Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Projected areas for 2001

Expand Messages
  • cglazier@home.com
    Now you know why this kite size thing is driving everyone nuts. Mel is right, projected area is the best single value to describe a kite s effective size, and
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Now you know why this kite size thing is driving everyone nuts. Mel
      is right, projected area is the best single value to describe a
      kite's effective size, and anything else is just a model number.

      Chris Glazier



      --- In kitesurf@y..., mbartell@f... wrote:
      > With all the recent posts regarding projected area, I have gotten a
      > little confused about the larger projected areas of the 2001 kites
      > compared with the 2000 models.
      >
      > The 2000 AR-5 11.5 has a projeted area of 6.4 compared to 8.5 for
      the
      > AR-X.
      >
      > The 2000 AR-5 15.5 has a projected area of 8.4 compared to 11.4 for
      > the AR-X.
      >
      > I got the 2001 data from one of the many tables in the "files"
      area.
      > Maybe it is not correct, but assumuing it is...
      >
      > How can these kites of similar size and aspect ratio have such
      > different projected areas? More importantly, is the power output of
      > the 2001 models equal to the supposed gain in projected area over
      > their 2000 siblings?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.