I wish to add a few points to this discussion.


To Matt,




I was actually the one who secured the Superwing deal with AHPC for all F16 builders. I was also directly involved in the first production batch that was shipped to multiple parties and imported a batch of 10 masts to Dynautic in NL. In addition I ordered and shipped my own mast from Aus to NL for 800 bucks (a number I can quote) where a carbon mast (build locally) would have costed me 3500 bucks (both costs in Guilders not Euro). I was also involved with the specialized F16 beams that now also are fitted to the Falcon F16 (next to the Aussie Blade). Of course I've build up my own mast from bare parts as I wanted full control over how it was fitted out. I too know a thing or two about producing/shipping/pricing/fitting out these items.

That is not to say that I'm always right, God forbid, but I do feel justified to be taken seriously.

Of course, alu masts do cost money as all things related to boat building. That kind of argument is not valuable. Shipping them is hard and yes transporters seem intent on destroying as much as they possibly can, but that is the same for carbon masts. It is also true that extrusion batches contain a sizeable number of crooked masts. My argument here is that the basic process of extrusion is so inexpensive that very large percentages of masts can simply be disguarded without resulting in unacceptable price rises of the completed product. Of course, this does mean charging more, but I for one will easily decide for say a 500 bucks additional charge if that means I can get a tipweight that is truly close to the statistical average (8.1 kg).

If I'm like that then I'm sure other customers feel similarly, if not all.

Why not introduce a system that we all know from electronics and other retail products. The "A" and the "B" branding of a product coming of the same production line ?

Customers not worried at all about tipweights can get a F16 for the standard pricing using one of the "heavier masts" (and get more robustness as the heavier mast will also be stronger)

Customers wanting a low (alu) tipweight pay a little bit more and get a carefully selected low tipweight alu mast. Running a batch of 30+ masts through a simple "bare section tipweight" measurement is not that hard is it ?

Customers looking for the pinneacle of F16 racing can buy the carbon mast and pay lots more. (but still the same as for a alu masted modern F18)


If indeed we have such a great swing in bare section tipweights then accept that publically and lay the choice to go with which one with the customer. I feel strongly that that is the F16 way of doing things.




To Macca,

Fair racing is secured when all participants have reasonable access to equally competitive boats. That is not to say that ALL BOATS BUILD OR SOLD MUST be equally competitive.

If a given customer (like myself) prefers to spend less or build his own boat and accepts being overweight or whatever, then that is the personal choice of the owner. This is fair to anyone else. If this owner decides to be fully competitive then a viable boat is available to him for the cost equal (or less) then a modern F18. I feel that qualifies as "reasonable access to equally competitive boat"

I feel no need to regulate on F16 boats more tightly then that. The mythical 30.000 Euro F16 that blows all other out of the water is just that : mythical !

I'm sure a 30.000 F16 can be ordered and build but it won't be significantly faster then the cheaper boats. That is all the class rules have to do. Everything else is best left to the intellectual capabilities of the owners/customers.


I do agree that it is cheaper to tool up (produce and ship) for a 40 mast batch of alu masts then to tool up for even 1 single carbon mast (in a commerical sense). Or at least the pricing I'm aware of suggests as much. Hell, throw out 75% of the alu batch and you are still several times cheaper.

Matt is however right that homebuilders and some in-house mast builders can produce carbon masts for a very attractive price that makes the price advantages normally associated to aluminium too small to matter. For example, Stealth marine already has the tooling and the cost for each additional mast made is very low because it is done in-house. The finish guys are handy and shipping anything to Finland is expensive/risky. They to prefer to make their own carbon masts. Why should we disallow them this (better) option if the difference between alu and carbon is limited due to the tipweight rule ?

In my opinion it is better to guarantee the most inexpensive option for ALL then just for those who life in certain area's where international shipping is cheap (like myself). Allowing maximal freedom in choice of materials is a key feature in this respect. Afterall, the carbon masted Stealth F16 is still the least expensive F16 on the market today. Why should we ruin that ?

Wouter