Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

CO2 11.5 or Fuel 14 ? All comments welcome

forum for kitesurfers


Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:25 pm

CO2 11.5 is available for 795EUR
FUEL 14 for 835EUR

Both have rather big windranges.
Although very different kites.
Fuel is known for it's build quality and steady pull and heavy steering, but didn't get good European test reviews.
CO2 got very good test reviews and relaunches very well and great upwind ability, maybe less depower.

Which has the best low end power?
Which has the best handling?
Which has the best depower ?

What should I buy ?
Note: I weigh only 66kgs

Eddy Cormon

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:37 pm

bit of a no brainer.... go the Fuel

User avatar
Pedro Marcos
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:00 am
Kiting since: 0
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Portugal - Algarve - Faro
Contact:

Postby Pedro Marcos » Tue Nov 12, 2002 9:35 pm

The new fuels turn very fast and are not heavy for your arms.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 9:41 pm

If you look at the slingshot post, there are a lot of VERY pro slingshot people here.

Rather test the kite yourself and get oyur own opinion.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 9:48 pm

Best thing to do is test each if you have the opportunity. I asssume you are talking about 2002 models. If so, the Fuel was extremely SLOW! At your weight I assume this will be your big/light air kite...go with the CO2

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:02 pm

Correct
It would be my light wind kite.

Eddy Cormon

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:08 pm

sure the 2003's are much faster but I never considered the 2002 Fuel slow when I was riding it... fast enough to do double backs while underlooping the kite

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:18 pm

Fan club of Fuel seems to be quite big.
It appaers to me 'Fuellers' or Sligshotters are very in favour of their kite whereas the CO2 kiters are less 'involved'.

If Fuel 14 (2002) <having 14m2 flat> delivers as much low end power as the CO2 (2002)<having 15.5 flat>, then the smaller one would be the best.
IMO: Less surface, means less problems with gusts and errors.

Anyone an idea about the real Aspect ratio of the Fuel14 ?
The CO2 has been measured 4.2 or 4.3 by European Magazines (French and German).
Thanks in advance.
Eddy

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:00 am

I think the fuel 14 is actually closer to 15 flat than 14...that's why in 03 they have a 15 not a 14. so, in reality there is probably only about .5m difference in the flat surfaces.

User avatar
randykato
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:00 am
Kiting since: 0
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Roosevelt Island, New York City

Postby randykato » Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:14 am

yeah, the fuel 14 has a projected area of 11.8 and a flat area of closer to 16 (the 16 is actually almost a 19). people rave about the fuel's great low end, but must realize that the kites are actually considerably bigger than labelled.


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nothing2seehere, topmick and 17 guests