Everybody WAS supplied with correct information each time any info was asked. No-one can blame any other person for not supplying info when not asked for it. Also the fact that someone doesn't believe the info supplied doesn't mean that it is wrong or that it is part of protectionism.

The argument for the alu mast was and still is that that mast is the most cost effective way to a given level of performance. At all times it was agreed that it takes more body mass to right when using ONLY a righting line. And at all times it was suggested that this issue can easily be overcome by a righting bag or other aids like shroud extenders. If you are 75 kg then a small bag of 10 liters will easily do the job. Several F16 sailors are doing it this way. When there is some wind you won't even need the bag as with the correct technique the boat will come up with much lower body weights.


I'm truly sorry Gato, but it does really seem that a large portion of the way you view the situation is caused by the fact you look very negatively on the alu mast (incl. all weights and drawbacks you can find) and very favourably to carbon (ignoring all other factors in righting and limits in class rules).

The core of the situation is again the tip weights (yours was 8.0 ?, Val's 8.5 kg ?) The carbon mast tipweight is at least 6.00 kg as per F16 class rules, but these tipweights already exclude 5.0-6.0 in sail weights, 1.5 kg in standing rigging and easily a few kg in water sticking to the top of the rig after a capsize.

I have seen a 85 kg guy being unable to right his Stealth F16 with a carbon mast. We flipped almost simultaniously, I got mine up and he didn't. This is one indication of how important the other factors can be. They were enough to overpower a 2.0-2.5 kg tipweight difference.

While there is definately a difference in righting between alu and carbon it is very easy to over estimate or overvalue it. There are indeed other factors in play that can't be ignored.

Wouter