Well well well look what is going on in this thread, so much misinformation!
Little connection line can make the trimming more complex
How? that statement makes absolutely no sense at all. LCLs allow you to easily replace or alter bridles, including LCL loops which are by far the EASIEST way to trim an entire bridle. But that is not the purpose of LCLs.
and are not in any case working the way they should.
LCLs absolutely work as they are intended. That is they prevent damage to either the bridle or kite from the bridle. I have had this proven to me about 50 times or more now. They however do not work when the strength of them are too high to preform this function. When flysurfer used solely the black and white LCLs they seemed to always work, when they switched to the pink ones then they may not work particularly with older bridles which lose a massive amount of strength like 50%, not to mention kite fabric can degrade in strength even more than that. Of note I think Pansh uses LCLs that are too strong and so do not function well or at all for the purpose of stopping damage, but they still allow easy access to the bridles and may be why they use them.
I saw this on a race kite from another brand on the beach which was torn but had intact LCL's
Ok but how did it tear? You can tear a kite in such a way that the LCLs might not be much help. Otherwise it is an example of the LCLs not being the correct strength for their primary purpose, like with the pink FS ones.
The manual that came with my NOVA does not talk about replacing bridles every 50 hours.
Well I downloaded it so. They also mention the same for the other water foil they have. Flysurfer in the past has made similar recommendation to the pulley line, which I assume is what Peterlynn is referring to.
Mixer adjustment is possible and PLKB has a video explaining how
It is not anyway what I would call adjustable like flysurfer has. You of course can also add pigtails etc to any kite, it is just nice that the maker has thought this out for you as most users have no clue. I do not actually like the Flysurfer system of adjustment or think it is the best.
I had no need so far to touch the mixer because my kite is flying great.
Well it is quite new, but usually the way pulley lines shrink compensates for the bridles shrinkage, so using things like the "Mixer test" will make a kite fly wrong. You will still have your depower reduced with a shrunk mixer and no manufacturer has, I think, a standard adjustment to fix that. Flysurfers advice is to replace the pulley lines, which will have shrunk also from sitting on the shelf....
Orbit Blocks are heavier but failsafe that is for the NOVA more important because it is not a Race Kite
They are heavier, bigger and less smooth, which all result in more tangles. It can not be overstated enough some of the refinement Flysurfer made to help avoid tangles or make them easier to undo. Flysurfer has actually made some steps backward like the uses of rings vs ELCs to connect lines to kite. This was to cater to users who swap bars on kites, another step backwards. There is things particular to foil kites that offer the best user experience, like leaving the bar on ALWAYS and have a bridle that from top to bottom tangles less.
I have not used orbits extensively but when I did they did not like sand either. To me, if a designer uses them it is just one of many typical design mistakes in this industry.
My Kitech FRS kites are much easier to fly, more stable, bridles tangle way less, and have better depower.
It can be hard to believe but there is aspects about designing these kites so they tangle less, Kitech must understand this too.
Matteo V wrote:So you have made a statement of false equivalency.
Logic, it's like the rarest thing in the word to day!
Matteo V wrote:
Pansh's issues are more with not straight up ripping off design
This accusation gets thrown at Pansh often and by many and I can see why. The truth is they have designs like the A15 which have no similar in the market. Also individual ideas like magnetic blow off valves never seen either. They have some obvious copying like LCLs, ELCs and even the same pulleys FS uses. I would think it is possible they copy but the direct evidence is not really solid. They could copy from prototypes, which is quite likely, but they do seem to have originality and there is a progression in their designs like Aurora 1 to 2 to 3. You look at China as a whole and though copying has been standard there is some original things coming out.
Count the number of parts on a Pansch or some lower aspect 31 cell foil kites and count the number of parts on a Soul. I would bet that a Soul is made ca. 2-3 times more parts, and actually it means 2-3 times of cutting and 2-3 times of sewing and compiling work.
I might do this exercise if I have time. But as some one who owns both and been inside both I can say the part count is very similar from a glance. Pansh sew work is not to the same level as FS and material not as good, but what do you expect for less than 1/5th to 1/10th the cost of a Flysurfer?
Cutting is usually done by robot, labor is still quite cheap, those are not the reasons Pansh are cheaper. The majority of excess cost in a kite like a Flysurfer is 1st from the retailer, 2nd the wholesaler and then operations for Flysurfer other than from making of the actual kites. Things like marketing I think looking at Best can really destroy these companies cashflow. Pro riders can be very bad for kite companies, there is the financial drain but also they can direct the products away from what is best for the people buying them. One example is to look at chicken loops and how few people actually unhook. Basically the entire industry has been pulled down a road that nobody uses! Designers get all the feed back from pros which becomes impossible to design outside of because there is no feedback to do so. It seems only when you have the designers themselves actually the ones interested in the gear do things actually move anywhere interesting, like with Greg from BRM and I would say Armin from Flysurfer but more from him in the earlier years.
If you would execute a blind test on 10 experienced tube kiters and you would give them let say a Soul and a Pansh kite, then 10 out of 10 would choose the Soul.
Not if you included price in that test. The design of the kite is one thing but not everything. People in the real world have budgets and Pansh even if it say only flies 80% as well as the Soul is incredibly attractive at like 1/5th the price. Flysurfer soul 21m @$2,649 vs Pansh Aurora3 21m @$499. And saying the Aurora3 is 80% the Soul is I think quite unfair to the Aurora. In my experience Pansh can approach 90% the performance of a Flysurfer.
Matteo V wrote:
HQ was the first to the market with a fast freestyle capable kite in the 15m size
Not even remotely true, FS had the Pyscho4 in 2008 and the Psycho3 before that. The matrix is most closely to the Psycho series and the Psycho4 is more advanced than basically any foil kite bar the Speed4 aka Psycho5. If the Pyscho 4 was updated with all the modern bits it could make a killer kite.
What foil kites today can do this?
Matteo V wrote:
Flysurfer is more to blame for the market waiting this long to get a good foil kite in 15-21 meter sizes.
I do agree that flysurfer can make kites too slow, though with reason, but it is a bit harsh to level that against them, they have done a lot for foil kites.
Adventure Logs wrote:Matrixx a good kite???? Speeds are bad??
There is arguments for both those statements, don't be too quick to slam him. I think they are both good, but you need to look at use and maybe the condition of the kite.
Matteo V wrote:From '08 to '15, I flew lots of kites.