*


All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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


{ SHARE_ON_FACEBOOK } { SHARE_ON_TWITTER } { SHARE_ON_ORKUT } { SHARE_ON_DIGG } { SHARE_ON_MYSPACE } { SHARE_ON_DELICIOUS }
Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:37 pm 
bit of a no brainer.... go the Fuel


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 9:35 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 1624
Location: Portugal - Algarve - Faro
The new fuels turn very fast and are not heavy for your arms.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 10:02 pm 
Correct
It would be my light wind kite.

Eddy Cormon


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 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.


Top
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:14 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 920
Location: Roosevelt Island, New York City
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.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cglazier, Deaimel, dyyylan, marlboroughman, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group