Paul,
If you look at the difference between an aluminium wing mast and a carbon wing mast blank section I'd expect you are looking at well in excess of $2000.

Regards,
Phill

Is this mast the exactly the same section as the Alu mast ?

I think for this kind of debate people must try and compare oranges with oranges.

There is no point trying to compare masts of different construction if they do not have the same section - I admit that the carbon and Alu masts will certainly have different bend and so are not totally the same if they have the same section.

Hi all,

my personal opinion for what it is worth.

T foils adjustability should be banned.

Why? I like sailing the boat not making adjustments and don't want to add any extra costs. Also two up boats would have an extra advantage as one ups already have too much to do.

Mast tip weight, should be kept.

Why? It keeps Aluminium Masts close to Carbon in weight reducing performance advantage. In OZ Carbon masts are far more expensive than Aluminium masts as the only moulds are for A class style wing masts, which cost aprox. double. Also has proven to be strong enough, but not heavy by other cat standards except A's.

In closing, we have to keep costs under control and realize, that people the world over have different access to materials, equipment and ability to pay for or build it themselves. I have met I14 sailors in OZ that have got out of the class because of expense of all carbon rigs and adjustable foils.

Doesn't hurt to discuss things though, keep it coming <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I think that's a very compelling argument, especially as the biggest gains come in high winds, where the 2-up boats are already have the edge.

Paul

Hi Simon,

the Alloy Superwing mast and Carbon A masts are as similar in section as a Alloy mast can get to a carbon wing. That is the only comparison we have in OZ. Even a second hand A class carbon mast costs about the same as a new Alloy Superwing. I have been looking at this for a while, I was just lucky that the old A I bought and "Altered" to a F16 had a carbon mast with it, which after strenghthening which brought it up to weight was strong enough.

The other thing we want to avoid is what the Taipan Class used to have, which was cat rig and sloop rig masts of different strength and weight, because over time boats where bought and sold, changed from one up to two up and broke masts which wasn't good for the class. They now only make one weight of Superwing strong enough for Two Up. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Finaly with no minimum weight people could put A class masts on F16, without strengthening some would certainly not be strong enough, they break on A classes <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />.

I think the added complexity of adjustable foils, especially individually, dont neccesarily pay off largely. But I am more inclined to not disallow what hasn't been built and tested yet. Performance data both on this and banana boards (which are already disallowed) are not clear, so why ban them? Perhaps someone shows up at Zandvoort with something experimental and sweep the fleet, but I think the risk for that is relatively small. The odds of getting it wrong or breaking the stuff is probably larger. If the technology shows itself to either add too much complexity, fragility or cost, then ban it.

Mast tip weight should in my opinion still be there. Carbon is still expensive, while there are lots of alu masts/sections available. I wonder how much the corrector weights on the carbon masts mean for crew weight range on the boats? Are we talking1.5kgs or 15kgs wider weight range?

Rolf, but if we ban them once someone has spent (a lot) of money on developing them they will not be happy; if we just ban them then the problem goes away.

I firmly believe they will give a considerable andvantage upwind as you can create RM and a massive advantage downwind as you can wind on the anti-pitchpole when you need it. I just feel they are an expensive and complex system that will give gains and if we don't ban them we will be sailing obsolete boats. I do not believe that the tip weight on the mast difference is so great.

Scooby,
Not exact same but very similar.
Exact same would most likely have a greater cost differential.

As far as adjustable T foils. The design I was working on was not for an F16 but could be used on one. I currently have no intention of doing this.

The point is if we ban adjustable foils but reduce the tip weight to make carbon mast almost compulsorary what have we achieved.
One rule change may limit "possible" costs in the future while the other will make sure we have additional costs now.
From someone who has been here from the beginning, we've been through this too many times already.

Simon, I dont agree. As long as the ones who develop these rudders are in touch with the community, they will know the rudders will be banned unless they are cheap, easy to use and affordable. If they dont stay in touch, they know they are taking a risk.
On the other hand, if they come up with a good and affordable solution that proves effective, why ban it? More power and speed to the F16 is good.

I feel as the governing body we have to examine closely changes to ensure that they help continue to grow the class and not hinder it, no matter our personal opinions about what may be "better" or cool for the boat. We are a development class but in the extreme we can easily go the way of the C or the F18 depending on some of these choices.

1) Tip weight - As Phill pointed out, if we remove the tip weight rule the apparent advantage is goint o fall to the Carbon masts. This is significantly more expensive and potentially more fragile than the aluminum sections. The cost to advantage gain, I do not feel is worth it and the current cost of these platforms is at the high end of what most people ar willing to spend. We are not a class with a huge base and providing any boats with a percieved advantage will only help obsolete the others in the eye of the buyers and help to alienate people who are already in the class.

2) Adjustable foils - Same for this. Added cost to the boats and the poetentail to create an impression that it is a must have feature.

Personally I do not like the tip weight and feel that if you want to add complexity to your rig with adjustable foils, good luck, it is hard enough to keep the boat going the right way fast without having a couple more things to adjust that could easily be providing as much of a detriment as a gain. However, The F16 concept is perfect for me and I want to see that the class keeps growing. More and better sailors continue to come in and a used boat market develop sto help expand the base. Do anything to make it more complex or expensive is a detriment to this growth and something I feel should be carefully avoided.

Matt

[quote. . . Do anything to make it more complex or expensive is a detriment to this growth and something I feel should be carefully avoided.

Matt [/quote]

Well said! Couldn't agree more!

Well said! Couldn't agree more! [/quote]


I also agree.

Regards,
Phill

But how do you define cheap ?

Someone earning 200,000GBP PA would not flinch at spending 3K (or more) on Variable trim T foils that give a significant advantage; someone who is a student or earning a more "normal" wage would probably balk at spending this money. I am afraid that "cheap" is just a variable based on personal circumstances.

If we ban them, the problem goes away and we control one item in the potential arms race.



Tip weight I agree is more of an issue; however Somone commented that Carbon masts may be more fragile. I'd disagree with this; I took far more "care" with my old heavy Inter 17 Alu mast than I do with my Stealth Carbon one; both about the same length and the F16 one is far lighter. I believe that carbon masts are far stronger, but can be made more precisly and so we should vote on both these items. I've seen may more broken Alu masts when dailing with Kites than carbon ones. I also feel that Carbon masts would only loose a cpouple more KG and stay strong enough - note that the carbon (A class mast) on Altered was strenghtend to cvope with the rigors of F16 sailing.

The same argument can be made about carbon masts.
I don't like the tip rule but it is good for the class.
It's not like we have not voted on this before.

Since then carbon and labour (the major cost) have gone up- so it is unlikely the price of the masts has come down.

Regards,
Phill

Selfishly!

I don't want to spend any more than is necessary. I'm COMPLETELY satisfied with the performance I now have. I'm unwilling to pay anymore for a competitve boat.

I'm unconvinced carbon is better for masts.

We are already having enough growth problems without increasing the price of the boat and equipment.

Cheap? My definition is like yours, something I could easily afford without my wife discovering it. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
I do not have extra money to spend, but I dont want to stiffle innovation either. Neither do I see a reason to ban something which is not a problem yet. I think there will be huge problems in using these individually adjustable T-foils and they are probably not faster around the bouyos than a well sailed regular equipped boat due to handling issues. I think it will take more than a Rohan Veal to make these things work, so why ban them now instead of watching an potential development carefully?


Phill,

the masts we have gotten for our F16 project are tapered sections. Alu Tornado rigs are so cheap these days you literally get them thrown after you.

Carbon masts already have an advantage due to their customized stiffness (if you pay for it of course). Removing the tip weight will tip the scales for the carbon masts if you want to be really competitive. After the switch to SMOD carbon masts in the Tornado class none who want to be competitive use alu masts, even if they are faster in certain conditions and as fast mostly. I would like to say more on the topic, but I am off to celebrate our norwegian independence day <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Rolf,

the issue is that there are very considerable benefits to variable trim rudders that WILL make the boats obsolete once someone gets them to work - if we allow someone to develop them we cannot then just ban them. This is the crux of the issue - we either allow them and wait for someone to devlop them (and thus make our boats obsolete). Or we ban them now.

The class will look very ver ystupid if we do not ban something, then allow someone to develop itand then ban it

This would not be a sensible option IMO.

I am against banning adjustable T foils. Anything that might be a development should be encouraged and we should not restict ourselves.

However I think the thinking about adjustable T foils is flawed. A foiling moth is a foiling boat. An F16 is not a foiler. We adjust the balance of the boat by trim and weightshifting. If we get this out of balance then the T foil angle of attack will help correct it e.g. preventing a pitchpole. If the wind and weight balance is suddenly altered, the T foil angle of attack changes and helps correct the balance. We have a 16 foot waterline to balance. A foiling boat only has about 6 inches water line and the foil angle of attack is far more critical. Since every action need an equal and opposite one, by adjusting the T foils to balance a catamaran will be countered by changing the weight shift or trim. This means that if a T foil angle of attack needs to be changed then the boat must be sailing out of balance. In the current configuration on the Stealth, the T Foils are most active when either overpowered down wind or when the boat has to react to a gust. The foils correct the temporary out of balance boat. To use one as a continuous balnce control would only slow the boat down. A T foil does not generate energy.

The Hobie Tri foiler sails better than a Rave because the sensors anticipate the waves and the foil angle of attack changes before the wave hits it. A trailing edge elevator cannot do this. I think the foiling moths have been trying this idea out as well. This will not apply to our displacement 16 foot hulls.

I may be wrong but the only way to prove it is to develop it. So don't let's ban it.

I would like to comment on Carbon masts on F16s, I need to start by saying that I have a personal interest in carbon masts as I build them for F16's.

Firstly the debate should only be about the pros and cons for losing the tip weight, not about the durability or competitiveness of the 2 materials.

Argueing that we must have a weight to guarrantee durabilty is silly since no other part of the boat is governed in this way.

Sure someone could put an A mast on that is too weak, but they could put an aluminium one on that is too weak, or a wooden one, or they could build the hulls in paper. Our rules don't limit materials so why should we specify how much material is used for individual components.

The fact is that a very durable carbon mast (stronger than current alumium ones) can be built with a tip weight under 5kgs, and this is likely to come down with time. Adding 1.5 kgs to the top of a mast requires an extra 12 kgs or 24lbs of body mass to right the boat.

So what are the pros and cons for removing tip weights.

Cons

The only con is the percieved competitive equaility of bolting the lead to the top of the mast, but 90% of the advantage of a carbon masts comes from the abilty to develope a bend characteristic to suit the boat and the crew weight. So there is only a small speed hit to the carbon mast with 1.5kgs of lead on the top, and this is only in choppy conditions upwind.

Pros

Again only 1 in my opinion, and that is righting the boat, I know that many of my customers bought F16s because they are easy to right single handed, some sold FX1s and inter 17s for this reason and no other. Make no mistake for a lot of people this is important, in almost every demo I have done for a single handed sailor, he has insisted on capsizing and righting the boat on his own.

Does bolting 1.5 kgs of lead to the top a mast slow the boat down? not so that you would ever notice, but if you weigh 70 kgs it makes it bloody hard to get the boat up after you fall in the sea.

If the tip weight rule is nixed then people with money will go carbon and whether you can utilize the unique aspects of carbon to make your boat faster is almost besides the point. Would anyone buy a new A cat these days with an aluminum mast?
From a basic point of view - Getting a carbon mast is something like a 3000USD option... maybe it is different elsewhere and I sure you could find an older mast that would work BUT I think it would outprice a not so insignificant percentage of possible buyers.
BTW... I love the carbon mast on the Jav2 18HT. It is one reason why the boat works so well and I also think it is more durable than any other mast I have seen.