What I meant to imply was that it didn't take me reading your entire post to realize that it's crap. You list materials that have a better tensile strength or lower density but not BOTH in the same material. You list some sort of table that's silly over complicated in that it ignores the diameter of the aluminum required to achieve the same bending properties as if it is not important. You're only presenting part of the picture because if you present the entire one, it weakens your argument. Again though, it's like arguing with a pig.

I think it's probably a decent idea for this boat to have a beam that starts with wood to be cost effective. But I was responding to your statement that carbon is for lazy engineers. Just go look at an F1 racer and tell my how "lazy" those engineers are.