7.4m --SYN12

7.6m --CH12

9.1m --V13 I&II

just curious on this spec comparison . i haven't flown a CH12 and a SYN12 just briefly.

i am hoping CH12 is gonna do the job for me on the water but this realization leaves me doubtful for the moment. has any riders put a newer12m arc on the water over 190lbs. out there? in say 15mph range? the v10 has 7.0m projected area and for me has limited high wind use on the water. flat water, surf and current adds a little to the comparison but if anyone has intel on this topic would be helpful.

the recommended CH12 to replace my V13m is the direction of this dissection, and a 1.5m drop is gonna be hard to make up without constant effort on a ride. it seems the 15m by the numbers are the choice for the heavier riders (SYN15 9.2m proj. area, and CH15 9.5m)

Phree,

I flew Beamerbobs 12m Syn on the water in 13/14 mph winds as did he on my 145x49 Crazyfly..................I was able to stay upwind, and the kite had good power. I was surprised by the speed of the kite. With the Charger reported as being faster (it has to be if its flown on stock 23m lines) this could make up for the projected area...........time will tell............I def liked the performance of the Venom in similar winds...........

Not to get off thread but this past Sunday I was the only 12m out in 11-13 mph......projected area is 10.3..............you'll know for sure once you get the "pass the Charger".....................there were a few 12s pumped but no joy...............................:o

definitely gonna put the CH12 in the same session with V13.

i gave BB's SYN12 a fly as well. i really only remember how quick it was, not so much the power.

i just see output per square meter being challenged here .

anxious to test & see how it pans out

I sold the 12 because it just didn't match up with prevailing winds/talent level/body weight. I got a 15m Syn late fall but haven't had in on the water yet. Hoping to do that Friday week in Charleston. I didn't realize there was such a big difference in projected area on these 3 kites. I've heard many say that the charger 12m was able to replace syn 15m kites for water use. I'm anxious to hear the reports after you've had one out for a spin.

I think the statement that a 12CH could replace a 15SYN are probably dependant on how you want to ride with the kite. I'm sure you could work the hell out of the 12CH because the chargers turn so fast, but I'm still going with the idea that if you rode a 15 Syn, a 15 Charger is the safest bet. I just got a 19 Charger for the upcoming summer months since the 19 Syn was my main kite. So, if you want to work the hell out of a kite the entire time you ride, then you could probably go one step down and ride in the same conditions, but if you just want to have the same technique you have now, but have a kite that you can do more with in terms of generating extra power and sending it faster for jumps then I'd stick with the same size for size. So far I don't feel the power of the new kite comes from the canopy as much as just the turn rate. The Chargers are fast!

I had my 15m syn up in the air then had a spin on a
12m CH back to back. I was on skis in 12-15

The 15syn had way more power I had to work the 12m Charger, the Syn was park ride.
The Charger is a great kite but a 12mCH can not replace
a 15mSyn for me. Although hype may disagree

With the added performance of the 12 Charger, it can be used in the same conditions at the 15 Syn but as Dave has stated above, "could be used" doesn't mean direct replacement. The inspiring thing of this is that the 12m Charger does have a huge increase in use-ability over the previous models.

I would have to agree with Dave that if you previously ride a 15 Synergy - you will want to get the 15 Charger. You will have a much faster turning kite with a lot more power (over the Synergy of the same size) but it still would not be totally replaceable with the 12. The nice thing is that if you do get out on your 12m Charger and the winds do start to drop off, you can work the kite and ride longer than you could in the past - where as before, you would have to land and launch something bigger.

so ...now it looks like if i go into a new arc i'll need MORE kite for the same performance?

15 meters of charger now does the job that 13 meters of venom has been doing.

am i looking at this wrong or just missing the feel on the quickness?

yes. its wrong. see the posting on the arc mailing list:

Quote:

I would go for the 12. Apart, the Venom sizes are a myth. They were calculated wrong in the day. Measure them, the V13 has around 6.4 m2 --- In arcusers@yahoogroups.com, "****kiter" <*******@...> wrote: > > Hi, > Which Charger would you recomend for: > - water use > - mostly used SLEs in the area are 10-12m2 > - weight 75kg > - twintip board 133 x 39 > - interested in huge jumps and oldscool moves > - NOT interested in wake style or unhooked > > I am not sure if the Chrarger 12 would be enough since it has only 7,6m2 projected? The Ch15 has 9,5m2 projected. For comparison - Venom 13 has 9,1m2. > Is the Ch 15 much slower than the CH12? Dos it have greater bar pressure compared to the 12? > Thank you for your answers! > Jaros >

so the V13 I &II projected area is wrong? both series ? myth?

now i'm really confused. 6.4m PA for a 13m. that's a huge error

i just want the CH12 to replace my V13. it would seem reasonable.

dang riding a myth..flying serpents and things like that, oh my

The Charger 12 would be a direct replacement for the V 13 (1 or 2). You will get as much or even more power from the C12 as you are getting out of your V13. The C12 will turn faster and have more depower, giving you more wind range than you previously had with the 13 - especially in the lighter winds. I have flown them back to back so regardless of what the listed Projected Area's are (or are not) this is our findings. If you are happy with the power of your V13 for your weight and riding conditions you will love the C12 and have no problems at all.

Projected area is incredibly misleading and the numbers can be fudged so much that it makes it a very poor resource for comparison. Because Projected area is a figure that is calculated from estimations that have no base line, it can be pretty much whatever the manufacturer happens to decide it should be. Also, flat and projected area are different for the ARC's because laying flat, the kite takes up a huge amount of room but once it is inflated, the edges and overall size pulls in a lot because of the curvature of the kite from the inflation - which makes a much smaller "flat" area when inflated than when the kite is totally deflated. Also, projected area is only an estimated calculation of what the manufacturer "estimates" the kite should be rated at from the area that actually produces the power. If the manufacturer is very cautious of the projected area, he may estimate that the projected area is appx. 40% of the flat area - where another manufacturer is less cautious and says that the projected area of his kite is appx. 20% of the flat area....again there is no base line standard for measuring projected area so it is very difficult to compare one kite to the next based solely on this estimated number. I don't know what numbers Peter Lynn is using to calculate the projected areas on their kites - or if those numbers are consistent from the Venom's to the Synergy's to the Charger's.

Now just to confuse this issue even more, manufacturers are not bound by any regulations to give the actual flat area's of their kites when they list them. Maybe they give the flat area of the kite before it is sewn together, or when it is vacuum packed or whatever but it seems that one manufacturers 13 meter kite is very different in size when set up next to another manufacturers 13 meter kite. I remember one time on the beach when a brand new 12 meter bow kite was set up right next to my 15 meter LEI - and they both appeared to be nearly identical in size. Makes you go hmmmm......

Anyways, when comparing kites from one model to the next - especially when comparing from one manufacturer to the next, keep in mind that although they use the same listings for the specifications, the actual numbers could be calculated in different ways. The only way to really compare the performance and power output between the different models is to fly them and see for yourself.

Hope that helps clear it up a little.

i KNOW just hop on and go will be the test that matters but the #'s thing got me going.

thanks kent for the confidence points

i can see different brand comparison with an index like PA being really useless, but within the same brand, should be a reasonable guide.

I have no back to back experience with the two, but I have to think Kent is on to something here. Projected area is how much space it takes up in the sky as opposed to lying flat, and that will be a function of the shape the ARC achieves with it's curvature. Is is more like a horseshoe or a C or a Bow?

The Charger is said to have smaller cells but a higher number of them in order to create a stiffer sail. Also, the reduced number of intakes is said to maintain higher pressure and contribute to a stiffer kite. A stiffer kite might maintain a wider ARC, and that would create more effect projected area, size for size, than a kite that curves more acutely and project less. So that could support the idea that the CH may produce more power size foe size than predecessors.

Does that make sense?

Of course other factors come into play such as profile shape, strap settings and bridle settings.

And the new navigator bar. That Y is said to keep the C shape more adding to it's rigidity. Less flare out of the kite.

Hmmm, yeah but in my line of thinking increased flare would increase projected area.

the "effective area" is nomenclature i think is more appropriate. like a tire tread print, but where the kite meets the wind.

i'll get off the geek stuff and get on the kite that works.

Dang! there's a word I had to look up "nomenclature".

Anyway, just throwing this out, calculations of PA might have changed since Pep S took over the designing of the Arc's. (Synergy was Pep's first solo project)
As I'm posting this at home (around 00:30am after two or three beers, wednesday hey :D) I'm not entirely sure but I'll check with Pep tomorrow.
Now I'm emailing myself a reminder and off to bed....

Okay, it boils down to this: calculations now are a lot more accurate as they were back in the V & VII days.
Synergy and Charger PA were both calculated with the kite inflated as it would be in use, models before were done differently, this explains the difference.
ie. if we were to measure the Venoms now the PA would be less.