Weighting the tip is the worst place to add weight, because this placement maximizes the angular inertia of the mast more than any other place, increasing pitching (hobby horsing) in chop. When combined with a minimum mast weight, the tip weight creates an incentive for mast builders with high tech materials to instead make a internally heavy mast, which is likely to be more structurally sound. So, it makes sense to set the tip weight (and minimum mast weight) at least as high as the natural tip weight of the lightest proven-reliable carbon mast on the market, for safety.

I believe this "carbon safety" tip weight is likely to be less that the current rules' tip weight, acts as a valid safety rule, and does not significantly stifle innovation.

Even more weight at the tip is seen by some as a way to reduce the competitive advantage of carbon masts (a very one-design concept), and it can do so by rendering the C masts as heavy as Aluminum, with higher angular inertia if tip-weights are used, but stiffer... but that stifles innovation, does nothing to ensure Al mast safety, makes boats harder to right from a capsize, and increases overall weight. Since minimum weights are best achieved with carbon in the mast and not lead at the tip, it makes the best Carbon masts require more Carbon and therefore costlier, and only marginally better than Aluminum. So, you get to spend more money for less of an advantage. This sort of rule is an abomination because it makes people spend *more* money to get a competitive boat, and it stifles innovation by causing masts to be designed to a weight rule instead of designed to best use of materials.

Instead of mandating an Aluminum-mast tip weight, it would be better to either outlaw Carbon (the "level playing field" or "one-design" approach), or lighten the tip weight to levels appropriate for C (not Al) mast safety (the "safe innovation" approach). The F16 is an innovative class, which would be best served by the latter.

--Glenn