granit02 wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:39 pm
I'm not sure if you have ridden both the PFI633 and the PTM730 back to back or at all. I have and can honestly say the 730PTM dose not require much more wind at all. The stall speed is of course is different, however, its surprisingly good. Note I'm 80kg and 6'3" tall.
As for the PFI730 not making it to the market, maybe not your market yet, they are currently being used in Western Australia as part of the Wind foil setups. https://www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Win ... Oz?page=-2
The PFI730 is a low aspect wing designed off the Infinity 76 wing. The PTM730 is a mid-high aspect wing designed by Tony Logoz, (he also designed the PFI633/Onda).
If you want to see all the phantasm wings, talk with your local Slingshot dealer.
I give full credit and deeply thankful to Tony for bringing 590/633 and other wings back in 2017. Unfortunately dealers don’t share more than official info Slingshot is publishing and I recall some premature information from Australia webpage listing even sizes (6/8/10) of smaller Turbine to become available - that’s why I’m cautious on what will actually end up being released and what will remain a prototype.
I’ve seen both wings, could but haven’t ridden them but I know miracles don’t happen and freerace wings are never an answer to lowend riding. Happened to my 800 being just insufficient for times when others ride 1500 sq.cm wings on nowadays “enormous” 9m kites. That’s why I keep a line - race/freeride/lightwind wings and I’d still take them all on a trip.
I just don’t want to potentially confuse folks telling them 730 freerace would have very similar lowend to 633. Maybe for lighter guys and girls
I’m sure an advanced rider can push a race wing almost hover but many folks can’t and that’s why large wings like 633 picked up in an explosive way 3.5 years ago. Again, thanks to Gunnar for “showing us the way” in his Jan ‘18 633 review video.
What I’m saying - guys should get both 730 and 633
P.S. In the link you’re saying that Phantasm 1001 wing is closest to Moses 1100 which is also a mistake. 1001 might be close to Moses 1000, yet Moses 1100 is twice as large and twice as thick profile as 1000. Can you explain why you think so please?