It’s only fun if you can back up your disagreements with logical arguments—otherwise, it’s just noise and beliefs.
My only objective is getting closer to the truth.
This weekend I was at the Boot in Dusseldorf.
I chatted with about ~10 foil designers and I’m always asking the same question about this design part.
Most brands using the U connection (Axis, Code) comes up with a similar explanation: the idea is to maximize contact surface to better transmit forces between the mast and the wing. It also allows to minimise the load on bolts, and their receiving end, the bolt insert.
Most brands using the flat connection design (Afs, Fone, Ensis, Indiana) answer the same thing: “it is a classic woodwork connection”.
None of them can explain why they think classic woodwork connections coming from wood furniture would transfer well to carbon and high load sports.
Some add arguments such as it’s simpler to produce, cheaper and it allows to get a thinner fuse.
It is not necessarily true.
Some brands are thinner, some are thicker.
Code is more chunky.
Axis is thinner.
AFS is thicker than Axis all the fuselage long.
Measuring between the wing and the mast we’re getting
- Axis 11 cm diameter and
- AFS 13 cm with the mast and 11.6 even without the mast
- Code 14.3 cm
The arguments such as “it does not create play overtime” also does not hold up under scrutiny.
Not only there is no reason why flat connections would not wear out overtime (especially in AFS which is fragile and you’re collecting carbon crumbs/grains wearing out everytime you unmount),
but in addition, due to the high load on bolts, flat connections are subject to bolts or inserts failures, making you lose your foil in the ocean.
This is regularly reported.
And loosing a $1500 plane in the ocean is much more annoying than having to put a layer of epoxy once a year to fix the potential wear of a U connection.
Again, I’m not affiliated to any brand.
I buy my foils full price, including the AFS and Axis.
I have no $$$ interest in defending a system or another.
But I’m annoyed to see the “flat” design promoted with so-called “arguments” (“it has more contact surface”, “it’s thinner”, “it doesn’t wear out”) that after scrutiny seem to mostly be beliefs.
That’s not the way to drive progress in the foil community.