Forget part of your post sorry,




The mast is actually one of the few elements were the choice of material is rather important.

This has mainly to do with the differences in how mast is produced. Aluminium masts are only viable when extruded and this leads to a constant stiffness behaviour. Carbon masts can of course be layed up using locally different distributions and directions.

Nobody is saying that aluminium is the best material for masts, nor that any other material is.

So how do we square this situation with equality under F16 class rules ?

First we must note that at no single instant does the F16 class rules rule on details. This was a fundamental choice we made at the beginning. The rule makers did not presume to understand what the future might bring. Something that is expensive today could be cheap tomorrow and visa versa. Basing class rules on such fluctuating conditions would only create future problems that are best avoided. The decision was made to ONLY rule on abstract design specifications that would remain invariant under changing societal conditions. Laws of physics are one such invariant abstraction. Hence the F16 class rules rule on dimensions and shapes but not on materials. In that respect we are fundamentally different from the F18 class.

In order to substantiate the claim that "Something that is expensive today could be cheap tomorrow" I present the following example.

For about a good century, the Royal French court (as others) dinned of aluminium plates using aluminium cutlery instead of golden versions as was the custom before the discovery of aluminium. This was because at that time Aluminium was more expensive as Gold. The electrolyse method of converting Bauxiet (Aluminium ore) to pure aluminium hadn't been discovered yet and the metal had to be seperated using a difficult chemical method. And that made it more expensive then Gold. It was also considered a magical metal for being so much lighter then any other metals known and didn't corrode. Right after the discovery of the other seperation method, aluminium became so cheap and easily accessible that we now only consider it as dining equipment fit for a camping.

Similar reversals of fortune has happened in various field many times over the last 150 years. Who is not to say that carbon will become cheaper then aluminium somewhere down the line ? Or that a new material is discovered that replaces both ? Kevlar has already largely replaced carbon in hull construction because of economic shortages of carbon caused by booming airliner production.

Indeed, ruling on details such which materials can be used is not smart at all.

So limited by this fundamental choice we simply moved to equalize the masts made from any material to eachother. This resulted in the tipweight rule, F16 class rule 1.4.5 , adressing the enertia difference between masts of different overall weight.

That left only the inequality in local stiffness to be adressed. This "problem" was solved when it was found that an extruded alumnium mast, with constant cross section, could be fine-tuned locally in stiffness using a simple, lightweight and inexpensive method. A method much more suited to mass production then full carbon masts.

As it turns out now the difference between alu and carbon mast has not been found to be such that it was needed to further develop this new approach and it is in the refrigerator for now.

Interestingly, I pioneered the basic idea and worked on this mast design and it was likely to go onto the Aussie Blade F16. It is currently on hold as at this time not a large enough economic need is felt to implement it.

I won't publicize the details of this concept as it has some interesting economic potential. Also it can be used in the F18 class right now without it being easily spotted or be in clear breach of any F18 class rules. Additionally, this "concept" can be "retrofitted" to existing aluminium masts. So we can afford to wait this one out and see if the need to do so every arises.


Of course we also had a class vote on mast material back in 2002 and there is was afirmed that masts made of any material (specifically carbon) should be allowed. So as such it is a feature of the F16 class rather then a loophole that needs to be closed.


Summerizing :

-1- The F16 rules don't regulate on any materials due to a clear and fundamental line of reasoning
-2- Other rules are present in the F16 ruleset to equalize masts made of different materials
-3- Constant cross sectional masts as they are now are not making use of their full potential yet.
-4- The difference in performance between masts of different materials has not been found to lead to significant inequalities on the race course yet.
-5- The F16 class membership explicetly voted to allow masts made from different materials and in specific carbon.

Wouter