Simon,

please don't repeat statements like :



Ad infinitum.

In other posts it has been shown that this statement is unfounded. Tipweight does not limit which people can or can not sail the F16, afterall with righting aids everybody can. A portion of alu masted F16 owners do use additional righting aids and there is no reason why other sailors can't do so as well.

Repeating this statement as if it is an commonly accepted truth is simply not thruthful.


From now onwards I shall be completely honest and it should be noted that this may bring me into conflict with some parties. I trust that this is appreciated.





The initial statement is wrong. The superwind mast is nowhere near as stiff as the Stealth mast I raced with still the two rigs don't seem to differ much in performance at all. Lately I've been dueling with an carbon masted F16 and interestingly enough the difference was not always in favour of carbon. Again I really don't see why mast stiffness is made into such a big issue. And I certainly don't see mast stiffness as a limiting factor for tipweight. As such there is no self governing principle to be found here. Not in the way as you present it.

The data provided (during time of acceptance of tipweight rule) by the only carbon mast builder for F16's till recently was achieving 5.5 kg tipweights on customized 1-up masts. 6.00 kg tipweight was therefor a close approximation of what was reasonable.




The reasons for the current tipweight rule are far more political, economical, organisational and perceptional then technical. It has always been that way.

Some of these reasons may not longer apply but that is a different discussion.

First off.

In the beginning we (as a class) simply could not accept a few mast breakages in a row. Perception wise this would have been a PR disaster. Yes it will be insane to build masts too light but as a class we couldn't risk somebody still being foolish enough to try. The tipweigt rule directly addressed the peer pressure a mast builder could feel to "risk it".

Secondly the F16 concept is intended to use the same hardware both in 1-up and 2-up modes. It is not in the interest of the class to see a specialize 1-up masts that can not be used for 2-up mode. This problem did arise in the Taipan 4.9 class where 2-up crews would buy boats with optimized 1-up masts and break them. It was decided to avoid it. Adding layer of glass or hoops in carbon masts was a way around this issue. With it the bending characteristic of a mast could still be fully optimized without risking breaking it when abuse by a heavy two-up crew. The glass (or hoops) do not add stiffness but do add robustness. The tipweight rule was the best way to achieve this. In the Taipan class the 1-up mast was eventually phased out and replaced by the 2-up mast with an adjust cut for the mainsail.

Thirdly, carbon was expensive back then and carbon masted F16 were far too expensive to start the class up with it. At the time there was a need to keep the boat really affordable or the F16 class would be a dead-born. The only way to achieve that was to use alu masts. And the only way to make sure that Alu masts would be considered competitive was to limits the PERCEIVED benefits of the carbon mast. Again the tipweight rule was the best way to adress this.

Fourthly, it is paramount for the F16 class to have several builders offer fully optimized F16 designs. This makes the class alot more viable and assures interested parties looking to get into F16 sailing. Only Stealth marine at the time seriously considered marketing their boats with carbon masts, all other possible builders were pretty much supporting the total ban on carbon masts for economic and profit reasons. Stealth Marine and the homebuilders were too small a base to succesfully start to F16 class upon. At least a 2nd commericial builder and must desireably a 3rd was needed. The 2nd proved to be VWM and the 3rd is AHPC. When AHPC launches then the F16 class will have been succesfully established and the 4th and 5th builders are then expected to link up. In my mind these are Blade AUS and Bimare. It is my understanding that VWM, AHPC and BLADE AUS are not yet in the position to offer their products with a carbon mast as standard. Only Stealth marine and Bimare can. At this time VWM, AHPC (and soon Blade AUS) are the main stay of the F16 internationally and the best candidates to establish the F16 class in the all important European market. AHPC actually introduced a proposal to ban carbon masts all together. A compromised was reached halve way.

I hate to say but growing the F16 class does indeed include balancing these things. And for the Stealth owners among us, I'm personally looking into raising the importance of the Stealth F16 in the global picture.


5th. Perception of the sailors. This was a big issue back then. A significant group of F16 sailors felt directly threatened by the carbon masts and we couldn't risk the F16 class to be split over this issue. Limiting the PERCEIVED gains that could be had with carbon was the key to solidifying the different parties into a single uniform class.

6th. Interestingly enough a flexible mast is actually better for crews who switch regulary between 2-up and 1-up sailing using the exact same hardware. The Alu mast is considered by some to be superior in this then a carbon mast and I think they are right. This was one reason for not making the alu mast outdated and supporting its continued use in the F16 class. By now the Superwing mast was planned to be replaced by an improved alu design but this project is on hold at this time.


Several of us have sailed/raced against carbon masts and interestingly enough the performance difference on the water is not really conclusive. I personally think that carbon masts have very many PERCEIVED advantages, but many don't really result in much actual gains on the water. So personally on technical aspects the argument can be had that it doesn't matter much either way. The bulders probably no this very well. But this was never the issue that was mostly feared. It is the perception that the customer might has that is most feared by all who are against. And this customer perception can be quite irrational.

If the customer for some reason feels pressured into having a carbon mast then he will demand a carbon mast of the builders, but often not be willing to pay much more for the upgraded boat. 14.500 to 15.000 Euro seems to be the max a EU customer is willing to pay for an F16 whether or not it is fitted with alu or carbon mast. The production cost of a carbon mast for builders like AHPC and VWM is such that offering a carbon mast directly decimates their profit margins making continued production not economic viable anymore. 3rd party carbon mast suppliers are still asking to much for their carbon masts.

I've been involved in actual alu mast production and one can have a die made and run a batch of 30 straight anodised alu masts (discarting a few crooked ones) boxed and shipped for 10.000 Euro's. The same price will only get you 3 to 4 carbon masts by a 3rd party supplier. It is this price difference that allows the builders to make a profit. And this very profit is why they are attracted to design and produce F16 boats. If they have to hand off this profit margin to some 3rd party carbon mast builder then it may be more attractive to leave the class.

Both Stealth Marine and Bimare has in house carbon mast production and as such earn their profit margin either way. This is NOT the case with the other builders. Also Bimare is still not offering a fully optimized F16 and as such we are left with only one builder who can offer a carbon masted F16 at the price the customers are willing to pay. Sadly this builder has the least market penetration internationally to fully support the F16 on its own. So we are stuck with supporting the Alu masted F16 builders to grow the F16 class.

I do really hope to see a several Stealth F16's at the Global Challenge in Zandvoort this Aug as otherwise VWM and AHPC will corner the European market and press the Stealth design out of the mainland market. In my analysis, the builder (or builders) that establish itself (themselfs) as the dominant supplier on the EU market will grow to be the most powerful infuence in F16 class business. The way the carbon mast issue is handled may well be determined by such a development.

It is just a wild idea but would it be possible for Stealth Marine to establish herself as the dominant carbon mast builder for F16's. For years now she is underquoting the 3rd party carbon mast builders like Hall Spars, Saarberg, Fibrefoam, Australian Composites by a big margin. By now Stealth Marine has considerable experience in building these masts. I see a market potential here as other builders don't really care what kind of mast is on their boats as long as their profit margins are garanteed. If Stealth Marine can offer these at 1000 Euro's while another 3rd party builder asks at least 2000 Euro's then ....

Maybe the Italian Riba company can.

It is time for some hard competition driving the carbon mast costs down. Because if it stays at 2000 Euro's for a carbon blank incl. taxes then we'll be sailing with alu masts for a very very long time. With tipweights of about 8 kg.




I gave the details on that in an earlier posting.


To summerize this post. Be very careful with what you do with the tipweight rule. There are some rather powerful forces at play here and it is safe to say that they would vote for a total ban on carbon masts before they would vote for the removal of the tipweight rule.

Opening up this discussion may have a totally unintended outcome.

From my own discussions over the years and what my network of sources is picking up I can assure many that the current tipweight rule has been an excellent tool in keeping a lid on this pandora's box.

The only way to express how deep this issue goes without breaching confidentiallity clauses is to note that I personally will not support any change to the tipweight rule even though on pure technical grounds I no longer see a compelling reason to have it. I would love to have such a light weight carbon mast myself but I don't think it is in the interest of the F16 class to have it.

Wouter