Regarding tip weights...my Marstrom Mast (alu) came with a .5 lbs lead weight rivetted to the very top. Surprised me! How can the carbon mast be promoted as "safer" since it's lighter...yes, sure it's safer than a alu stick with even more weight stuck to the top! Wouldn't it just be easier to change the tip weight rule and get the lead off if safety was the concern? I guess the intent of the tip weight rule is to prevent extra light/thin sections which would lead to failures left right and center.

There would need to be a change to the tip weight rule for carbon, as there's much less advantage if building to alloy weights.

Another thing I found quite intriguing about all this...if accepted Marstrom will be the only allowable builder of carbon masts section for 2 years, to help them re-coup development losses. This seems quite a departure from the "any manufacturer" nature of the the class.

Mike.

Hi Stranger,
It seems strange that the variation in aluminum mast bend from mast to mast is coming into question at this time. The Tornado has been around for a long time and there has been no question about mast bend inconsistency. Even if we start the Tornado history with the Marstrom Tornado, there has been no question about variation in aluminum mast bend until recently. Recently the position has come forward to put a carbon mast on the Tornado. Has a problem with the aluminum mast been invented? The two most important parameters affecting mast bend are mast section and wall thickness. The bend in the top few feet of the mast is very small reguardless of taper because the bending moment is still small due to the short lever arm in the top few feet of the mast. The region of max mast bend occurrs in the region below the hounds and above the diamond spreader. This part of the mast is untapered. If there is variation in aluminum mast bend/flex characteristics, it is likely in the extrusion die wearing out and allowing the mast wall thickness to increase. The solution is a new extrusion die.
As far as my comment about sailors specifying the mast layup, Scooby made the comment that sailors could "design their own masts to suit their needs".
If sailors design their own masts, it will be like the story of the three bears. The first one will be too stiff. The second one will be too soft and the third one will be just right.
Good Sailing,
Bill

Bill, I think there has always been this inconsistency...see the Marstrom website for a discussion. It's just never been discussed at length because there was no solution to it other than testing many extrusions until you found one that best matched your sailing style/weight range (ie. flex characteristics). Again, this was only ever a concern at the top levels of the class, where minute performance advantages are sought after. Of course at this level, budgets are less of a concern as well.





From looking at my alloy mast under spinny loads, a lot of bending is happening above the hounds and in a leeward direction...it looks ugly-scary. This is with the older Marstrom mast (pre-2000). They have reported failures in these older sections and have increased wall thickness of the web on current extrustions. There is also an untapered option offered...but I'm not convinced this increases strength above the hounds...just the flex characteristics and obviously buoyancy after a capsize.



This is exactly what Marstrom claims as a primary cause of extrusion variation...but that is can happen quite often and leads to basically no two masts being identical in flex performance.



And once it's "just right"...they can make that same unit for all boats they buy in the future and the build can offer it to other teams on demand.

Bill-

You hit the nail on the head - the dies wear out! This is not a new problem - it is inherent in the manufacturing process.

As a result mast flex repeatablity is not up to the standards required by world class one design sailors. For weekend warriors (including me) it is fine, but I don't believe that is the issue. If the T wants to stay at the pinnacle of the sport, then there is a compelling argument for eliminating this cr_p-shoot.

How would you like spend 8 years training full time to get to the Olympics with a reasonable medal shot (that is what it takes and more natural talent than 99% of us), then you break your #1 rig on the first day of the Olympic Regatta? You would have to sail the biggest regatta of your life with a completely different mast: different numbers; different tuning; different sailing style. At this level that is a huge adjustment. And that is not to mention the cost of the extra training required to have the back-ups dialed in just in case.

And thank you Tornado for pointing out that once you get it just right then you can have it over and over and over. Yes the initial cost is higher, but the long run cost is much lower - one carbon rig (OK include a spare tube if you are really serious) vs. 3-4 rigs minimum to test for a serious Olympic campaign in some classes (and that is after you choose the section you want).

There may be good arguments for not changing the class rule -- status quo is important to keep from making boats obsolete w/o upgrades. But just because you are not an Olympic caliber sailor (maybe you are - I've never heard of you but what do I know) does not mean you shouldn't try to understand the basis for their arguments.

The good news is that all class constitutions have processes for amendments so the class gets to decide by what ever process they have in place.

OK, I don't even sail a Tornado so I will let it drop, the class will decide what it wants. But lets not put out too much bad information. Both sides have valid arguments.

IMHO
Hunt

With Tornado and Hunts.



This is simply not true.

There have been discussions within the Tornado fleet (and other fleets) for years about this. Back as far as the 80's people were talking about 'fast' masts and mast selection processes.

Bill,
I have to respectfully disagree on a couple of points. Static mast weight is not the issue. The carbon stick reduces the radius of gyration by a factor of almost 4 which reduces pitching moment of the hulls. Also, a carbon stick can be designed to exactly comply with the elastic characteristics of the aluminum mast. This is due to the orthotropic stiffness properties of the fibers. I have designed and built three carbon Tornado masts and use stock sails with no differences with the aluminum mast.

Kevin

>the dies wear out! This is not a new problem - it is inherent in the manufacturing process.<

Basically, the thickness of an aluminum extrusion can be controled by the temperature the billet is heated up to, and the pressure to ram it through the die(s), resulting in the exit speed of the new shape from the extrusion press.
As a die ages one can vary temperature and pressure to control thickness. Sometimes it ends up being a lot of scrap depending on the allowed tolerances. (we are talking plus/minus thousands of an inch)
A decade ago, it use to be more of an ART than a science to get the temperature and pressure right, maybe that has changed now.

Mike,
Once you get the mast "just right" for a lightweight team, it is too bendy for a heavy team. Once you get it stiff enough for for the big guys, it is too stiff for smaller, lighter weight, teams. There is no "just right mast" for all size teams. THAT IS THE PROBLEM! So, What is the solution? Different mast layups for different weight teams?
Where does it end? This question is really stickey!
Bill

>>I have to respectfully disagree on a couple of points. Static mast weight is not the issue. The carbon stick reduces the radius of gyration by a factor of almost 4 which reduces pitching moment of the hulls.

What exactly do you mean by that ?

"Static" mast weight (Do you have a thing called dynamic mast weight ?) DOES factor in COMPLETELY in Moment of enertia that is linked to oscillation of a platform.

You got me completely lost on your "radius of gyration" statement. Especially on how a reduction of radius REDUCES the pitching MOMENT of the hulls ?

Pitching MOVEMENT of the hulls maybe ?

Or else RESULTING radius of gyration given some reduction in mast weight ? This of course contradicts your statement of "Static weight is not an issue"

I guess there are some typo's in these statements that result in a very awkward statement otherwise you are completely off the chart with respect to dynamic of bodies.


Wouter

OK, Kevin and Sail7Seas definitely know more about the engineering than I do.

Bill- Again you got it right and again you didn't even know it!

Different weight crews want different flex characteristics -- but that is no different from today. The difference is that today they have to spend a lot of money buying masts and get lucky to find a particularly stiff or soft one.

Wouldn't it be an improvement to just get a mast / sail combo that is right for your weight? Just think how many more teams could sail the boat that way. A softer rig allows lighter crews to compete. Look at the A-cat where I am told there is a very wide range of competitive crew weights.

My wife and I sail an 18HT. We are about 40-70# lighter than a lot of the teams. We have our main cut for us which helps, but we sail with the stock rig because that is all that is available. If we were really serious (or if we had had a choice when we got the boat) we would have a softer rig (but we are strictly weekend warriors now).

The ability to engineer the flex is not necessarily bad for the weekend warriors, and it could in fact broaden the appeal of the class. And like a carbon epoxy boat, it is probably cheaper in the long run.

But you need to understand that flex characteristics of the individual spar matter to elite sailors whether aluminum cr_p-shoot or carbon repeatability. They need the right mast for their weight, and sailing style. It may not matter to you and me Bill, but it does to the top guys.

No Typos in this post, quick google on defining moment of inertia :



Definitions of moment of inertia on the Web:

The property of an object associated with its resistance to rotation.It depends on the objects mass and the distribution of mass with respect to the axis of rotation.
fuse.pha.jhu.edu/outreach/kit2/glossary.html


A physical property of a member which helps define rigidity or stiffness and is expressed in inches raised to the fourth power. It is a measure of the resistance to rotation offered by a section's geometry and size.
www.hancockjoist.com/glossary.htm


The rotational analog of mass. The sum of the products of mass and the square of the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation of each particle in a body rotating about an axis.
unistates.com/rmt/explained/glossary/rmtglossarylmn.html


The amount of force required to spin an object.
www.bowlingfans.com/faq/glossary.shtml


– the mass of a rotating object times the square of the distance to the axis of rotation
www.mhhe.com/physsci/physical/jones/graphics/jones2001phys_s/common/glos_m.htm


A physical property of a member, which helps define strength and deflection characteristics.
www.sentinelbuildings.com/glossary.htm


the rotational analogue of mass, in units of mass*length2 (see rotational kinematics)
people.ucsc.edu/~erowland/glossary.html


Amount of force required to spin an object.
www.jayhawkbowling.com/Pro_s_Corner/Glossary/glossary_new.html


The moment of inertia of the armature is measured about the torque motor's axis of rotation. The ratio of the motor moment of inertia to the damping factor with a zero-impedance power source gives the mechanical time constant of the motor. In direct drive systems, load inertia and damping factor have to be added to the motor inertia and damping factor to determine the mechanical time constant.
www.servomag.com/reference/glossary.htm


The resistance to twisting of any golf club head when that head is impacted off-center.
www.wickedsticks.com/glossary2.htm


the tendency of a body to resist angular acceleration
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Wouter,
What I mean is that redius of gyration is the conventional name for resistance of a mass from rotating. If you take a long slender object such as a mast and reduce the weight by half it should cut this property by about 4 (or is it 8??). An aluminum T mast weighs 38 lbs and a carbon version can weigh 21 lbs. The overall radius if gytation of the entire boat is the summation of it's various parts. These can be combined by superposition just like the linear motion analogy (moments of inertia). So a carbon mast may help the boat overall by say 8% (a wild guess). The boat radius of gyration is directly related to the amount of energy it takes to move a boat through waves (reduces pitching moment and rolling moment). Does it make sense now?

And I'm in a reall antagonistic mood so please pardon my excessive use of sarcasm.

Let me see if I understand it now :

>>What I mean is that redius of gyration is the conventional name for resistance of a mass from rotating.

Actually the radius of gyration is nothing more that the "radius of gyration" it takes a little bit more to express the resistance of a spinning mass to CHANGES IN ANGULAR SPEED. Or in other words, There is no "resistance to rotating": unless you are trying to discuss the principle behind gyroscopes but that is a whole different matter.

More comments later.


>>If you take a long slender object such as a mast and reduce the weight by half it should cut this property by about 4 (or is it 8??).

It is neither. Right answer is "cut in halve". You are talking about the Moment of Enertia here which is defined as the sum or integral of the product :

lever^2 * mass (techies call this a second order moment because of the squared lever)

With a mast you must use the integral expression but this one behaves the same as the some of a given number of finite elements with a finite mass. In short the lever (or radius of gyration for that particular element or part) is squared while the mass is not. Therefor if you reduce the mass by a factor of 2 then the moment of enertia (the true expression for resisting changes in angular speed) is also reduced by 2. Reducing the lever is more efficient of course as that is a squared relationship, but that would leave you with a short mast. (And they say that reducing the mast height in the F16 class was a bad idea)

Anyways:

Somebody else claimed that a carbon mast would not be much better as their was the tip weight rule. Meaning, any mass lost must be put back on the top (in part) to arrive back at the correct tip weight.

This is a HUGE consideration as the tip weight is determined using the gravity force (1st order moment) while the performance improvements are linked to the moment of enertia (2nd order moment).

For techies under us. The mast tip weight test is a process that is dependent on the first order moment (lever * mass) while the performance is dependent on the second order moment (lever^2 * mass)

This results in the situation where the extra piece of lead used to correct tipweight results in a inferiour mast when compared to a mast that has perfectly spread out all the mass over its full length while still just satisfying the tip weight rule.

This is one of the reasons why I never understood the fact that people tried to make masts as light as possible only to have a piece of lead in the top to compensate for being underweight.

The problem is in the Lever being squared in moment of enertia.

Simple example and I will not bore you with the integral calculus:

mast - 10 mtr long
weight 10 kg (no fittings etc)
Assume all mass evenly distributed (no taper etc)
mast tip weight when layed horizontal = 5 kg

Moment of enertia = 300 kgM^2

New mast !
mast - 10 mtr long
weight 5 kg (no fittings etc)
Assume all mass evenly distributed (no taper etc)
mast tip weight when layed horizontal = 2.5 kg
To compensate for tip weight rule (as present in Tornado rules) additional 2.5 kg needed at top (= 1/2 of weigth savings)

Moment of enertia = 150 kgM^2 + that of corrector weight = 150 + 2.5*10^2 = 150 + 250 = 400 kgM^2

Making the second mast absolutely worse in performance. This new mast with corrector weight in the top compares with regard to Moment of Enertia to a mast that is overall 13,33 kg (= 77% heavier) but evenly distributed.

Tipweigths are dumb. One reason why F16 class is advicing against using them although it uses a minimum tipweight rule. It is adviced to use the excess weight in making extra loops around the mast when using carbon, making the mast more robust as well. The F16 tipweight is below what is feasable in alu so this rule will never have a problem there. Pardon me for the shameless promo for the F16 class, I just couldn't resist. However it is also an example of how the tornado class could modify their tipweight rule to keep carbon masts under control and secure the continued use of alu masts for some time.



>>An aluminum T mast weighs 38 lbs and a carbon version can weigh 21 lbs.

Well, we did some investigating on 8.5 mtr carbon F16 masts and the quotes gave about 9.35 kg for the blank = 20.6 lbs. I think your 21 lbs for the much taller and the more heavily loaded Tornado mast is a bit optimistic.

Lets continue with an estimate of 25 lbs. Ratio between new vs old = 25 / 38 = 66 % => mom enertia ratio new / old = 66 % as well when only taken on the mast and no corrector weights. Than we need to add sails 7kg's and fittings 1.5 kg halyards etc. A quick calculation ends up with a ratio of new/old = 0.85 = 85 % A long shot from the initial statement concerning the magnitude of improvements as made by you. The reduction is more like 1/6 th


>>>The overall radius if gytation of the entire boat is the summation of it's various parts.

No, that would be the summed moment of enertia.


>>These can be combined by superposition just like the linear motion analogy (moments of inertia).

Actually the lineair analogy is "Enertia" (often just called "mass") while the rotational variant is "moment of enertia" or even angular enertia in less correct fashion. You can also replace "superposition" by "adding" or "summing". Superposition is not entirely wrong in the strickt sense but suggest something more complex than is really adressed. Besides superposition is far more used in relation to waves and more complex vector calculus although even in these cases it amount to not much more then "adding"


>>So a carbon mast may help the boat overall by say 8% (a wild guess).

In what sense ? A ratio without reference framework is useless. 8 % more speed ? No way ! 8 % less moment or enertia overall ? Not likely especially not with 150 kg of crew hanging of the wires some 1.5 mtr behind the fulcrum of the rotation. In addition to that a rearbeam of 6 kg at 2 mtr and some rudder setup of 3 kg at 2.5 mtr. It is probabaly more like 4 %. 8 % less amplitude in oscillation ? That could be the case but that doesn't say much to most sailors not educated in these matters.


>>The boat radius of gyration is directly related to the amount of energy it takes to move a boat through waves (reduces pitching moment and rolling moment).


Some claim that reducing pitching inproofs performance by improving the flow over the sails that are otherwise more disrubted by constant (sometiem violent) changes in 3D. I'm not even sure that the reduction in mast related moment of enertia are even significant in the amount of energy needed to propel the boat through the water. But I guess I'm more an acceptive of the improved flow over the sails explanantion. Jury is still out on this one.


>>Does it make sense now?

Yes, thank you for explaining all this to me.

Of course I wasn't really asking for that in my last e-mail as I was asking about the proces that lead to some weird statements concerning the dynamics of finite bodies under the assumption of classical physics. But I think I understand that as well now.

Thank you,

Wouter

I think you missed the fact that I asked Kevin to explain his use of the words "Radius of Gyration".

I, of course, suggested that what he was trying to describe is actually the Moment of Enertia.

I'm personally totally unfamiliar with the "radius of gyration" definition. This could be me but then again dynamics of bodies is something that I've been tested on many years when at the university and often in the English language as a well.

Even if the "adius of gyration" exists as a definition than Kevins use of it is awkward. The second point conveyed in my post. Mostly because "pitching moment" is a force on a lever while Moment of enertia (Radius of gyration ?) is not.

And a few other things.

Regards,

Wouter

I think I got the gist of the 'gyration' theori in the first post, so I will not comment on the quite heated discussion about the proper physical non-layman terms that has bloomed in the last couple of posts.

Mark: Regarding the "Society of Ordinary Tornado Sailors", where do I join It is a shame if public perception and politic scares people off the T..


Now, if I have understood the last part of the discussion right. Going for a strict one-design carbon mast, as is proposed in the ballot, will in fact take away the possibility of the olympic campaigneers to find a mast section suitable for their sailing weight and style ?
(Warning: I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here)


To all the non-Tornado sailors who has given their opinion, please continue to do so! In my opinion, all information is of the good, and different views on an issue only gives a richer base of information to make a decicion on..

Hi Rolf,
One of the smartest rules I have ever seen dealing with mast bend and how to make it vary with crew weight was in the International Contender Class. The mast extrusion can be fixed, one design. The location of the hounds can be varied within limits. This way the lighter weight sailors, for example, rigged their masts with a lower hounds position which resulted in a greater bending moment being applied to the mast for a given mainsheet tension. The larger sailors rigged their masts with a higher hounds position which reduces the lever arm to the mast tip. The shorter lever arm reduces the bending moment imposed on the mast for a given mainsheet tension. Since the heavier sailors must control their sails with more mainsheet tension, the higher hounds position keeps the mast from overbending and flattening their sail prematurely.
One might suggest that the heavier weight sailors just start out with a fuller sail and live with more mast bend. This is a compromise because it forces the heavier weight sailors to use a sail that is too full in light winds.
Bob Miller was a smart man.
Bill

Wouter,
The radius of gyration is also called the radius of inertia. It is a fictitous radius that when squared and multiplied by the mass of a body produces the same moment of inertia as acquired by integrating the elements of a body times the radius squared to each element over the entire length of the body from some reference axis.
(Radius of Gyration = Moment of Inertia/mass) The comment about the carbon mast having 1/4th the radius of gyration of an aluminum mast can only be correct if the carbon mast has very heavy elements near its base and very lightweight elements near its tip. I doubt that this the case.
Bill

Bill,

Thanks for confirming that to me.

So in basis the Radius of gyration will not change at all when making a mast lighter UNLESS the relative distribution of the mass is changed as well.

Yep, got that

Wouter

Wouter,

Exactly. Note that the radius of gyration can be reduced simply adding weight to the mast foot, but this doesn't improve performance. Add more weight and the radius gets smaller and the boat slower.

Something like this could happen if the new rules maintained the minimum mast weight unchanged but eliminated the mast tip minimum weight.

I wouldn't expect them to do that (I hope so) because it would be weird to use new carbon masts with lead weights in the mast foot... The gyration radius would be small, but reducing the minimum mast weight and tip weight obviously make a lot more sense.

Regards,

Mike Grandfield's letter to the US Fleet
followed by Roland Gabler's point of view.

Dear All,



Although I have great respect for Roland, I believe that he has NOT given you good advice regarding the carbon mast ballot proposal.



Here are the reasons why:

1). THE PROBLEMS OF THE FINN SAILORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARBON MAST PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF TORNADO SAILORS.

- The Tornado ballot proposal includes both pricing and price guarantees. The guaranteed price is 40-50% more than the current Marstrom aluminium mast.

- The Finn mast is not a strict one-design mast. It is customized for each sailor.

- The Tornado carbon mast is a strict one-design, with very precise tolerances; and the design will be transferred to ISAF to protect the class and ensure that other builders can be licensed.

- The problems of Finn mast breakage are not relevant; the proposed Tornado carbon mast was designed for strength and durability, and Marstrom has built over 3000 carbon masts.



2). The aluminium masts have never been equal for all TORNADO sailors; and by next year no one WILL believe that they are TRULY one-design.

- There are 5 flexibility groupings of the current Marstrom masts. Only a few top sailors find really good masts, most of the fleet gets average masts.

- Most current Marstrom masts bend differently to port than to starboard. How many sailors have noticed that they point better on one tack than the other?



- Today, there are commercially available aluminium masts from Marstrom. Hobie, Nacra, and soon from Swiss Carbon; and there is a privately developed mast that was designed the UK with funds from the RYA - this mast has been used at Hyeres and SPA, but it is not commercially available.

- There are at least 2 additional mast designs that could be built if we stay with aluminium.



- So, we will have between 5-7 different aluminium masts. Each one has a different die and different cross-section; BUT each of these measures in as a LEGAL Tornado mast.

- Is that ONE DESIGN? NO!



- If any of the new designs are better than the current Marstrom aluminium mast, then EVERYONE will have to buy a new mast.

- If the RYA mast is the best, but not commercially available, then EVERYONE will complain that it isn’t fair and could easily spend a year or more trying to develop a mast that is competitive.

- If we keep the aluminium mast, we could easily become LESS one-design than ever before.



- There is no price protection with aluminium. A higher performance mast could easily be as expensive as a carbon mast.

- ONLY FULLY FUNDED TEAMS WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE COST OF TESTING NEW ALUMINIUM MASTS AND THE SAILS THAT MATCH THEM.



3). THE REASONS TO CONSIDER THE CARBON MAST ARE NOT “LIGHTER WEIGHT” or “HIGHER PERFORMANCE”

- The Marstrom aluminium mast is not strong enough; Marstrom is selling over 3 times as many masts as new boats! The fleet has spent over ½ MILLION EUROS (Before VAT!) on spare and replacement aluminium masts since the new rig was introduced.

- The Marstrom aluminium Masts are not equal in performance; by next year there will be at least 5 different aluminium masts to choose from.



- The reasons to choose between aluminium and carbon are:

o Strength

o Safety

o Equal Performance

o No advantage to teams with bigger budgets



4). I DON’T WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON A NEW MAST; I STILL HAVEN’T BROKEN THE ONE I BOUGHT IN 1998.

- But, by next year there will be a better carbon mast or a better aluminium mast.

- In 2005, we will all have to consider buying a new mast to remain competitive.



- I believe that the carbon mast ballot item is a very good proposal and the best way to provide a level playing field.

- I’d be excited to sail with a new carbon mast; but I’d be frustrated and angry to have to buy a new aluminium mast instead.



For many years the Tornado fleet has been protected because all of the boats and masts came from Marstrom. THAT TIME IS OVER. The real choice is a one-design carbon mast or a new “arms race” to build a better aluminium mast. It is unrealistic to think that nothing will change.



Clearly, the RYA has already committed to the new aluminium mast effort. SOME OF YOU WILL PROBABLY RACE WITH IT OR AGAINST IT IN ATHENS.



The carbon mast ballot item is your opportunity to choose the future you want for the class. I hope you choose wisely.



Regards,

Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Gäbler [mailto:roland.gaebler@sport.tdcadsl.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:50 AM
To: [email]yann.guichard@wanadoo.fr;[/email] Hugh Styles; Hugo Rocha; [email]iorpas@yahoo.gr;[/email] Jim Young; John Forbes; John Lovell USA 808; [email]Jpolgar@aol.com;[/email] Jürgen Jentsch; Kristof Koch; [email]mail@sailcenter.se;[/email] Marström AB; [email]mgrandfield@sailingwind.com;[/email] Mitch Booth; Niko Mittelmeier; [email]obackes@aol.com;[/email] Nuno Barreto; [email]p.wetzig@gmx.de;[/email] P. Egger; Patricia Kirschner Ross; Patricia Tornado; Patrick Egger; Philip Wetzig; [email]pres@tornado.org;[/email] Ralph Mittelmeier; [email]ramirami@t-online.de;[/email] Sail Center Per Wearn; Sebastian Moser; [email]sec@tornado.org;[/email] slange; [email]tornado@topica.com;[/email] Wolfgang Heinemann; Will, Fabian; [email]will.howden@virgin.net;[/email] [email]xavier-revil@wanadoo.fr;[/email] Aaron McIntosh; Aaron McIntosh; Guenter Moertl; [email]GunnarStruckmann@aol.com;[/email] [email]funinthesun@juno.com;[/email] Ullman Sails - GZ S.r.l.
Cc: Jürgen Tiemann; Darren Bundock; BSG Sports
Subject: Carbon Mast
Importance: High



Dear Tornado Friends,



just some days ago I had some nice talking with some Finn Sailors in Athen about their change to the carbon mast some years ago.



- 4-6 times more expensive (and the mastbuilders said before it will cost just the half more) ha, ha, ha, ha.....

- A carbon Finn Mast cost 2.800-3.500.- euros now !!!! ask your national finnsailor

- A Aluminuim Mast was 700-800.- euros !!!!



How much we must pay to make our boat 8 KG ligther? My Finn Friend sayed, he can finance a new house with all the money he spend in carbon masts last years. Hy guys, wake up................



Security. Safe Sailing? We are the Formula one of sailing. Who wants to go save with this boat. Just not go out when it blows 30knots plus offshore.



Do you think if you open to much the sheet under spinnacker what the carbon mast will not brake? The Finnclass broke more mast than ever in the last years!



Each Finnsailor has 3-6 Mast plus 3-6 light cloth sails. Also forget the cubenfibre sails, they are shrinking.



Instead of getting more milliseconds of speed, we should not forget the think about the youth. How they should finance the new masts? Plus Spinnackers, Plus Cuben Fibre Sails?????????



Do you think only Sail Center of Sweden will make the mast? Many others will come.



I can easy make each mast different. What a nice and expensive mixture???



One Question: How much money you spend in Spinnacker last 3 years? Worth one Car? Ok, we have max fun with our spinnacker. Yes, yes, yes we enjoy........But do we get some much fun-factor with the carbon mast?



Lets concentrate to get back on our One-Design and Olympic Idea.



If you want go faster, buy the M20



I donnot want to talk about the carbon mast. I just wrote my way. Please do not answer this mail. Just answer the ballot and SAIL FOR FUN



See you in Athen. Cheers,



Rolando