Dan-at-North wrote:As far as not providing the AR and projected area... In my opinion providing the projected area is useless. There is so much more going on with kite design that affects the power of a kite than the surface area or projected area. For example, the 2013 Evo pulled like a truck. Way more powerful than the 2013 Rebel. All pre-2014 Evos pulled way harder than Rebels, and it was most true in 2013. Probably 1.5-2sqm more power in the Evo per same size Rebel. Yet if you compare the projected areas, a 2013 Evo 12m was 6.9 sqm, while the 2013 Rebel 12m was 7.5. In fact, the Rebel itself lost some power from 2012 to 2013, but the surface area and projected area remained the same.
Dan, really good points! Thanks for that write up.
I guess the Evo, even with less proj area, had more pull than the Rebel because it sat further back in the window.
If aspect ratio was the same for 2012 & 2013 Rebels, what made the 2013 Rebel fly differently? I think mainly it flew further forward in the window. Was this due to a change in leading edge diameter or canopy profile?
As far as I'm aware, it had mostly to do with a reduced entry profile that makes the kite get further to the edge of the window, and in most cases makes it quicker through the window, giving up some grunt but gaining more than that on the high-end. Both lift and drag were reduced. 2013 also saw the wingtips get more squared off which often has the same subjective result, and that was also when we introduced the streamline struts, which also does the same thing. It made the kite quicker and smoother turning than the 2012, with much better high end, but with a small sacrifice on the low end. AR and projected area remained the same between the years.
Dan, so isn't the projected area useful for calculating % differences in kite size when determining an ideal quiver for a specific rider? Isn't that a much more precise number than the given kite size (7m, 9m, etc)?