Used Moses masts

[darippah]

Rode the shiny new mast yesterday, It will be sanded soon. Silent and smooth but I could feel the comparative drag over my old one.

Which mast did you buy..Interested to know since I'm using Moses masts for jumping..

First one was the 101 Vorace....had 1000's of boosts on it. New one is also a 101 just plain Moses branded.

Have you compared the 101 vs 111 mast for boosting? I'm on the 111 and considering going to the 101 for shallow water spots but am concerned it'll be much more difficult to load and pop when boosting

[cwood]

Which mast did you buy..Interested to know since I'm using Moses masts for jumping..

First one was the 101 Vorace....had 1000's of boosts on it. New one is also a 101 just plain Moses branded.

Have you compared the 101 vs 111 mast for boosting? I'm on the 111 and considering going to the 101 for shallow water spots but am concerned it'll be much more difficult to load and pop when boosting

I have not, although I have thought about it quite a bit over the past few years. I think your load and pop would actually be better on a 101 due to the fact that the additional 10cm makes a big difference in stiffness (detrimental). The reason I thought the 111 might be better was a longer lift duration during the "wing send" because the wings would be in the water longer. I think the downsides are greater though in general because sometimes with onshore wind and waves and sandbars there is no way I would be able to get out. I also think the feel would be less direct due to flex, just like the 101 is less direct than 90. Stiffness goes up significantly.

[tegirinenashi]

... I think your load and pop would actually be better on a 101 due to the fact that the additional 10cm makes a big difference in stiffness (detrimental). The reason I thought the 111 might be better was a longer lift duration during the "wing send" because the wings would be in the water longer. I think the downsides are greater though in general because sometimes with onshore wind and waves and sandbars there is no way I would be able to get out. I also think the feel would be less direct due to flex, just like the 101 is less direct than 90. Stiffness goes up significantly.

Their marketing brochure says that 111 and 101 construction is high modulus carbon. Therefore, while 111 might indeed be softer, 101 might have comparable stiffness to 91. There are flex and torsion 5 kg test numbers posted on this forum for various foils, bur interestingly not for what is arguably the most popular foil.

[cwood]

... I think your load and pop would actually be better on a 101 due to the fact that the additional 10cm makes a big difference in stiffness (detrimental). The reason I thought the 111 might be better was a longer lift duration during the "wing send" because the wings would be in the water longer. I think the downsides are greater though in general because sometimes with onshore wind and waves and sandbars there is no way I would be able to get out. I also think the feel would be less direct due to flex, just like the 101 is less direct than 90. Stiffness goes up significantly.

Their marketing brochure says that 111 and 101 construction is high modulus carbon. Therefore, while 111 might indeed be softer, 101 might have comparable stiffness to 91. There are flex and torsion 5 kg test numbers posted on this forum for various foils, bur interestingly not for what is arguably the most popular foil.

Ya but there is all sorts of variability in the actual carbon that could be used, how its laid up etc. There are constraints on foil thickness related to hydrodynamics, I forget the magic number but to be thin enough to perform you cannot go above that number, which means for a given construction method, there are limits to the length you can get to, without increasing foil thickness, and be stiff enough. I get the sense that 111 is the maximum viable before noodle zone.