Fractured Axel

What is the difference between an "Old School" kite and a "New School" kite?

This thread will prove as confusing as any on the subject

Andy S wrote:

This thread will prove as confusing as any on the subject

You are right..

It does seem that pitch tricks are part of the new school as one of the modifications that are on newer kites are devices to assist in performing pitch tricks. But that is a lame observation because someone will say "What about YO-YO lines". (If you what those are!)

Old vs New seems very black and white implying that there was at some point a flash of lightening and a seismic switch occurred. Not so in my opinion.. things have evolved gradually bit by bit, although there was an evolution burst of speed around 5 or 6 years ago which seems to have tailed off.

Perhaps the line was drawn when people started adding weights and yoyo stoppers.

mobius wrote:

Old vs New seems very black and white implying that there was at some point a flash of lightening and a seismic switch occurred. Not so in my opinion.. things have evolved gradually bit by bit, although there was an evolution burst of speed around 5 or 6 years ago which seems to have tailed off.

Perhaps the line was drawn when people started adding weights and yoyo stoppers.

Very correct. Enter the Gemini, VERY old school but capable of handling New School tricks.

The Gem was the kite that showed the art of the possible, something the Stranger Level 7 did back in 1998 but without any pretense of fielding "Old School" flying in its repertoire.

The Gem ushered in a whole new era of trick flying which spawned tweaks a plenty to help make the new tricks possible (weights, stops etc). What eventually transpired were deep sailed high aspect ratio kites with 3 point bridles (largely) weighted tails and standard fit yoyo stops/roll bars.

This current evolutionary cycle seems to have completed with "ultimate refinements" such as the Cosmic TC (or enter your own favored trick machine here). But, be in no doubt someone will be out to develop something new!

Incidentally will New School become the New Old School then?

Miles F wrote:

Incidentally will New School become the New Old School then?

Well, people no longer talk about "New Labour".
And when decimal coinage came in, us school kids were told that refering to "pennies" or "pence" was very wrong. They were "new pence" or "new P" for short. And somewhere in the intervening years, the new got dropped both from the teaching and from the inscriptions on the coins.
But there is still "Newcastle", "Newtown", "Newport", "New College Oxford" etc.. So perhaps the rule to naming something that is newer than an old thing that is still labeled "new", is to simply call it a name that doesn't refer to relative age.

mobius wrote:

Old vs New seems very black and white implying that there was at some point a flash of lightening and a seismic switch occurred. Not so in my opinion.. things have evolved gradually bit by bit, although there was an evolution burst of speed around 5 or 6 years ago which seems to have tailed off.

Perhaps the line was drawn when people started adding weights and yoyo stoppers.

I think that weighting a kite became acceptable at some point. Through my own (many) experiments with weighting, a lot of change can be acheived with an incredibly small amount and in the most shockingly inconceiveable ways!

For me, it makes weighting an integral part of the prototyping process; just another one of many variables that requires testing, evaluation and exploration.

Damn you, original weighter!

Mark

damp_weather wrote:

Well, people no longer talk about "New Labour".

You mean there are still some people who don't call it zaNU-Labour?