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".
Have we had umpteen broken masts, no, is this because builders are building over stiff masts so they measure to the tip rule ? I’d say not; I’d say mast builders are building masts how they want them and then adding lead to the to to make them measure
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.
Agree that the concept is to sail 1 and 2 up; but the right mast for sailing one up will not be the right mast for sailing 2 up. You comment on optimised one up boats not being good for the class, but there are already 3 single handed optimised boats I can think of. Altered was a solely one up boat, I know of one other Stealth that can
Only be sailed in one-up mode and my boat is optimised for sailing one up – I have a single handed cut sail, and all the “2 up kit” can be removed except for 8 bolts that hold the self tacker on. I believe John may have made my mast on the basis of sailing single handed and so my boat will not be a quick sailed 2 up. Optimised single handed F16’s exist.
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.
I can understand this when launching the class.
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.
I can understand builders not wanting to build a carbon mast to start with, but I believe that this will change as ther benefits of the carbon mast are understood. Is there not a Blade with a carbon mast at your Club ?
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.
I and others perceive these gains to be real and so use Carbon masts.
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.
Really, If I was sailing 2 up I would want a STIFFER mast as the loads and Righting moment of the boat are different. Sailing 2 up you would need a stiffer mast to support the increased loads.
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.
Really. I find this surprising. How many races are you basing this on. Do there appear to be conditions where Alu performs better over Carbon(and visa versa), or is there a general equality ?
