Jump to content


Quantum Fusion X vs. Fusion M


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Foxtrot Corpen

Foxtrot Corpen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Location:Solomons, MD, USA
  • Interests:Racing / Snow Skiing/ Riding (Victory Cross Roads)

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:03 PM

I am considering replacing my 5-yr old Quantum #3 with a Fusion X or a Fusion M (Bene 36.7). Looks like I can save about ~$700 with the Fusion X. Of course, I don't want to end up with a #3 that is not competitive with the rest of the OD fleet. Any experience out there with relative performance and life of those two versions of Q sails? [I will be using the new #3 for only OD regattas... about a third of the ~40 OD races per year.]
Thanks!
...FC
P.S. Any inputs from my buds in the Chesapeake 36.7 fleet will be welcome, but viewed with high skepticism. :lol:

#2 oldskool

oldskool

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,364 posts
  • Location:North County, Sandy Eggo

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:20 PM

don't do it Jim. Stick with the M or do a tri radial. The money saved isn't worth the hassle of a "club level" product. The X is good for smaller boats, but I'd be pretty hesitant to do it on anything bigger than 32'.

#3 ease hike trim

ease hike trim

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:32 PM

If I were a club racer and had to pay for sails there is no doubt in my mind that I would go crosscut in the instance you cite. I have sailed with both technologies on the same boat. There will be no perceptible performance stepdown whatsoever between the M and X product, and the durability of the X, which is a conventionally laminated sailcloth product, is as much as twice that of the M. The price differential is a function of market perception.

#4 low and slow

low and slow

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 02:17 PM

the X stuff is great. just because it is cheaper doesn't mean it's not as good
I have a 3 year old genoa on a 30 footer and it has held up better than any sail I ahve ever owned

#5 minorthreat

minorthreat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,331 posts
  • Location:Ballard, WA

Posted 09 November 2007 - 10:43 PM

If I were a club racer and had to pay for sails there is no doubt in my mind that I would go crosscut in the instance you cite. I have sailed with both technologies on the same boat. There will be no perceptible performance stepdown whatsoever between the M and X product, and the durability of the X, which is a conventionally laminated sailcloth product, is as much as twice that of the M. The price differential is a function of market perception.



That is just not true X doesn't last twice as long, The old theory was the carbon broke down faster but it's negligible. I just replaced my 2000 Quantum main with a new Fusion M and it's awesome. I agree with the statement if your sailing a 30 footer or smaller get the X with neglible performance difference, the price differential has nothing to do with the market either, Carbon costs more. period. What is conventionally laminated sailcloth??? The build process and lamination with the weaves is similiar in most high end sail, the cost of carbon over Kevlar for example is substantial.If your racing over a 30 footer you buy carbon for strength, load, shape, weight etc. Sailors are not dumb, (most) something costs more because its more expensive to make and usually better..............

#6 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 01:15 AM

That is just not true X doesn't last twice as long, The old theory was the carbon broke down faster but it's negligible. I just replaced my 2000 Quantum main with a new Fusion M and it's awesome. I agree with the statement if your sailing a 30 footer or smaller get the X with neglible performance difference, the price differential has nothing to do with the market either, Carbon costs more. period. What is conventionally laminated sailcloth??? The build process and lamination with the weaves is similiar in most high end sail, the cost of carbon over Kevlar for example is substantial.If your racing over a 30 footer you buy carbon for strength, load, shape, weight etc. Sailors are not dumb, (most) something costs more because its more expensive to make and usually better..............



Fusion X comes in Carbon. I have one. Instead of making the crosscuts parallel with the deck they crosscut on a catenary with the luff, makes for a strange looking sail.

Attached Files



#7 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 03:41 PM

That is just not true X doesn't last twice as long, The old theory was the carbon broke down faster but it's negligible. I just replaced my 2000 Quantum main with a new Fusion M and it's awesome. I agree with the statement if your sailing a 30 footer or smaller get the X with neglible performance difference, the price differential has nothing to do with the market either, Carbon costs more. period. What is conventionally laminated sailcloth??? The build process and lamination with the weaves is similiar in most high end sail, the cost of carbon over Kevlar for example is substantial.If your racing over a 30 footer you buy carbon for strength, load, shape, weight etc. Sailors are not dumb, (most) something costs more because its more expensive to make and usually better..............



something costs more because its more expensive to make and usually better..............

The marketing guys have done their job brainwashing you. That's why you probably drive a Jaguar(junkuar) instead of a Toyota because "it's more expensive, it must be better".

Also, I wouldn't discount what EHT says about sailcloth.....he seems to know a "little bit" about the subject :lol:

#8 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 04:31 PM

FYI, The difference I was quoted between the X vs M was almost $2000 for a 155LP.
Was a easy choice for me.

#9 ease hike trim

ease hike trim

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 05:58 PM

That is just not true X doesn't last twice as long, The old theory was the carbon broke down faster but it's negligible. I just replaced my 2000 Quantum main with a new Fusion M and it's awesome. I agree with the statement if your sailing a 30 footer or smaller get the X with neglible performance difference, the price differential has nothing to do with the market either, Carbon costs more. period. What is conventionally laminated sailcloth??? The build process and lamination with the weaves is similiar in most high end sail, the cost of carbon over Kevlar for example is substantial.If your racing over a 30 footer you buy carbon for strength, load, shape, weight etc. Sailors are not dumb, (most) something costs more because its more expensive to make and usually better..............


OK...first off, you don't seem to understand the difference between Fusion X and Fusion M.

Fusion X is a simply a crosscut sail built out of a balanced laminate (fill cloth)...this technology was originally developed by Contender (Maxx), with both Dimension Polyant and Bainbridge improving on the concept by making the off-threadline fibers bidirectional instead of unidirectional. Between D/P's Flex and Bainbridge's DIAX2, you have a choice of PEN, Poly, Aramid (Twaron/Technora) and Carbon. These are all fiber choices, not technology system choices. You are somewhat correct that carbon fiber is more expensive than Aramid, Pentex or Polyester, and today's midmodulus and low-modulus carbons are far superior that the original high-mod carbons used in the AC in 1993-1996, when a mainsail would famously last for 50 tacks. Today's carbon sails generally last as long as Aramid sails do in terms of fiber breakdown (and UV doesn't affect carbon, either, which is a big advantage). You do pay a premium for carbon.

Fusion M is a membrane system developed by Quantum Sail Design Group. "Skins" are made as flat triangles, laminated on a large floor (conventianally laminated sailcloth passes through a laminator where it undergoes very consistent heat and pressure), and then cut into 54" strips and broadseamed to add shape. The fibers they lay into these sails can again be carbon, Aramid, PEN, whatever. The question asked about relative performance and lifespan of M and X sails, and we have to assume an apples to apples fiber comparison (both sails would be a carbon/Aramid blend most likely).

So, to restate, I have sailed with both technologies on the same boat, and my opinion is that Fusion X sails, whether made from D/P's Flex product or Bainbridge's DIAX2 product, will provide a much longer lifespan (and I stand by double), with a negligible or even imperceptible stepdown in performance (especially on a #3). This is not a slag against Fusion M, either. The product has made lerge strides in the past few years and has proven itself at the Grand Prix level to be very fast. If you still have doubts or would like to further challenge my assertions, feel free to PM me, but please be more careful about the misinformation you post, as the public is already way too confused about the different choices they have available today.

#10 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 10 November 2007 - 06:06 PM

I bought a Q Fusion X 150LP for my boat last year. I am a decent club racer (win once in a while), no illusions of rock stardom - you sound like you aspire to somewhere between me and Grand Prix. IMHO only real rock stars who rarely make any mistakes can benefit from the top of the line sails. For the rest of us, going the wrong way just once, one botched boat handling maneuver or not paying attention to trim for any length of time will cost more time/distance than the difference in sails might provide. Can't say anything about X vs M comparison or longevity (yet), but after one full season with it I am very happy with the shape, build quality, handling, etc. I can't imagine how I could see the additional value to justify the premium for Fusion M. My 2...

#11 Chuck L

Chuck L

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,301 posts
  • Location:True North Strong and Free

Posted 11 November 2007 - 01:12 AM

OK...first off, you don't seem to understand the difference between Fusion X and Fusion M.

Fusion M is a membrane system developed by Quantum Sail Design Group. "Skins" are made as flat triangles, laminated on a large floor (conventianally laminated sailcloth passes through a laminator where it undergoes very consistent heat and pressure), and then cut into 54" strips and broadseamed to add shape. The fibers they lay into these sails can again be carbon, Aramid, PEN, whatever.

...the public is already way too confused about the different choices they have available today.


Now I AM confused...

M is the molded (loadpath) sail and X is the crosscut, correct? Are M sails really made flat and then cut and seamed together? I thought they were 1-piece molded (I'm not familiar with the Quantum molding technology - I know the North molded sails are formed on a 3-d "barrel").

I would have expected this description of the crosscut sail (the "X").

Does the X have load fibres applied subsequent to the panels being joined together?

I understand the fibre choices as being almost independent of the sail forming technology (X vs. M).

Thanks for clearing up my confusion!

#12 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 11 November 2007 - 01:33 AM

Now I AM confused...

M is the molded (loadpath) sail and X is the crosscut, correct? Are M sails really made flat and then cut and seamed together? I thought they were 1-piece molded (I'm not familiar with the Quantum molding technology - I know the North molded sails are formed on a 3-d "barrel").

I would have expected this description of the crosscut sail (the "X").

Does the X have load fibres applied subsequent to the panels being joined together?

I understand the fibre choices as being almost independent of the sail forming technology (X vs. M).

Thanks for clearing up my confusion!.




Fusion M are crosscut sails. Each "Panel" is custom made 54" wide so that the strings line up with the adjoining panel giving continuous look to the strings. The difference is the custom string layout in each panel.

Fusion X (see picture) is a made from mass produced roll of continuous sailcloth. The panels are then crosscut and seamed together.


The only difference between the two is M has custom string layout vs X with a homogeneous layout.

#13 Kestrahl

Kestrahl

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts
  • Location:Christchurch. New Zealand

Posted 11 November 2007 - 05:03 AM

So in Theory M will be abit lighter aswell.

The main problems with M are A) goes brittle B) Carbon snaps. I would agree a Fusion X (or Flex) sail will last about twice as long as Stratis/fusionM/3DL. If you really want durability and shape holding ability for club racing Tri-radial GPL is very hard to beat.

#14 Chuck L

Chuck L

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,301 posts
  • Location:True North Strong and Free

Posted 12 November 2007 - 01:53 PM

Fusion M are crosscut sails.

Got it -- I was thinking that they (Fusion M) were 1-piece molded like the North.

Thanks for the clarification!

#15 low and slow

low and slow

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 12 November 2007 - 03:31 PM

the 3DL are shaped in a crosscut manner the film is broad seamed and then put over the mold where the yarns are put down triradial sails are yesterdays news they are heavy and not very durable

#16 Kmag

Kmag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Laguna Beach CA
  • Interests:Sailing, Surfing, Snowboarding

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:33 PM

the 3DL are shaped in a crosscut manner the film is broad seamed and then put over the mold where the yarns are put down triradial sails are yesterdays news they are heavy and not very durable


That is not true about Tri-Radial... Carbon Tri radial is usually the same weight on boats in the 30ft range and only a percentage point heavier on larger boats. A TRI-Radial carbon sail will last longer than whatever load-path "buzzword of the day" sails mentioned.

#17 viva la figa

viva la figa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:06 PM


the 3DL are shaped in a crosscut manner the film is broad seamed and then put over the mold where the yarns are put down triradial sails are yesterdays news they are heavy and not very durable


That is not true about Tri-Radial... Carbon Tri radial is usually the same weight on boats in the 30ft range and only a percentage point heavier on larger boats. A TRI-Radial carbon sail will last longer than whatever load-path "buzzword of the day" sails mentioned.


Spot on...Carbon GPL tri Radial sails are hard to beat...and hard to beat to death!

#18 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:41 PM

2 simple things to look at when buying a sail..

Racing life - How long the designed shape lasts and how the sail reacts over its designed wind range.

Ultimate life - How long the Physical Triangle lasts.

Some people expect the have the durability of Dacron and the Shape holding/performance benefits of "String Sails". Realistically You have one, or the other, or a Compromise somewhere in the middle.

I seriously hate seeing some poor guy/gal sailing with a 5 year old sail, getting pumped on the race track and saying "Must be my crew or something because my Triangle is still in good shape, it hasn't fallen apart yet".. Maybe it's ultimate life is stacking up to his expectations, but sure as hell the "Racing life" went a few seasons ago..

#19 Pinching

Pinching

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:45 AM

FC: I bought a fusion x aramid MH 1 on a 15000 lb 41 footer in the c bay in 2007. For our loads, it didn't hold its shape as will as triradial aramid. We went with Q triradial carbon after less than 2 seasons on that sail.

We're still avoiding any load path sail having basically killed a North 2004 3DL MH1 in 1.5 seasons.

Of course, a 3 doesn't get beat up like an MH1, but we get some breeze on the Bay (we blew battens off our 3 this year).

Love the Q design and svc though, I'd steer away from X.

ymmv




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users