Yes, carbon masts are better than aluminium in terms of performance. Less weight (overall and at the extremities of the boat), greater stiffness, more control of the stiffness properties during build, all of these can improve performance.

But it depends on the application. An absurd example, but still relevant to the discussion, is that putting a carbon mast on a laser will be faster, but pretty useless considering you can't race with it against other lasers...so carbon isn't a better material for laser masts.

A less absurd example is plane wings, all performance gliders have carbon wings, but I can't think of one commercial plane that has carbon wings. Despite all the known benefits, someone has decided that aluminium is going to be "better".

Horses for courses...

Speaking of timber masts, has anyone tried to buy one recently? I've looked into them for other boats and they are more expensive than equivalent carbon masts! I've even read a story of, I think, a classic J boat which bought a carbon mast and painted it with a timber grain because it was cheaper than making a timber mast!

All the latest "state of the art" military fighters use composites almost exclusively and the "wings" (rotor blades) of the best military helicopters have been composite construction for years I think you will see as fuel cost etc increase more new commercial aircraft will use carbon composites in their construction (weight saving ergo greater efficiency, higher profits etc) and as the cost of composites reduce (relative to aluminium etc) so their use will increase in the aircraft industry. Today it appears simply a cost decision, not a quality one

If you want your freakin' class to grow then get off your [noodle] and sail your [noodle] boat. You are the biggest pain in the [noodle] in the sailing world that I can think of. You are right on par with the Mac 26x.

Just a little harsh me thinks? (A Mac 26 as a comparison?? now that is surely a little too far??)

Some weeks ago I put you on my ignore list. Unfortunately, I forgot to sign in this morning, so your diatribe was visible.

What I post and when I post is none of your business. You are an obnoxious, over bearing butt!

Use the ignore button. If you have the intellect to find it.

Trey, are you the same guy looking for a ride in Europe? No wonder the board is not alive with offers. Please don't be the Ugly American, they already hate us enough without your help. Now we all see why. Trey if you have nothing to add to the dabate, keep your pie hole shut. Or is that too dificult? Then have another Doughnut, but please STFU.

Pete, first you have to define what is "better". There is no doubt carbon is lighter and stronger, but it costs more and will snap instead of bend before it breaks. Do you remember that American Airlines Airbus that crashed shortly after take off in NYC a few months after 9-11? It had a Carbon fiber tail that just "snapped off". They inspected all the other Airbus tails and guess what, they found lots of cracked mounts. So in that case, carbon might not have been "better".

Point taken. In retrospect, the question might better have been: Are masts strong enough?

I'm aware of two catastrophic mast failures this year. One alu. one carbon.

In its convoluted way, this brings me back to the the F16 question about "mast tip weight". I'm inclined to keep the rule. As a consumer, I just don't trust lighter masts.

As with everything.. there are good carbon masts and bad carbon masts, good al mast, bad ones. You can make a crappy POS carbon one or a POS al one. If the price of carbon comes down I think all masts will be carbon though because there are advantages. Just because it is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. But what % of sailors can utilize the advantage is a different thread.

Since you are a new Blade owner, <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, please see the F16 thread about tip weight. There is a class vote pending.

I contributed to said thread. I still think it is interesting that some people say they live in places where an al mast and carbon mast cost the same!

WAIT.. when did I get stars? I would like to thank the academy (aka the forum), my mom, my dad, all my boats that have served me over the years.... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

One more pro carbon point.

Carbon masts can be repaired rather easily after significant failure.

I dropped an aluminum mast and put a nice ding in it, it had to be replaced.

My HT mast was broken in half by a storm, the break was a spiral, splintered break, it was a really ugly looking break. The HT mast is back in business, sailed it last weekend, its working fine. The mast track wasnt quite perfect, I mixed up some goo and a couple of hours later it was perfect.

The more repairable, the more fixeable, the more you can easlily customize a part the better it is in my opinion. Carbon, and composites win on these points.

I've noticed the carbon supply is getting better and the prices have come down some - just as I predicted last year.

There is no way to make an unbreakable mast. If you could, you would not want the boat anyway. That having been said, masts range quite a bit in ability to take abuse.
In my life, I have owned a Dart 18, Hobie 14, 16,18 Nacra 5.8, Several Nacra 6.0’s and a couple of A cats. The Nacra 6.0 mast was the heaviest, but I broke 1 and bent 4 of them. These were sailed hard and mostly bent under extreme circumstances or abuse. The dart mast got the most abuse and it is still straight after 28 years. Heavy does not equate to bulletproof.

Personally, I think if you don’t abuse them, a carbon mast will last a long time, ditto with an aluminum mast. I think you need to do a reasonable amount of maintenance i.e. replace shrouds every year-18 months, and diamond wires every 2 years, wire tie the hound so the shackle does not loosen over time causing demasting, tie the boat down, don’t leave the sails up unattended on the beach, don’t pitchpole in 15 ft of water and you will be fine. If you want a true beach cat, as opposed to a racing catamaran, a carbon spar is probably not a good choice.
Maybe a F16 is too heavy to make a carbon mast worthwhile, I don’t know. It certainly would make it easier to right the boat for a light solo skipper (yes wout I know you can carry all sorts of righting aids also but they are a pain in the butt. I can right my a cat just by holding onto the dolphin striker and leaning back. I weigh ~ 165 lbs.
I certainly would not bother with carbon beams with that high a minimum weight. If the class lowered the min weight by 30 lbs or so, a carbon stick and beams becomes a more realistic option.

Cheers,
Eric

Well after making a point to step the Blade mast when I was at the Alter Cup I have to say I see no reason to move to Carbon. The blade mast was really nice. Very light for it's size. I was really impressed with it. So what if you drop the weight buy a few pounds. At what cost is that few pounds going to come at? Carbon is a ton more expensive because of the labor involved in building it. I bet it takes (I'm guessing) 80 hours to build one. 80x$25=$2000 just in labor. An aluminum mast probably takes about 1 hour to build tops. So compare $2000 to $25 and tell me which has a built in cost? I have no dog in this fight but I can't imagine why you would move to carbon in the F16 class. I've seen a lot of classes messed up by moving to higher and higher tech.

Mike Hill
www.stlouiscats.com

(165 = 75 kg) Of course this is very nice, still you can right the alu masted F16's with a simple righting line as well. A little more effort then just grabbing the dolphinstriker but not much more effort. I think that for an alu mast that is still pretty good rightability. An carbon masted F16 at the current rules will also allow you to right it with minimal use of the righting line, a little more then with your A-cat but not by much at all.

The righting bag comments made by me earlier were in relation to the hypothetical case of a 61 kg or less skipper (= 132 lbs), how many of those do we have ? Besides these skippers (solo) will be way uncompetitive on a F16 anyway, they simply won't have enough weight to keep the boat down in anything above 6 to 7 knots of wind.

It is not like the sky is falling down.

Wouter

Thank you Matt and amen...make it 99.999999%

Reminds me a little of surfing and surfboards. I grew up with a guy named Jeff Clark. This guy is an incredible waterman. He'd windsurf in a hurricane and surf anything on any board. We'd always be debating the best surfboard design--twin fin, tri, etc; how much rocker, bouyancy, rail profile, etc. Meanwhile, you could hand Jeff a 2x8 and he could surf circles around you. Jeff always tried to get me to go surf this spot where we lived--looked too big and dangerous for me. He surfed it anyway...for years without any fanfare. That spot is now known as Mavericks, one of the legendary big wave spots in the world. If you haven't seen it, rent Riding Giants!

Yep! It's amazing.

That's a Surfing Movie? I thought it was a Paris Hilton porno! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

A further point in carbon's favour - if you want one mast someone will make it for you. A friend bent a Hurricane mast and waited over a year to get a replacement as there were no sections available and the supplier wasn't prepared to make less than 6 at one time. (I think the class association ended up ordering a supply).

Don't hold back, tell him what you think. : )
How can we tell the mono boys we are just a love fest??!!

The problem with carbon masts is price. You just don't want that much money to snap.
The answer is in your budget and your desire to win and right easily.
More time on water will create more speed than a new mast though.
With all things there are postive sides.
Race freaks need a steady class rule so the fleet is big and even.
Tech freaks want development like A class.
The boats should be picked accordingly.
If the mast has to have weight placed on top it is not worth having as the advantages are gone and costs and risks are more.