiling community.
Using a modular mast only one mast section of different lengths needs to be manufactured and distributed for all foiling sports. Manufacture and distribution is streamlined and costs to to both Sabfoil and the retailer kept to a minimum.
Sabfoil/Moses used to have a huge range of masts to suit different foiling sports, now they have one simplified product though maybe with a few user drawbacks.
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..Hess said..
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
The manufacturing process is too hard and expensive for a carbon Tuttle head. You then need a range of mast lengths to suit everyone, Sabfoil needs to manufacture and distribute these masts all over the world, and they are only used for windfoil, a tiny section of the foiling community.
Using a modular mast only one mast section of different lengths needs to be manufactured and distributed for all foiling sports. Manufacture and distribution is streamlined and costs to to both Sabfoil and the retailer kept to a minimum.
Sabfoil/Moses used to have a huge range of masts to suit different foiling sports, now they have one simplified product though maybe with a few user drawbacks.
OK I can get behind reducing costs by having different mast head options for the same mast. Question is still why put a flange on a Tuttle head.
Select to expand quoteGrantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram 
Select to expand quoteHess said..airsail said..Hess said..
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
The manufacturing process is too hard and expensive for a carbon Tuttle head. You then need a range of mast lengths to suit everyone, Sabfoil needs to manufacture and distribute these masts all over the world, and they are only used for windfoil, a tiny section of the foiling community.
Using a modular mast only one mast section of different lengths needs to be manufactured and distributed for all foiling sports. Manufacture and distribution is streamlined and costs to to both Sabfoil and the retailer kept to a minimum.
Sabfoil/Moses used to have a huge range of masts to suit different foiling sports, now they have one simplified product though maybe with a few user drawbacks.
OK I can get behind reducing costs by having different mast head options for the same mast. Question is still why put a flange on a Tuttle head.
Because they need the extra material for strength in guessing, without the flange adding extra material it just wouldn't be strong enough.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..Hess said..airsail said..Hess said..
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
The manufacturing process is too hard and expensive for a carbon Tuttle head. You then need a range of mast lengths to suit everyone, Sabfoil needs to manufacture and distribute these masts all over the world, and they are only used for windfoil, a tiny section of the foiling community.
Using a modular mast only one mast section of different lengths needs to be manufactured and distributed for all foiling sports. Manufacture and distribution is streamlined and costs to to both Sabfoil and the retailer kept to a minimum.
Sabfoil/Moses used to have a huge range of masts to suit different foiling sports, now they have one simplified product though maybe with a few user drawbacks.
OK I can get behind reducing costs by having different mast head options for the same mast. Question is still why put a flange on a Tuttle head.
Because they need the extra material for strength in guessing, without the flange adding extra material it just wouldn't be strong enough.
If they need strength I am sure they could design a tuttle head without a flange. Especially given it is a design that does not allow the tuttle system to work properly
Select to expand quoteHess said..airsail said..Hess said..airsail said..Hess said..
Ok Guys I will try one more time as I suck at explaining why a flange on a Tuttle mast makes no sense. A ****ty diagram may help.
First I am not trying to say a flange cannot work, as many have one and seem to be doing fine. It is just not optimal and therefore likely has more play in the mast to board connection that it should. I argue a Tuttle head without a flange can take more load, without moving, than one with a flange.
Secondly very smart people in the foil design industry explained to me that the Tuttle system is designed to take all the load at the ends of the Tuttle head, not the sides, so the ends must seat for this to happen. In fact if your Tuttle head is a very tight fit its ok to shave/sand the sides until it fits easier into the box; as its the ends are what will bind/seat to ensure a tight fit - well unless there is something stopping head ends from touching the ends of the box, LIKE A FLANGE
So my point is why have a flange. The flange will just stop the Tuttle head from being inserted until the ends seat. And shims will just stop it sooner. Also being a friction fit, the surfaces will likely wear and the head will need to be inserted further over time, a flange would not allow this to happen. IMHO a flange on a Tuttle mast does not allow the Tuttle system to work as designed; while not adding anything but weight.
With a Tuttle system the mast angle is fixed. The box ends and the head ends only fit at one angle. Flange does add value in this regard.
The Kraken system is easy to use but so is the 2 bolts on a tuttle box. It only takes me a minute or two longer than my friends with the Kraken. And the number of parts in the head is crazy. Just give my the old one piece carbon mast with tuttle head like the PWA folks and I would be happy.
The manufacturing process is too hard and expensive for a carbon Tuttle head. You then need a range of mast lengths to suit everyone, Sabfoil needs to manufacture and distribute these masts all over the world, and they are only used for windfoil, a tiny section of the foiling community.
Using a modular mast only one mast section of different lengths needs to be manufactured and distributed for all foiling sports. Manufacture and distribution is streamlined and costs to to both Sabfoil and the retailer kept to a minimum.
Sabfoil/Moses used to have a huge range of masts to suit different foiling sports, now they have one simplified product though maybe with a few user drawbacks.
OK I can get behind reducing costs by having different mast head options for the same mast. Question is still why put a flange on a Tuttle head.
Because they need the extra material for strength in guessing, without the flange adding extra material it just wouldn't be strong enough.
If they need strength I am sure they could design a tuttle head without a flange. Especially given it is a design that does not allow the tuttle system to work properly
Well, most (all except for F4?) of the racing foils are being shimmed at the Tuttle head so those foils are not using the tapers as designed.
Select to expand quoteHess said..Grantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram
Tuttle box wasn't designed for foiling. The box itself might be lighter than a twin track, but in the end it is heavier. The reason is that the tuttle needs extra strings to attach to the top of the board. Putting a tuttle on a scale compare to a twin it is lighter, especially with screws. The added material in the board it isn't. Tuttle and tracks are not ideal. The new concept presented at the AWSI from Radix with AppleTree is the solution. Some modifications are needed. It is an adjustable tapered system.
Select to expand quoteZeroVix said..Hess said..Grantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram
Tuttle box wasn't designed for foiling. The box itself might be lighter than a twin track, but in the end it is heavier. The reason is that the tuttle needs extra strings to attach to the top of the board. Putting a tuttle on a scale compare to a twin it is lighter, especially with screws. The added material in the board it isn't. Tuttle and tracks are not ideal. The new concept presented at the AWSI from Radix with AppleTree is the solution. Some modifications are needed. It is an adjustable tapered system.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..ZeroVix said..Hess said..Grantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram
Tuttle box wasn't designed for foiling. The box itself might be lighter than a twin track, but in the end it is heavier. The reason is that the tuttle needs extra strings to attach to the top of the board. Putting a tuttle on a scale compare to a twin it is lighter, especially with screws. The added material in the board it isn't. Tuttle and tracks are not ideal. The new concept presented at the AWSI from Radix with AppleTree is the solution. Some modifications are needed. It is an adjustable tapered system.
this? Hell no.
I can understand how a twin track can be built in correctly, and cope with the loads a foil places on the board quite well. What this is, is a single track, with a severe lack of material (foil mast material) inserted into the board to cope with the drastic amount of leverage a foil places on a board.
I somewhat agree with what you said, Tuttle wasn't designed with foiling in mind. but with the re enforcing built around a foil box, it is strong enough to cope. Really not sure where the thinking has gone astray with the Appletree design. There is a reason why US box fins are limited in sizing available. I'm sure there's more re enforcing in the board than the average US box, but they've ignored some rather basic principles of why foil mounting is done the way it currently is.
Respectfully, experts in box design would disagree with you. Mike from Mike Labs talked about it in detail. US box for strength and weight are not good. Mike Labs doesn't even make a track mast. They will make an adapter for those that are confused. The real advantage is in the mast design. Stronger layup, resign containment and cost. A tuttle mast outperforms a mast designed for track. Too heavy and not strong compared to tuttle mast. Is the Radix the end product? No. It is a prototype. But it follows the concept of an adjustable tuttle type mast that Mike has talked about.
My favorite soapbox (here we go again...). The Tuttle box is perfect for foiling since it is universal. All you need is for the front and back rounded tapers to be completely seated. You don't need inside roof contact. I have been using SAB tuttle tops (pre-Kraken) with Mike's Lab and Roberts and Fanatic and Exocet boards for 8 years without a problem. Not one single failure. Since there is no inside roof contact I know that the front and back rounded tapers are completely seated. This successfully bears the front and back rocking loads on the box.
Some manufacturers added flanges when they were not confident in tight contact of the front and back rounded tapers. LP and Slingshot Hover Glide come to mind.
The new appletree systems looks awesome. The flat base on the pedestal is a waste to material and design resources. The tuttle is a pain to fit, install, and remove. This new system should be lighter, stronger, adjustable, and easier to use.
Why wouldn't it be strong enough? It is the first system specifically designed for foiling in an era where foil loads are the highest they have even been.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..ZeroVix said..Hess said..Grantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram
Tuttle box wasn't designed for foiling. The box itself might be lighter than a twin track, but in the end it is heavier. The reason is that the tuttle needs extra strings to attach to the top of the board. Putting a tuttle on a scale compare to a twin it is lighter, especially with screws. The added material in the board it isn't. Tuttle and tracks are not ideal. The new concept presented at the AWSI from Radix with AppleTree is the solution. Some modifications are needed. It is an adjustable tapered system.
this? Hell no.
I can understand how a twin track can be built in correctly, and cope with the loads a foil places on the board quite well. What this is, is a single track, with a severe lack of material (foil mast material) inserted into the board to cope with the drastic amount of leverage a foil places on a board.
I somewhat agree with what you said, Tuttle wasn't designed with foiling in mind. but with the re enforcing built around a foil box, it is strong enough to cope. Really not sure where the thinking has gone astray with the Appletree design. There is a reason why US box fins are limited in sizing available. I'm sure there's more re enforcing in the board than the average US box, but they've ignored some rather basic principles of why foil mounting is done the way it currently is.
+1 As we say over here, ah hell'nah.
It may be fine for kite and wing but hang a full size PWA or IQ sailer off that and something is eventually going to go to pieces. Absolutely agree that this is just Euro box v 2.0 and why every longboard in the last 30 yrs used something else.
For the thousandth time, no board maker uses a bog standard tuttle box. The foil box with the flat top (yes, the top matters), is a different animal. The dimensions are "the same" but construction, a amount of pvc, tie in to board bottom and top is like comparing a DC-3 to a modern twin passenger jet. The basic parameters are the same but technology and construction are not.
Not taking anything away from how well this might solve problems in winging or kiting. As always, much respect to those working on solutions.
This has a bit more connection surface than the Kraken top so I can see it working fine. Actually I bet a Kraken mast would adapt pretty easily to it if there was room for an adapter.
Not that I'm likely to adopt anything new until I know it works.
Select to expand quoteZeroVix said..Subsonic said..ZeroVix said..Hess said..Grantmac said..
Fitting on the tapers made sense for the initial use with large fins, makes no sense for foiling but it's the system we're dealing with. A better one would be conical on all surfaces like some kite foils.
All reputable foil manufacturers use shims to prevent the tapers from taking too much load. Many also include flanges.
For the low load freeriding you do it really doesn't matter. Start loading up a 91cm wide board and 9m sail then things matter.
I believe one wingfoil manufacturer is talking about an adjustable tuttle, which likely has zero taper engagement at all. Much like how I ran my shallow tuttle for years.
For me the Tuttle system is perfect for foiling, simple, strong, stream lined, easy to install, light (including the box as my board shaper says it saves over a lb from twin track). I have had industry experts say its every well designed and deals with mast head intolerances very well. PWA and Wing pro races even wave riders love it. Only draw back is adjustability which is important to many, not me. Regardless I sttill believe putting a flange on a tuttle mast makes no sense.
Did you like my diagram
Tuttle box wasn't designed for foiling. The box itself might be lighter than a twin track, but in the end it is heavier. The reason is that the tuttle needs extra strings to attach to the top of the board. Putting a tuttle on a scale compare to a twin it is lighter, especially with screws. The added material in the board it isn't. Tuttle and tracks are not ideal. The new concept presented at the AWSI from Radix with AppleTree is the solution. Some modifications are needed. It is an adjustable tapered system.
this? Hell no.
I can understand how a twin track can be built in correctly, and cope with the loads a foil places on the board quite well. What this is, is a single track, with a severe lack of material (foil mast material) inserted into the board to cope with the drastic amount of leverage a foil places on a board.
I somewhat agree with what you said, Tuttle wasn't designed with foiling in mind. but with the re enforcing built around a foil box, it is strong enough to cope. Really not sure where the thinking has gone astray with the Appletree design. There is a reason why US box fins are limited in sizing available. I'm sure there's more re enforcing in the board than the average US box, but they've ignored some rather basic principles of why foil mounting is done the way it currently is.
Respectfully, experts in box design would disagree with you. Mike from Mike Labs talked about it in detail. US box for strength and weight are not good. Mike Labs doesn't even make a track mast. They will make an adapter for those that are confused. The real advantage is in the mast design. Stronger layup, resign containment and cost. A tuttle mast outperforms a mast designed for track. Too heavy and not strong compared to tuttle mast. Is the Radix the end product? No. It is a prototype. But it follows the concept of an adjustable tuttle type mast that Mike has talked about.
Their design has nothing in common with Tuttle, it doesn't function anything like a tuttle box does. The issues are not with the mast. Its the stress that the small section of mast in the board places on the board and insert that causes issues.
Yeah ! Finally something. Now all we need is that some high end foil manufacture some for ether IQ foil or top slalom racers. Marketing will do the rest.
