Hi all,

I just bought a Simmer Icon 3.7 sail (355 luff length) which requires a 340 mast.

I assume using my 370 mast will make the rig too stiff(?), so I am looking to buy a 340 mast but I consider compromising and get a 60% mast instead of 80% or 100% since this is a sail I won't use that often.

Am I right in assuming that carbon content becomes less important when the mast length decreases?

Slightly less "critical" I guess, but you don't want to skimp on the mast, as I see it. The small sails become very "twitchy" if the mast is to stiff and irresponsive, the power will be very on and off, and never just right. So I would recommend to keep the same quality on both sails and masts, independent on the size. That way you also get a similar feeling throughout the sailrange. High quality masts will last a long time, so they are well worth the money, even if it hurts at first... ;)

I have a 100% carbon 460 race mast and a 75% carbon 400, 400 weights 8 oz more, but in defense it is a wave sail mast and designed for impacts, and the extra weight including kevlar is mostly in the lower section.

Is the simmer flextop? What mast do you have? Often small sails have vario tops to let us use taller masts.
Carbon content is for weight savings and response time. I used a 60% fiberspar in a 4.5 gaastra sail worked fine just a bit heavy. 60 is the min I'd go.

Select to expand quote

SurferKris said..
Slightly less "critical" I guess, but you don't want to skimp on the mast, as I see it. The small sails become very "twitchy" if the mast is to stiff and irresponsive, the power will be very on and off, and never just right. So I would recommend to keep the same quality on both sails and masts, independent on the size. That way you also get a similar feeling throughout the sailrange. High quality masts will last a long time, so they are well worth the money, even if it hurts at first... ;)

Good points, I actually do have the same quality all through my quiver.

Select to expand quote

Manuel7 said..
Is the simmer flextop? What mast do you have? Often small sails have vario tops to let us use taller masts.
Carbon content is for weight savings and response time. I used a 60% fiberspar in a 4.5 gaastra sail worked fine just a bit heavy. 60 is the min I'd go.

Well, I do have the next size up 370 Simmer 80% Constant curve, but using that would make the rig rather stiff, no?

Regards the weight I am thinking 340 is so short that the weight won't be a problem anyway...

It'll improve comfort with the right length.
What's your weight?
If you want to sail wicked winds (often), I'd go with a nice mast. If it's occasional, your 370 could work if you're heavier then better.

Yes, it'll be stiff. What it means it's that to get the top to flex and bleed excess it'll require more tension. More tension means that the lower part will also flatten and at the same time the mast will refrain from bending.

So, you'll be left with a heavier feel (especially up top and during transitions) yet little lift and a bit twitchy.

It sounds bad written this way but it won't be that bad when playing around. Just a bit less comfortable, less control, endurance, etc.

It'll be fun no matter what! Give it a shot with your 370 and go from there!

When we use big sails then the advantages of high carbon masts are lower weight and better reflex response when a gust hits.
As big rigs are pretty heavy anyway, the mast weight saving is really noticeable. if you are racing or speed sailing then the high carbon version is essential.

With small rigs we don't notice the weight change and so it's really about having the right length mast and the flex response.
The main benefit of a 340 mast is that it has a softer bend - or a lower IMCS rating. That soft mast is essential to small sail performing well.
Sailing a 3.7m sail on a 340 mast feels much better than if you try and rig one on a 370 mast.


To my mind that then leaves two questions: 1) How often will you use this rig? and, 2) What's the price difference between the 40% carbon 340 and the 80% version?

If you use this size sail a lot then a 340 mast is a must, and the 80% carbon version would be a bonus.

If it is an RDM mast, 100% or the highest you can stretch your $$ to. In my experience with RDM's, the 100% carbon masts are a lot lighter, have a MUCH nicer feel, and seem virtually unbreakable, (unlike 100% SDM's.!! ) My 340's are 100%C.

Select to expand quote

Basher said..
When we use big sails then the advantages of high carbon masts are lower weight and better reflex response when a gust hits.
As big rigs are pretty heavy anyway, the mast weight saving is really noticeable. if you are racing or speed sailing then the high carbon version is essential.

With small rigs we don't notice the weight change and so it's really about having the right length mast and the flex response.
The main benefit of a 340 mast is that it has a softer bend - or a lower IMCS rating. That soft mast is essential to small sail performing well.
Sailing a 3.7m sail on a 340 mast feels much better than if you try and rig one on a 370 mast.


To my mind that then leaves two questions: 1) How often will you use this rig? and, 2) What's the price difference between the 40% carbon 340 and the 80% version?

If you use this size sail a lot then a 340 mast is a must, and the 80% carbon version would be a bonus.

Thanks, this reflects my understanding. Turns out the price difference between 60 vs 80 carbon is not that big, so think I will get the 80% mast.

Select to expand quote

sailquik said..
If it is an RDM mast, 100% or the highest you can stretch your $$ to. In my experience with RDM's, the 100% carbon masts are a lot lighter, have a MUCH nicer feel, and seem virtually unbreakable, (unlike 100% SDM's.!! ) My 340's are 100%C.

At the moment all my masts are 80% carbon, I won't upgrade the SDM masts. I like the extra security since I often sail alone, but might upgrade the bigger RDM masts at some point.