Select to expand quote
DWF said..
I have also felt foils that seem to almost go faster in the opposite direction, the harder I turn. I love this and cannot figure out what design factors cause this. I just know when I find it, it's the one for me, and I buy it. I have opinions on why, but opinions are not facts, so I'm not going to share.
I agree with DWF, that a hydroplane's turning (horizontal lift) response, after a roll increase, is a big deal, and a highly desirable characteristic for carve free-ride type riding. I would be happy to learn DWF's opinion/theory.
I can relate to boardsurfr's two proposals that, when all else is equal (eg. mast, fuselage, stabiliser foil, rider, conditions) that different foils will 1. "push back" turn with different lift response when subjected to an increase in horizontal (centrifugal) load force. And 2. The rider does something to increase the AoA of the water over the foil and the result is horizontal lift (turning) force.
But what I don't know, is when the rider does the exact same thing, creating the same inputs through his feet, with the same pre-turn front-to-rear weight distribution, then why do some front foils generate a very different turning forces?
The "push back" effect can only happen AFTER an increase in load. In Mark's aeroplane basic theory reminder, if the plane rolls and nothing else changes, then it dives. The aero/hydro plane "push back" reaction cannot happen until after a change in AoA or load.
Imagine two scenarios. One where the rider's centre of mass remains positioned vertically above the board, and he rolls his ankles left-right and feels the hydroplane's "desire" to carve turn-away, before he brings it back. The other, where the rider lets his body pre-fall to the inside of a turn, then uses his feet and rolls the foil over expecting it to turn back under his falling body to hold him up. Why do some foils do this much better than others?
Could it be that (A), the foil is briefly unloaded, by the rider's inputs (feet load), and when the foil load is reduced, then one foil design+flex wants to climb much quicker than another? Would a tendency to climb quickly when unloaded convert to increased AoA for when the load (weight) comes back on??
Or (B), something to do with one foil being able to recover lift more quickly, on the side which briefly rolled upwards and lost some AoA lift during the roll away from flat? Such as something to do with the control of flow of fluid off the tips of the foil during roll changes.
Or perhaps A and B are related and both in effect.