The v2.1.0 release updates the build book with new views of the Cleat Bead showing the flag line guide path and set screw bore hole. It also updates the links to the Separation Block and Cleat Bead printable parts to their latest releases and fixes typos, grammar, and terminology inconsistencies throughout the build instructions. The new book can be found at BuggyBar v2.1.0.

The previous cleat bead didn’t have much reinforcement around the set screw. Some of the beads were cracking along the print layers. This new design might be strong enough to fix that. More testing is required to know if it’s enough.

The revised separation block was not documented properly in version 2.0 of the build book, but we fix that here. The previous model included my name up one edge, but that didn’t print well, so I just removed it.

As with the v2.0 build book, this version uses the KQR and a brummel-spliced loop in the trim line instead of a doubled trimline.

It’s been 5 years since my last release, but the Buggy bar has continued to evolve the entire time. The new design looks very similar but its changed enough that many components are not compatible with version 1.1.0, so the new bar is called BuggyBar v2.

The new design is still a 4.5 line bar with a clam cleat. The trimmable portion of the trim line now has a core to improve its grip in the Aerocleat. With the core installed, the cleat has a solid bite and it has never slipped.

The cleat bead now has a set screw to lock it to the trim and cleat. This keeps the flier from pulling it off the cleat. The wall of the bead is a little thin so the V2 design references a new 3-D model with a thicker wall at the set screw.

The big change in the Buggy Bar is the move from a chicken loop to a KQR. The KQR is a well-engineered, short, quick-release with an integrated swivel and leash. The complex part of the KQR attaches to your harness while the bar needs only a pair of rings and a small 3D-printed ring holder to connect to the harness-side and retain the flag line ring. If you have multiple bars, each needs a pair of rings and the holder. This keeps the cost per bar low. This is great if you own ten bars.

The KQR ring-set attaches to a loop at the bottom of the trim line. This can attach to the doubled trimline of the older Buggy Bars, but I’ve phased that out in the new design in favor of a brummel-spliced loop in the trim line. This simplifies the trimline connection at the cleat. With this change, moving the cleat along the trim line will require corresponding adjustments on the steering lines to keep the kite trim even.

The spliced portion of the new trim line loop is about 8mm in diameter, so the existing separation block has to be drilled out to 7.5mm or replaced with the new 3D model referenced in the V2 design. This allows the loop to pass through the separation block’s center bore.

BuggyBar v2 is available online only at this time.

I bought a new kite buggy, it needed a backpack, so I made one of course. I documented how I did it so you can make one too. I published it at GT-Race R6 Kite Buggy Backpack.

If you are curious how I created the web site, the complete source is at Github. The design is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

I’m pleased to announce the release of version 1.1.0 of the Buggy Bar Build Book. This release describes new features in the Buggy Bar including a simplified version of the separation block and the mini-chickenloop. The construction tasks are clearer both in text and in pictures. I offer more alternatives where they could simplify the work. I provide more details on the cleat bead. In all, I think the Buggy Bar is easier and faster to build in this release of the book.

As before, the BuggyBar Build Book is available online, as a PDF and as an ePub

The Peter Lynn ARC set-up FAQ was for many years the authoritative reference for lovers of the Peter Lynn’s ARC kites. It disappeared, but not before a few people scraped the Website to preserve if for posterity. I present it here as it was when I heard it was about to disappear. It has some small gaps, but it’s better than nothing.

If anyone has copies of these files, please send them my way and I’ll add them in:

pt_Syarc.jpg
pt_Charc.jpg
09.jpg
09colour.jpg
cal_PLZ9.jpg
z4dpstrap.jpg
sandbag.jpg
wind_r12.jpg

I think it’s time to say goodbye to a design I have been refining for the past 5 years. For quite some time I’ve felt the moveable stopper was critical part of a good bar. I’ve spent a lot of time learning how to machine them and how to 3D print them. I’ve enjoyed the design process and using the products of my labors. I think I’ve produced some good designs and I’m happy with the latest iteration, but for the past several months I’ve been thinking they are a compromise of both function and safety with only a moderate benefit. I’ve been flying with my stoppers pushed to the cleat since last Fall. Though they were installed, I was no longer moving them off the cleat.

I had noticed some years back that the most performant way to fly was to not rest the bar on the ball. Instead, I’d push the stopper a little further away than “optimal” and then hold the bar by the center about a finger’s width off the ball. This gave you the opportunity to pull in when needed or let out a little in a gust. Yet if you really needed to let the bar out in a gust it took a moment to shift your hand and push the stopper out. I was not able to make rapid changes in response to changing conditions. I did take advantage of the ball at times–two fingers on the bar end while the ball carried the bar load–but this was rare for me.

I think the nail in the coffin was last October when Steve Bateman asked me about Board Riding Maui’s Cloud Connection System. I had seen the videos before, but Steve’s question got me to watch it once more and I was reminded of the many things I liked about the design. What intrigued me the most was the passive safety provided by the massive bar throw. I wanted that. It just seemed like such a smart idea. I started questioning the wisdom of my normal habit of flying with the bar at high load barely above the stopper. It meant that my fastest response to a gust was to steer toward the kite–not always an option. I had to acknowledge there were times when I flew with the bar well off the stopper to allow me to dump load during turns to avoid slides. The only use case remaining was to take the load off my hands during long tacks. I simply didn’t do it that much. So I pushed the stoppers on my bars out.

Given that I wasn’t moving the stoppers anymore, I reassessed what value they still had. The features I was still using were the spherical shape of the ball to spin the bar, the groove in the ball for the flag line path, and the guide in the block to keep the flag line aligned with the groove in the ball. The flag line guide in the block has always been the most fiddly part of the moveable stoppers. The stopper can rotate relative to cleat knocking the flag line guide path out of alignment with the cleat. You can twist the block into alignment with the cleat but it will drift again. So the ball needed to stay, but the block could go if I could think of any way to improve the guide path.

It wasn’t long before I decided I wanted to integrate the ball into the end of the cleat. If I could control the ball’s rotation relative to the cleat I could make a really good flag line guide path. I had done solid modeling using subtractive volumes and realized that subtracting the volume of the lower end of the cleat from a sphere might provide the shape I needed. I created a 3d scan of the cleat and did just that. With some iteration, the sphere flared to more of a helmet shape, grew a little in diameter, acquired an integrated flag line guide path and a tight fit onto the base of the cleat. The picture below is one of the first few prototypes.

Flight testing

I was finally able to test the cleat bead at JIBE this past May. I logged about 13 hours of flying with this stopper replacement on two different kites. As a passive device, the bead did its job perfectly. I never had to adjust it in any way. The bar spun freely with the flag line in the groove. Every flagout was perfect. The bead didn’t snag the flag line or need to be adjusted afterward.

The bead is not likely to ever move. My use of a 3d scan of the cleat end provides a tight initial fit; you have to push hard to install the bead on the cleat. When the bead reaches the right position, you can feel it lock into place. Movement is further restricted by the tight fit of the trim line through the bead. This reduces the risk of the bead shifting around the cleat end and adds friction when the bead is pulled away from the cleat. The bar also tamps the bead back onto the cleat every time it is released.

The best part of the bead is that it facilitiates a more nimble, more responsive style of flying. At JIBE I fully embraced a hands-on style of flying to maximize my responsiveness to gusts and course changes. I set the trim so that the bar was at mid-throw when the buggy would start to slide at full speed. This allowed me half of the bar throw to sheet in and half to sheet out when going at full speed. I had plenty of bar-out to relieve pressure when needed and enough bar-in to do a partial stall. The bar-out was useful while starting, stopping, responding to gusts and arresting slides. The bar-in was useful for lifting me out of the buggy when it was time to hop out of the buggy.

Yet the scenario where I exploited the travel the most was in course changes at speed. The winds during JIBE were more northerly than usual this year. That gave us access to the north end of the island via Driftwood Beach–an eroded maritime forest of Live Oak and Cedar that is now part of the beach at low tide. The beach also had significant runouts draining the backside of the bars this year. Combined, these made for the most technical flying I’ve ever seen at Jekyll Island. The path through the runouts was not always clear or constant. As the tide dropped and the water drained, the best spot to cross the run out would change. If you were going fast and found yourself in the wrong spot, you had very little time to change course to reach a better spot. Driftwood Beach provided similar challenges; there is no straight path through it. The long-dead trees form a field of stobs that threathen your tires if not your health if you hit them. So you have to take a few curves to get through Driftwood Beach. If you are going hard you can’t afford to slide amidst the stobs. Dropping a kite isn’t much better.

To route through the stobs and runouts, I found myself sheeting out when I had to cut upwind. This reduced my line tension and prevented a slide. Once I was around the obstacle I usually had to turn downwind again to reach my new line. To keep from overrunning the kite, I’d sheet in hard to stall the kite a bit and force it to fall back in the wind-window. Once the kite was repositioned in the window, I’d sheet in rapidly to return to cruising on a reach. I needed the full range of bar travel to make this work. Replacing the moveable stopper with the bead makes this more viable as the bead is much smaller than the stopper. Replacing the stopper with the bead increases the bar throw by 6 cm. That might not seem like much, but it means 12% more bar throw on my typical bars.

I’ll acknowledge that holding the bar at all times does not lend itself to kites with high bar pressure. Flying with my 13m Venom was more of a strain than the 12m Phantom II. I found myself switching hands on a regular basis, but the added manueverability and safety margin were well worth the inconvenience. I’ll be replacing the moveable stoppers on all of my bars to get the added freedom the bead provides.

Where to get it

If you’d like to try out the cleat bead, the 3D model and high resolution STL files are available at https://github.com/pbchase/kite_bar_parts. The bead is designed to fit the Clamcleat® CL826-11 and a doubled trimline of 4mm Amsteel Blue. The flag lines I have tested it with are made of 1/16” Ultrex 12 with a 2mm bungie as their core. Be cautious if using fatter flag lines as they have not been tested and could present a higher risk of snagging when flagging the kite.

Today I’m releasing a project I first started in April of 2014. I had hoped to describe the bars I have been making in a single document that would allow others to do the same, but it never got close enough to done to be released. Though I’ve released a lot of components with open source licenses and written about specific advancements, I never brought all of the details of how to build one of my kite bars together. Now I am fixing that with the release of BuggyBar Build Book The book is also available in PDF and as an ePub

This book documents the build instructions for the bar revision that immediately followed the design described in State of the Bar Art - September 2018. The revised design incorporates a stiffener in the magnetized end of the trimline tail that should prevent the folding of the pair of disc magnets. In flight tests, the insignia cloth acquired cuts and the magnets started folding onto one another. It’s unclear which came first or what was cutting the magnets. The stiffner is a first step toward addressing this dualistic problem.

The other revision to the September 2018 design is the replacement of the movable stopper with an object I’m currently calling the cleat bead. It might need a better name, but its purpose is sound: to provide easy bar spinning, a better flag line guide, and the maximum possible bar throw. I firmly believe it is part of a safer, more performant flying style. I’m also confident some people will prefer to stay with the movable stopper. It’s a change that warrants an article of its own (Note: this article can be found at Say goodbye to moveable stoppers –pbc, 2019-06-12)

The book will evolve over time. Even as I write this, I see gaps in the book that need to be addressed, but it’s at a state where a careful reader could recreate what I have done. With revisions to the book, that should get easier.

I’ve had made a lot of changes to the way my bars and harness are built in the past year. I’ve covered the harness in recent articles, but I haven’t said much about the bar save for Printing a moveable stopper in June of this year. Some of the revisions are described in 3D models of components for kite control bars though that is focused more on the models than explaining why they are the way they are and how they work with everything else. I hope this post can shine some light on recent developments with a nod toward the overall design concepts.

Magnetic trimline tail

In earlier designs the tail of the trim line was tethered to ring that rode between the moveable stopper and the cleat. This worked well pretty well to keep the trim line from tangling in other things, but it prevented large, swift changes in trim.

To get those quick trim changes you have to free the end of the trim line. The problem is keeping the tail out of troubled when you’re not holding it. To address this, I resorted to magnets. I’ve seen these go to hell from corrosion on kite surfing bars, but so far I have had no issues. I’ve used only nickle-plated neodymium magnets to improve my corrosion resistance. I don’t rinse my bars after use, but neither do I go into the ocean so it’s unclear if I am smart or just lucky.

The first set of magnets goes into the tail of the trim line. I use a pair of flat, round neodymium magnets about 3mm x 15mm. The magnets sit edge-to-edge just below the end of the trim line wrapped in peel-and-stick insignia cloth that reaches from below the lower magnet to about 30mm up the trim line. I stitch the cloth to the trim line to make sure it doesn’t creep.

The magnetic trim line is at best half the solution as the magnet needs something to stick to. As my bars had no ferromagnetic steel in them much less magnets, I had to add that. I’ve had good results with a jacket of ferromagnetic stainless steel wrapped around the sides of the cleat portion of the ClamCleat. McMaster-Carr sells ferromagnetic 430 Stainless Steel Sheets that can be cut, drilled and bent to form a U-shaped jacket around the cleat. There’s a little bit of an electrolytic reaction between the aluminum cleat and the stainless steel, but it appears to be slow. The jacket allows the trim line to stick to either side of the cleat in any orientation. The end of the trimline stays out of the jaw of the cleat and out of the path of the flag line.

To provide an alternative way to tether the trimline end, I also placed another neodymium magnet in the moveable stopper. I use a 3/8 inch x 3/8 inch cylindrical magnet pressed into the center of the stopper. The magnet is exposed on the face opposite the flag line to keep it from pinching or impeding the motion of the flag line or the stopper.

Separation blocks

I refer to the juncture of the flying lines, trimline and flag line as the separation block. It has narrow passage ways for the flying to pass through, room to anchor the flying lines with larkshead stoppers, and a pulley for the trim line. In my earlier designs I used a segment of 4mm Spectra/Dyneema as the pulley. While this works, the trim line slowly saws through the “pulley”. Despite the block’s relative simplicity, machining it from Delrin is time consuming and error prone.

To address flaws in the pulley and simplify the manufacture of the block, I now 3D-print the separation block. The new design is smaller, more comfortable to grip and easier to make. Instead of a loop of line for the pulley I use a low-friction ring held by a line that passes through a single hole in the block. The design is well balanced, has low friction for the trim line won’t wear out as fast.

The separation block requires flying lines with clean, narrow ends. This allows the flagged flying line to move rapidly and reliably through the separation block and the rest of the rigging during a flag-out.

The clean, narrow flying line ends are best achieved by using hollow core flying line with spliced end loops. This creates the narrowest possible end with the least possible snags. It’s possible to get reasonable results by stitching folded line ends together or by tying a 200# - 300# Q-Powerline Pro line, but the spliced ends are the best method. Sleeved lines will not work in any form.

Elastic flag line

My bars incorporate a 4.5 line to allow the kite to flag out on one of the top lines when released. This flag line connects to one of the flying lines on the flyer’s side of the separation block, passes through a guide-path in the stopper, through the bar and terminates in a cotter pin release just below the bar. The cotter pin is designed to connect to a loop or ring on the backside of the snap hook on the flyer’s harness.

To keep the flag line from tangling in the cleat, stopper or other rigging, the line has an elastic core to keep it taught when the trim is pulled in. Yet the line is sized to allow the trim to go all the way out as well. This is a difficult constraint. Getting it right requires some planning and math that is best saved for another article. To assure the flag line doesn’t bunch up and jam in a narrow passageway, the jacket of the flag line has to be sewn to the elastic core while the flag line is fully stretched. This keeps the slack length of the jacket evenly distributed along the flag line. This is challenging sewing operation I have only been able to do on Tim Elverston’s commercial straight-stitch sewing machine. (Note: this is no longer true. The BuggyBar Build Book describes how to do this. –pbc, 2019-06-12)

The end of the flag line provides both an attachment to the harness and quick release should the flyer need to separate from the flagged kite in an emergency.

Moveable Stopper

As with the separation block, the components of the movable stopper have always been hard to machine accurately from Delrin. The task has gotten worse with every feature added to the stoppers. In June I finally gave up on the idea of machining the stopper. I set aside the initial design that Andrew Beattie did in April of 2016 and started from scratch. The design has morphed 20 times since and now looks radically different.

The stopper block provides two pathways for the doubled trim line. It forces the lines apart on the flyer side, then back together on the cleat side. A stopper ball just below the block squeezes the trim lines back together to prevent the pressure of the bar from moving the block. A cross bore through the stopper provides an attachment point for attaching the ball to the stopper. The curved path of the cross bore allows the bungee that connects the ball to the stopper to move freely and balance the tension in the bungee.

The 360-degree flange provides a continous surface to push the stopper away no matter its orientation. A large bore in the flange provides a pathway for the elastic flag line. On the opposite side of the block is a socket for a neodymium magnet. This magnet provides an additional location to the tether the trim line. Placing it opposite the flag line path keeps the trim line away from the flag. As the block can be oriented relative to the cleat, the flag line pathway through the flange also directs the flag line to the underside of the cleat away from the cleat’s jaws.

The stopper ball sits a few millimeters below the stopper block connected via a short segment of bungee. After the trim lines emerge from the block they are both routed though the center bore of the ball.

When the bar presses the ball upwards against the block, the ball and block form a kink in the trim line that completely stops the ball’s movement. The connection between the block is 115mm (?) of 1/8” diameter bungee. The bungee is routed through curved paths in both the block and the ball. The path forms a continuous loop of bungee. The ends of the bungee are cut blunt and super-glued together to ease the movement through the pathways and eliminate knots.

The lower, hemispherical portion of the ball is designed to mate with the round center-bore of the bar. These surfaces allow the bar to spin freely about the ball. The hemisphere is notched on one side to provide a path for the flag line. The notch is deep enough to allow the flag line to move past the ball and through the bar even when the bar presses tightly against the ball. Similarly, the notch prevents the flag line from impeding bar spins.

The routing path for the bungee controls the ball’s orientation relative to the block. This allows the flag line notch in the ball to be permanently aligned with the flag line path in the block. This passively aligns the flag line with the notch to ensure a straight, unimpeded path through stopper components and bar.

Bar assembly and threading line

All of these components are assembled on a trimline of 4mm Amsteel Blue. In some bars I have tried 5mm Amsteel, but the 4mm is easier to route through the cleat. The trim line is 2275mm in length. The trim line magnets have to be affixed to one end. The other end will need to be threaded through some long, narrow passageways in the cleat and stopper. To simplify this work, wrap a bit of insignia cloth around the end of the trimline. Cut a strip 20 mm wide and 65mm long. Wrap the insignia cloth tightly around the last 20mm of the trimline, forming a tail of flat cloth 45mm long on the end of the line.

To thread the trim line, put the threaded end through the cleat entering at the jam side. Exit the cleat at the top, routing up through the low friction ring of the separation block. Reenter the cleat and go through its serpentine path. Leave just enough line above the cleat to provide the desired trim. Route the line through the stopper block, then ball. Go down through the center of the bar, through a ~25mm ball to retain the trim line in the bar. Then go back through the center bore of the bar, through the stopper ball and then the stopper block. Slide the stopper ball down towards the bar to leave lots of slack above the stopper. Before going any further, make sure the line already passing through the cleat’s serpentine has 5 cm of loop on each side of the cleat. You’ll need this slack in the next step.

Then route the loose end of the trim line up through the cleat’s serpentine path. You want to make large parallel loops of line going back and forth through the serpentine. Route about 5cm of the trim out of the top of the cleat.

Route the 5cm of trim line tail through the loops along the side of the serpentine.

Make sure the insignia cloth tail is also routed through these loops. Holding these pieces in place, pull the trim line slack down through the cleat grooming the lines as you go. Keep the lines as parallel as possible.

With the trimline tight in the serpentine path, have a friend help you put the trim line in tension. Then slide the stopper up and down the trim lines to even up the slack in the pair of trim lines.

You’ll want to verify you can reach the trimline end under normal flying conditions. To do this, put your harness on, clip the trim line into the harness and have a friend pull on the trim line by the separation block. They should pull the bar to your side about 30 degrees above horizontal. Verify you can reach the jaws of the cleat and grab the trim line tail without over-reaching. If you have to stretch to reach the tail, the cleat is too far away. You can move it closer by moving some of the trim line up through the cleat. For each centimeter you need to move the cleat down, you’ll need to move two centimeters of line through the cleat. Making this adjustment is a bit tedious, but the trim line tail must be in easy reach under load.

Attaching the flying lines

With the trim line routed, the flying lines can be attached. Use a about 100mm of a 3mm line to folded and tied with an overhand knot to form a stopper for one of the main flying lines. Route this flying line down through the separation block and attach the stopper to the end-loop of the flying line with a larks head.

Route the other flying line through the remaining hole in the separation block. Continue routing it through the stopper block and then the bar. Attach the flag line to the flying line with a larks head. Pull flag line up through the bar and stopper block with flying line.

Steering lines

For the back lines of the kite, the bar is equipped with a short pigtails one each end. Each pigtail is made from 350mm of 600# Spectra or 1/16 inch Ultrex folded in half and tied with an overhand knot. Once tied, the working length of the pigtail is about 145mm. Each pigtail is pulled through a drilled hole at the end of the bar leaving the knot on the pilot side.

The steering lines are attached to the pigtails via long leaders of 600# Spectra or 1/16 inch Ultrex. Each leader is made from 1055mm of line with a spliced and stitched loop on one end and an overhand knot on the other. The effective length of a leader from loop end to knot is 810mm.

Use a larkshead to attach the loop of each leader to the loop of its steering line. Then attach the knot of the leader to the loop of the pigtail with a larks head. Keeping the knot of the leaderline next to the bar minimizes the risk of snagging the steering lines in the components of the bar.

With all the lines attached, the trim control let all the way out and the bar pulled all the way back, the tips of all four flying lines should converge to the same point.

Successful variants

What I have described above uses a single, continuous piece of 4mm Amsteel Blue about 2275mm long. I have also had good success using a shorter segment of Amsteel below the cleat with a 6mm line above the cleat to form the trim line. The lines are joined by loops on spliced ends at the top of the cleat. The 6mm line is more comfortable to grip, but this design doesn’t allow for much variation of the cleat position on the trim line. If the cleat position is wrong, a new trim line would need to be made with a more favorable ratio of 4mm to 6mm line.

Failed variants

I have also tried variants of this rig that offer longer trim line tails. One used the standard 2-1 mechanical advantage described above but had a longer tail that could be reached at the bar even when trimmed out. The other used a 4-to-1 mechanical advantage that provided minimal tail when trimmed out. In each case, the additional length of trim line was a tangle hazard. The extra line could easily compromise bar spin, trim control, and kite steering. I have phased these variants out of my gear in favor of the 2-to-1 mechanical advantage with the short, magnetized trimline end described above.

Updating the snap shackle

In Replacing the chickenloop I wrote about my move away from the classic chicken loop and hook attachment popular in the kitesurfing community. Eliminating the chicken loop and harness hook has proven to be a great way to bring the bar closer to my body’s center while simplifying my bars. Yet I have seen a weakness in the design during testing. The handles I use to trigger the release of the Wichard snap shackle would sometimes trigger an inadvertent release of the snap shackle. The problem would generally occur during tacks and jibes when the snap shackle and handles were forced against my thigh. If the base of the handle caught on my pants it could pull the cord tight and pull the opposite handle into the gate.

This has happened on my Wichard snap shackles with at least four different handle designs. While I have managed to reduce the problem with new designs, it still exists. What’s more, the plastic cones for the Wichard snap shackles chip and wear under duress. I’ve come to the conclusion that I am asking the Wichard snap shackles to do something they are not designed to do.

To address the persistent problems with inadvertent releases, I swapped out the Wichard snap shackle for a Tylaska T5 snap shackle. These snap shackles are designed to be released with a cone-shaped shackle fid. Tylaska sells a half-cone fid with a center hole that allows a lanyard passed through the hole to pull the fid into the trigger. The picture below shows a pair of these fids assembled with a T5 snap shackle so that the shackle can be triggered from either side.

In a 2 hour test of continuous tacking and jibing, I did not have a single unplanned release. The design is simple. Aside from a small tether attached to the back of the shackle, it uses only off-the-shelf components. That tether serves as an anchor point for the elastic flag lines I use on many of my bars. As the tether is above the swivel, it is completely compatible with the swivel. Its positioning opposite the shackle’s gate keeps the flag line out of the way of the gate.

Updating the harness

As the Wichard snap shackle uses a solid bail, I had to unpick my old harness to swap in the Tylaska shackle. I took the opportunity to redesign my harness to improve the fit and address some issues I had with the old harness. The old harness spun the waistband considerably during tacks and jibes. Under load, this repeated spinning would wear on my hips. The new design moves the shackle down to the center of the figure-eight defined by the two leg loops. This does a better job of transferring the lateral load directly to the legs.

At the front center of the harness, there are two layers of 2-inch webbing. As two layers of webbing are too much material to fit through the clevis of the shackle, I attached the clevis only to the front layer. The front layer is firmly affixed to the back layers and the leg loops by the stitching on the ends of the legs loops left and right of the front center of the harness. To reduce the lateral movement of the shackle on the front face of the harness, the shackle is pinned between two stitched tack points that join the front and back layer. The back layer also provides a bit of padding between the clevis and the belly.

The harness design incorporates elastic between the back of the leg loops and the backside of the waistband. This keeps the leg loops from sagging while keeping the waistband from riding up. This harness incorporates a short elastic leash that runs around the back to keep tension on the non-elastic flag lines used in some of my bars. This leash does not allow you to use the snap shackle’s swivel, but it can keep most any flag line tensioned.

The leash is tethered via a quick release pin on the front side of the right hip. This allows for the complete release of a flagged kite. The ultimate goal is to convert all of my bars to elastic flag lines so I can dispense with the leash entirely.

The other day Steve said:

Ok, I'm late to the party, can you send me a picture of your bar setup that is
similar to the BRM bar?  I'm putting a bar together, thinking of going with
something like BRM, but might just go with a separate flag line that runs
through the bar (and is attached to a top line 10m up or so)...

The mention of the Board Riding Maui bar–the Cloud Connection System or CCS–reminded me how impressed I am with that design. I rewatched the 2015 video about the CCS and then I wrote the following tome for Steve. For those that don’t know me, understand that I am a land kiter. Specifically, I’m a buggy rider. So temper your opinions of my opinions with that. Steve kites on both land and water. He’s amphibious.

There’s a lot to like about the CCS

Greg’s point about moving the bar closer to your body is perhaps the most important thing in his entire pitch. Every millimeter from you to the pulled-in bar is bar throw wasted. He is right that it is especially hard on women, but the additional reach benefits everyone no matter how long their arms. The bar hook and chicken loop system is for a particular audience. If you are not part of that audience, then say goodbye to the Hook and Loop. This of course exposes you to the problem of how to source gear as Hook and Loop is most of the market, but the first step is always to admit you have a problem.

After that, I really admire the simplicity of what he was designed. It has all the safety features of modern kite boarding gear and then some. The massive travel on the bar provides a good margin of safety. The first release is simple, low tech and has good odds of a clean release. The second release is just as low tech and physically very close to the first. It’s nice design that should reduce the risk of operator error in crisis.

Yet it all of this is done with very simple hardware. It’s so simple it would be easy to make a reasonable clone with cheap parts and minimal tools. The most exotic parts are the pins in the quick releases, yet even those could be made with stainless steel cotter pins from the local hardware store. The balls in the QR are probably custom, but they would be reasonably simple to machine or 3-D print.

The balls are secured to the lines by doubling the line they ride along, tying a knot above and below the ball and running a cord through the center of the ball and between the pair of lines. It’s an ingeniously simple design that’s easy to make, assemble and field service.

I agree with his assertions about the value of low mass on the bar ends, though my motivations may be different. I like the low mass from a standpoint of rapid acceleration and deceleration when spinning the bar. Heavier ends means it can hit your fingers harder in a spin. His design cannot be spun in the conventional sense. As he says, you have to turn it hand over hand, yet the rule might apply for the same reason. After all, a hand-over-hand spin would need to be quick as well.

I agree with his assertions about the embroidery on the bar cover. Having a tactile difference between left and right would be valuable. A non-visual cue could reduce the risk of grabbing the bar backwards. It’s a feature I would like to add to my own design if I can think of a way to do it that doesn’t compromise the feel of the smooth wood.

How I feel differently

What I would not like about the CCS is the lack of dynamic trim control. Greg’s opinions on trim control seem to be tied completely into the measures of kite size and rider arm length; undoubtedly these are constants for a session. If those were the only cause for trim changes then I would agree with him, but that’s not been my experience. Whereas kite size and arm length are factors, they don’t tell the whole story for me. I adjust trim in flight for three reasons that have little to do with Greg’s motivations.

My first cause for trim change is kite size vs wind speed. If I am flying with too much sail I trim in. If my kite is “right-sized” I trim out. You could argue that I should fly the “right” size all the time, but “right” is relative. I usually don’t like being over-powered, but sometimes it is a heck of a lot of fun. When I want to taste the over-power I can fly a larger kite and trim in to minimize my slide and bodily abuse. When I want to pour on the juice I trim out and can finish a run with a massive power-slide in the sand. It’s great fun and it’s a great show if you have spectators.

The second scenario in which I change trim is upwind tack vs downwind tack. I almost always trim out for downwind and then trim back in for upwind. I’ll do this over and over tweaking the trim just before or just after coming about. You have a few seconds to make these trim changes before you are either over-powered starting an upwind tack or under-powered starting a downwind tack. If I don’t make these trim changes, the bar is not in a good range for sheeting in or out for normal manuevers while on a tack.

In each of these scenarios it’s not impossible to make the kite work without the trim change, but the range of the bar is compromised if you don’t adjust the trim. I am not one to work my kites when I am cruising, but I do a lot of beach flying and that often demands repeated tacks and jibes. If you are not optimized to work the kite in those manuevers you’ll lose velocity made good at every turn.

Understand that I say this about my experience with bars that provide a lot of bar throw. In my rigs I have dispensed with the chicken loop and hook. My bars use a double trim line that allows the back of the bar to reach within an inch of the QR snaphook attached to my harness. The snaphook is the smallest I can source. It’s sewn directly into a custom swiss seat designed to get the hook as low as possible. At the other end of the bar’s travel, I position the trimline cleat at the limit of what I can reach. I minimize the hardware between the bar and the cleat so I can maximize the bar travel. These features give me a lot of travel, and yet I still feel the need to trim the bar to a point where it settles in near the center of the throw for steady-state flying.

My last reason for trimming is for a comfortable reach to the bar. I generally do not rest the bar on the stopper ball. I hold the bar with my fingers straddling the trim line. This let’s me one-hand-fly. I steer with tiny adjustments of finger pressure above or below the trim line. I make small and rapid adjustments to trim to accommodate gusts and other changing conditions. To do this for any length of time the bar can’t be way out or way in. Either extreme can be very uncomfortable on a long tack. So I trim the bar so it can settle a comfortable distance from me near the middle of the bar’s throw.

I don’t think the features I like in my rig can be adapted to the CCS. Adding trim control below the bar robs you of bar travel. That forces the trim control above the bar and above the top of the bar’s travel. The complexity required to do trim control above the bar would rob the CCS of its fantastic simplicity and clean release paths. I think you have to choose one course or the other. Each has advantages.