NoerStick

I like the idea , however I'm not sure of the pounding weight of the rig and harnessed rider being supported by the ropes . I wonder how long the cleat lasts and how easy it is to undo ? So there is all the downhaul tension and the rig and rider all hanging on long rope .
Also , there must be slight bounce of the mast going up and down on each bump , so therefore rubbing on the inside of the mast at the top and bottom of the extension . Bit of sand in there ........
Interesting on how it goes and how long it lasts .

I thought the rope would be a problem . And that's with a RDM , ( smaller sails ) , imagine the force on a large race sail . It should at least use 3.8 mm or the larger 5 mm Formuline .
It seems very complex just so you can have pulley to pulley . Having a inch gap to give some beach adjustment isn't so bad .
Looks like a lot of weak links .

Select to expand quote

Ben1973 said..
Making a simple piece of kit complicated for no reason.

I'm glad you said that first.

A conventional extension extends the mast to another fixed length, and then, within that new mast length, we apply downhaul tension to bend the mast to the curve which matches the sail shape and get the sail panel luff tension.
Once you understand that fundamental requirement, then all you need to do is to reeve the downhaul rope so as to easily apply the downhaul tension. There's nothing crude about a pin and collar mast extension.
If there's any issue at all with a conventional extension it's that downhaul markings vary between brands, and that beginners can make a mess of the simple rope work, until shown.
For bigger rigs, for sure, it can help to have a mechanical aid to apply the downhaul quicker and with less effort.

This new system solves none of these minor issues we have, and yet complicates the downhaul process for the rest of us.

This Noer system gives you an infinitely-variable mast length - which might be helpful if we were not hanging the mast extension collar on ropes here. Using ropes to establish mast length is no way to achieve accurate downhaul tension.

This different type of extension is therefore way more complicated, and with more moving parts to go wrong. To achieve the internal block and tackle system it also will end up as a complex metal or carbon extrusion which itself will inevitably will be much heavier than the simple tube we use now - in terms of strength to weight ratio.
If my conventional RDM extension weighs less than 500 grams, then let's have the Noer extension weights for the model offering the same range. When the interviewer here mentions an 'i-section beam', suggesting higher strength, you just have to cringe.

So there are no advantages to this system what so ever. Sorry.

There is some 1st class BS at the end. 19:50. To paraphrase, "Its a secret, some brands are developing their sails for this extension. They have a little window in the mast sleeve at the tack with min/med/max to align with the red ring".

Since 2014 Ezzy sails have had a little tab at the tack attached on velcro with min/med/max which is aligned to the bottom of the mast. On all sails, the medium setting is marked on the sail itself using a load measurer. When I get my new sail, I check this aligns with the dots on the leech, just to be certain. Use a different brand mast and it could be slightly out, so you can realign the tab. Or shut the van door on a mast and chip it, saw 1cm off the end, then realign the tab. Its simple and fool proof way of making sure you have the correct downhaul. Or even move the tab to your own preferred max setting. Last year I noticed Duotone Warps started using something similar, having a small window in the mast pad so you could check where the bottom of the mast is, and mark your own setting if required. I guess Duotone have a window as their mastpad is harder to fold out of the way than Ezzy's. Once you have the system you can see how effective it is. You dont have to look at the leech flapping around in the wind, trying to gauge if the looseness reaches to dots. If sails arent monofilm, its even harder to check. You just look at the gauge at the bottom of the mast. It takes the small issue of some extensions are longer than others due to inaccurate marking out of the equation. You are always downhauling to the bottom of the mast as the guide. I dont understand why other brands haven't picked up on this idea.

This has nothing to do with block to block setting of this extension. Why introduce this BS into your product video?

Other than that, for me they are waste of money. I can set my Ezzy sails on any setting from the same hole on the extension without having to adjust the extension collar. Going block to block doesnt make me go 2 knots faster as he implied it did for him.

What's wrong with just looking how close the pulleys and the sail are to the pulleys on the extension? Couldn't be simpler. I just set my mast extension to the right number for what ever sail I using then downhaul, if I can get 1finger between pulleys it's max downhaul, 2 fingers mid and 3fingers light wind. Don't need any marks anywhere.

That video is 23 minutes. I was bored after 30 seconds

Well congratulations to the guy for taking an idea and making it into a finished product, that took a lot of hard work.

Select to expand quote

Sandman1221 said..
Well congratulations to the guy for taking an idea and making it into a finished product, that took a lot of hard work.

Yeah agreed he's done an amazing job but I think the point from posters above is that it's an answer to a question nobody asked (ie: unnecessarily complex and 2cm adjustments with a pin have proved to be just fine for decades) and it has major faults if it chews rope that bad.

Where is the review ?

Hi Here is my review

Hmmmm.
A round tube is stronger weight for weight compared to a complicated extrusion.
Making an 'i-section beam' only works if you want a load in one direction.
What we have here is a heavy extension. Shame you didn't weigh it.


If cutting forum line rope, you then have to seal it, as with any rope. With forum line the outer sleeve will melt but the inner core line will not.

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..
So , is all this so you can have block to block and still adjust more downhaul instead of leaving a inch gap ?
I suppose this is important to get the sail as low as possible . It seems to be a trend to sink the mast tracks in new boards .
If that is the case , why arnt sails simply cut lower ? Just add a tiny batten at the bottom of the sail and drop it six inches . I understand you can't go too low before it interferes with the board .There seems a lot of fuss to drop it one inch .
Is all this just for the sake of something to change ?

Well the idea of a low sail is nothing to do with this new mast extension design.

We rig the sail lower to create an end plate to the sail, in theory closing the gap to stop wind escaping under the sail foot - wind which would be better flowing along the sail to increase drive efficiency. Slalom sails do have more foot area supported by bottom battens to allow that.

But the scoop in the deck of some slalom boards is to get the point of leverage of the rig closer to the water - and vertically closer to the centre of lateral resistance.

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..

Basher said..

Imax1 said..
So , is all this so you can have block to block and still adjust more downhaul instead of leaving a inch gap ?
I suppose this is important to get the sail as low as possible . It seems to be a trend to sink the mast tracks in new boards .
If that is the case , why arnt sails simply cut lower ? Just add a tiny batten at the bottom of the sail and drop it six inches . I understand you can't go too low before it interferes with the board .There seems a lot of fuss to drop it one inch .
Is all this just for the sake of something to change ?

Well the idea of a low sail is nothing to do with this new mast extension design.

We rig the sail lower to create an end plate to the sail, in theory closing the gap to stop wind escaping under the sail foot - wind which would be better flowing along the sail to increase drive efficiency. Slalom sails do have more foot area supported by bottom battens to allow that.

But the scoop in the deck of some slalom boards is to get the point of leverage of the rig closer to the water - and vertically closer to the centre of lateral resistance.

So what's this mast ext all about ?

More rope more pullies more cleats more head farx

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..
So , is all this so you can have block to block and still adjust more downhaul instead of leaving a inch gap ?
I suppose this is important to get the sail as low as possible . It seems to be a trend to sink the mast tracks in new boards .
If that is the case , why arnt sails simply cut lower ? Just add a tiny batten at the bottom of the sail and drop it six inches . I understand you can't go too low before it interferes with the board .There seems a lot of fuss to drop it one inch .
Is all this just for the sake of something to change ?

I had a go on a Fanatic Falcon slalom board with the recessed deck. I used my own Ezzy sail, and I found when tacking the foot of the sail caught on the footstraps quite easy, as the mast is raked back when tacking. The board was shorter than my board, 230cm, so you had to rake the sail back when tacking to stop the nose sinking. For a slalom racer, this wouldnt be a problem, but for none racers, probably best to rig the sail a bit higher. If you happen to have a sail that rigs block to block at 18cm, on a normal extension you would set it at 20cm. The advantage with this extension is you can put it at 19cm, if all it takes to stop the foot hitting the foot straps is 1cm extra.
I agree, it is a lot of fuss just to be able to adjust to the 1cm.

Select to expand quote

Basher said..

What we have here is a heavy extension. Shame you didn't weigh it.

Its on their website, for ali SDM anyway. No weights for carbon RDM.

www.noerstick.com/product/noerstick-python-sdm-2/
35cm SDM is 0.964kg

www.severnesails.com/hardware/race-extension-hd/
36cm SDM is 0.73kg