I have to say that I only “skimmed” through Wouters “counter” reply to my earlier post on my opinion of carbon compared to aluminium, but I take it that he disagrees with it??
I did read his comparison of time effect on aluminium comparing it to a “theoretical” similar time exposure to carbon and on this I would like to point out that although his comparatives concern the “life” of the two different material masts, he is forgetting that most of the boats that any aluminium mast is standing up on when exposed for long periods of time, to the extremes of weather, are on FIBREGLASS boats. Now any fibre reinforced plastic (fibreglass) boat is constructed from the same basic materials as an FRP mast. The base resins may vary but the basic form and structure are the same, so if the aluminium mast stands up to years of exposure abuse I presume that the boat that the mast(s) are standing up on will disintegrate in a relative short time, IF, as Wouter intimates, the life of the FRP under weathering extremes is much less durable.
The resins in the laminates of every fibreglass boat will break down under the direct influence of UV exposure that is a feature of ALL resins. The only thing that protects the laminate resins from UV breakdown is the surface coating of either “gel coat” or some other “paint coating, but as we can see from FRP boats that have been in long service, some for over 50 years, the surface coatings work extremely well. Why should the life (through exposure) for a boat hull be any different from the life of a FRP mast with similar coating protection?