I can say unequivocally that we could use our standard A class profile carbon mast section on an F16 without any fear that it will break under either two up trapezing and/or under spinnaker loadings either one up or two up. Further, with only the “fixed” rigging IE diamonds, diamond wires etc, it would comply with the current “tip weight” rule, and having the section “stiff” is not a problem, quite the reverses. To marry the sail to the carbon section requires cutting much less luff round into the sail to allow for the extreme stiffness of the section. We have our carbon masts built firstly with the priority of strength and under the criteria that if/when the general public sail them they (the mast) will stand up to the absolute abuse that they will be put under, they are not built only to be treated with kid gloves by experienced racers.
The cost is obviously more than for aluminium but the characteristics of the carbon mast would lean me very much in favour of the carbon. After all, in the overall cost of a new cat the extra for a carbon mast is not the major percentage “ball breaker” that many would seem to believe (approx 8% to 9% or there about). It’s a very nice feeling when you ditch a cat and the mast actually floats and standing up the mast when rigging the boat with one arm is a real joy. Breakages are a fact of sailing whether it be masts sails hulls or any other part of the boat so why isolate carbon masts, aren’t all breakages the reason why we have insurance for any way?