Live Review: Moses W950 Attempt 4 

Did you upgrade to the high strength one? I see some older packages have the 92 cm mast and the original 710 fuse. I’m 90kg but don’t jump.

Hi Barbara. Yes. That is normal. If you use the small kite Stabilisers you normally have to move the mast forward more (about 40mm, or use a shim)

I'm using the exact same set up -- 950/399 w/ 1.5° shim and mast all the way forward. Without/with less shim, my board was nose-down. Seems pretty good this way.

nope.

Awesome. I look forward to testing it. Thanks Jimmy 🙏

Hi, Jimmy, is the W940 a similar but smaller version of the 950?

@@csc_surf no it is a total different front wing , nothing to do with the 950 it is a surf wing , Naturally it can be used for anything but the purpose is SURF

Jimmy , will the 940 be a good little sister/higher wind for my 970?

@@GunnarBiniasch Hi when can we have a review on the 940?

Hi Samuel. Thank you :-) What would you like to know about those two wings?

@@GunnarBiniasch long time kite foiling, but starting with winging. debating both design for a one wing does it all. Just riding swell, no real waves. Cheers

Hi John. I never really likes the 873. I found it too slow and not really pumpable. It just does not have a glide like the 1100 does. It sort of works for beginners as it is so slow, but it also has a high stall speed, so needs more wind/speed to get going,. My opionon: Use it to learn on, then sell it and get something more modern.

Does it have to be one of those two? If I had to choose, I would take the w1000 to cover that. If it really has to be one of the two, I would probably take 950 as you want to surffoil in small waves. The 790 needs decent size waves to work well.

@@GunnarBiniasch Do you know when you ask something, and you hope that the answer will be something that you have in mind but it's not. I thought that the correct answer was 790. And right now I'm a little confused. So now a days do you think 790 lost its space on moses quiver ? When this wing (790) will be a better choice over this 1000 or 950? I'm asking more about 790 because I already have a SS kitefoil hover glide (Space Skate) and I like this wing for Kitefoil in small waves but I would ask for more glide and speed in this wing that why I thought 790 could handle it. If 790 not so good for surf foil in small wave I might buy a 1100 for it. Thanks again.

Hi Tim, You might need to shim the back wing to reduce stability in that case, or use a smaller back wing. You might just get away with the S483, but maybe the 421 or 399 will be better for your board.

Good to know. Moved the 1100 forward 2cm today as a test and it worked fine. So will be looking to get the 950. Thanks!

I have not used the Moses Tuttle to Track adapter. I theorie it should be fine. I have heard that it is really heavy though

Hi Bowen. 1.5 deg + or - ? And can you expain what you mean with "hunts"

​@@GunnarBiniasch I honestly don't know the proper terminology with regard to 'negative' and 'positive' shimming yet. The included SABfoil shims (thankfully!) only fit one way. Since the stab (rear wing) is on the lower (water, downward-facing) side of the fuselage, and the shim is between the lower surface of the fuse and the top surface of the stab, it increases the downward angle of the stab. Based on what I understand, that makes sense b/c I began with 0°, and I felt the board flew nose-down. Gradually going from 0.5° to 1.0° to 1.5° shim has resulted in a more neutral flying position. So, is this a 'negative' and 'positive' shim? As for "hunting," I mean that when I'm going upwind, it's hard to keep the board/foil locked into a solid heading... the board/foil seems to want to 'hunt' back and forth, upwind and then off the wind again. Of course I am experimenting with my foot position / center of effort on the wing as well, and I am familiar with using the CoE of the wing to steer into/off the wind, but again, it feels like I want the foil to lock in more than it is. I did choose the 399 stab after hearing that it would be perhaps looser than, let's say, the 483, and I am digging the turning feeling, so maybe the lack of locked-in upwind is just the trade-off that I ended up with this setup. Any thoughts? Thanks Gunnar!

@@bdwelle43 No. That is positive as you are adding angle of attack (remember that the stab is upside down and pushing the tail down. Negative shims will reduce the AoT and therefore downforce on the tail. The more downforce on the tail, the more stable the foil will become (and slower)

@@GunnarBiniasch ok so you are saying 1) that the SAB shims are "positive", 2) that positive shims add AoA and increase downforce on the tail [this lines up with my experience, in that adding shim has increased downforce on the tail && therefore increased upforce on the nose] and that 3) this makes the foil more "stable". What do you mean by "stable"?

@@bdwelle43 More Stable means more resistant to pitch, roll and yaw changes.

Yes. It fits on the same fuselage as the W1100

@@GunnarBiniasch thank you for your response. I may get his one instead of 1100, I'm 155 lbs. And I kite during very light days amyway.

The 82 mast is thicker, a lot stiffer than the kitemasts. Gunnar mentions using it early in the video:). Will work great

​@@seglarn98 my question is more about the Moses mast itself. As by the looks, the lower part of 91 and 82 is exactly same (judging by pictures). As a counter example of a Project Cedrus mast that is a straight same shape from top to bottom + reinforced at bottom.

I have winged on the 72, 82, and 91. 91 has a thinner cord at the base and the lack of stiffness was surprisingly noticeable. I recently only took the 91 to la ventana (had just received it) and regretted it. By the end of the trip I was used to it. On the positives, i did notice less breaching on steep faces.

the 92 will be launched in 2 weeks

@@jimmymazzanti1451 92 for Moses? They currently have a 91 kite one.

Probably what Sab says it is. But again, what does it matter? Surface area is not the actual size of the wing and has no relevance on how powerful the wing is.

@@GunnarBiniasch I agree because there are a lot of parameters that influence how a wing works, but certainly "surface area" is important. It impacts a lot of equations, such as lift, AR, etc. I have a 1100 and would not buy a 950 with 1600cm2, but I would if it was much smaller with 1350cm2.

@@csc_surf if it was the actually full area it might, but as they just tell us the flat area the number is pretty useless for comparing different wings. You can have wings with 500cm2 less area that will get flying just as early as a 2000cm2 wing. The 950 overlaps a bit with the 1100 in low-end, but it goes much more into the high end making it a good addition for someone who was a 1100 already.

Thanks Mike. It looks like it is is listed now. Can you let me know if it's not showing up on your browser? Thanks

@@GunnarBiniasch Still not listed. Last video in a list is Cedrus mast 2nd attempt

@@mikemiller774 It was not listed under Reviews and unboxings yet. but it was on the uploads list. It should be on both now. Let me know. Thanks

@@GunnarBiniasch Uploads - no; Unboxing - yes; my main point here is that it is missing from a general Videos section where all vids are usually listed and not a particular playlist

@@mikemiller774 Strange. It is showing up when I look at my channel.

The 450 is known for that. You can try shiming to reduce the angle of attack of the 450, or best to try a smaller stabiliser like the 483 or even a 399 or 421.