Here I provide some extra explanations of several things that may seem to contradict eachother.

An often heard counterstatement to the proposals is :

"We allow carbon mast, boards, hulls even so why not carbon beams ?"

There is something funny going on with the beams.

Using date as supplied by various builders and carbon component builders it turns out the order of expensive more or less follows the following list where the top adds the most cost in absolute terms.

-1- Carbon beams
-2- Carbon mast (arguable depending on who makes the mast; Hall spars is very expensive and Stealth marine is very attractive)
-3- Carbon hulls
-4- Carbon boards, stocks and tubes (But this one is as good as neglectable at this time)

This may feel contradictionary to some or even many. However there are a view factors to seem to contribute the increases in cost both relatively and absolutely.

We all understand that labout costs are important and that labour cost for a glass hull laminate are about the same as for a carbon layup. Switching materials on this item has some effect but it is very much dampened by other factors.

The mast is labourious and requires specialized tooling and expertise HOWEVER, the alternative of aluminium masts don't require much labour at all but large portions of this gain are indeed lost on paying specialized extrusion yard to work up a small sized batch of a very special shaped section. Than add transport and anodising. Make no mistake about it alu masts are cheaper than carbon when producing more than 8 boats EVEN WHEN you don't sell any of the other 40-8 = 32 masts. The ratio between an in house build Stealth Carbon mast and my own alu mast after transport ed is about 133 %. In absolute terms this is in the order of 300-500 Euro's

With regard to beams the basic price of a 100 mm by 2500 mm by 2 mm anodised section is so suprisingly low that the absolute difference between this and carbon beams is easily TWICE as big as the difference between a carbon mast and an alu mast above. I came out , with my own boat, at a difference of 900 Euro. This is not because carbon beams are MORE expensive than a carbon mast but because the alu alternative for a beam is so much more cheaper in relation to a carbon one.

Of course it is the difference between alternatives that determines the cost savings and thus overall cost of a sailing platform.

The reasons why alu beam are so much cheaper is because these sections are mass produced, are of dimensions that are easily anodised in normal sized baths and are easily shipped. In addition that that one can order small numbers of these sections. If you want just one beam than you can order just one beam. In the case of mast you need to order the smallest production run available meaning a minimum take of about 35-40 masts. These factors make alu beams so much more cheaper than custom carbon ones. I grant this may change in the future although I don't see mass production of carbon beams overtake the mass production of alu in the next 50 years. So alu will always stay cheaper even though the difference between the two alternatives may decrease significantly.

This situation leads to the funny framework where the largest cost saving can be achieved by NOT getting carbon beams. This is what both myself and others have found when looking at carbons beams ourselfs.

The second biggest costsaving comes from the carbon mast although this one is arguably a lot less significant than the savings on the beams.

Third in line are carbon hulls but here the difference becomes small indeed

Forth; here the differences are so small that they neglectable.

As a class chairman I can say that we allow the bottom 3 at this time and will continue to allow these in the future. Both for reasons of acceptable cost, reasons of independence between builders and because so many are already sailing with these.

Only carbon beams are investigated at this time and it must not be understated how big the cost contribution of those can be. This I say without expressing my own views regarding the proposals. I made the above comments to clarify the situation.

For a given builder the added cost of an in house carbon mast is about 3-4 % of the overall price of the boat when producing less than 10 boats. The price of carbon beams would be something like 8-10 % of the overall price of the boat.

It must be said however that in retail the price difference between a custom ordered carbon mast and an alu AHPC mast (now available from stock in three continents thanks to F16 class !) is about 900 euro's incl tax etc. The guys making the carbon masts at this time want to earn bucks on their invested time.

Hope this background info helps.

Wouter

The more this topic is discussed, the less the proposed changes make sense.
There are always going to be perception involved with the publics choices. One product is always going to be perceived as having an the advantage over the other. The F-16 class cannot protect everyone from their own overactive imagination… when it comes to perceived threats that only exist in one mind. It sounds as if a problem is being created where one does not exist. Leave well enough alone…If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

Bob

Seems every restriction proposal originates from Tiapan 4.9 sailors..

Why not juts make the F16 a subset of the Tiapan 4.9 association.. Before anyone invests too heavily in Blade and Stealth..

Hi all,
well this thread has certainly got the key boards clattering. It has realy got me thinking, about how it could easily have affected the purchase of the A-class I intend to turn into a F16 [see F16 one up thread]. Luckily it does not have glued in carbon beams but it easily could have, many A-class now have. Of course I hope this boat conversion will be succesful and if proven so encourage others to join F16 by buying a relatively cheap second hand A-class and modifying it, but if we were to ban glued in or carbon beams this would probably reduce the number of A-class available to turn into F16 in future. Of course this is all hypothetical as modifying A-class might not work but it makes me think about the unforseen affects of changing the rules. As until I bought this boat I wouldnt have worried to much about banning carbon masts and beams as I thought they were to expensive, but of course the second hand market is a completly different price range. Initialy I thought I would sell the carbon mast and buy a new alum. one. But after pricing a new alum. one and discovering that they are considerably heavier than F16 class minimum and would cost more than I can sell the carbon one for I am going to cut down and reinforce what I have so in this case carbon is cheaper than alum. I spoke to Greg before he went to Europe and he was certainly very keen on these rule changes being a good idea and had me convinced as some of you could see from a previous thread on rule changes. But my own and other factors like the escalating costs and availability of aluminium mast production [mossies in oz are having trouble sourcing their standard section as the ownership of the die has changed hands and buying them may involve higher price and larger production runs as has been mentioned by others] has changed my mind, I think F16 should continue to allow the use of carbon beams but as for not allowing glued in beams I am not sure maybe they could be allowed up to 7'8" A-class width. This would cover Gregs container problems and I don't think cost is a factor with glueing them in. Don't forget let's keep it fun.
Regards
Gary.

"The main reasons for my prices are that I will be useing the same profile beams front and rear for both our 4.3m cat as well as our 5m cat."

Hi Darryl
these boats you are building sound very intresting is the 5m going to be a optimised F16 if so I would love some info on it before I chop up this A-class. Make it a private message if you like.
regards
Gary.

Wouter the prices for my aluminum is not only for the mast sections alone but for two runs of two different profiles of masts, two different boom prifiles )which are also mast sections but smaller) cross beams, tiller arms, tiller cross arms, spinnaker poles etc, and the weight that you are useing for an "average" mast is less than what the sections that I have been quoted on are. The billett that they run through the press is 1000kg, and the way that it is set up now is that I have to pay for a lot of their wastage. besides all that, the fact remains that, as a manufacturer I have always thoroughly sourced my costs very very thoroughly, (if I didn't I would go broke very quickly) as it is not only a passion for me (sailing) but it is also a lively hood for myself and my family, and the collective prices of aluminum that I would have to hold as stock makes it prohibitive to rely on aluminum unless there is a way to source material in smaller quantities at a reasonable price (as I said Capral have DOUBLED their prices at least THREE times in the last few years, and in the same time carbon has virtually HALVED)

Wouter you have said that to keep costs down a mast, a cross beam etc can be ordered "one at a time" well that isn't quite how it is. If you are sailing a production boat from a manufacturer then yes, you can order a one off replacement FROM THAT MANUFACTURER, but that manufacturer has to hold that section in stock. There is no "retail outlet" here that holds in stock any but the most commonly used masts (usually round dinghy sections) and the reason that they don't is the same reason that I don't - the number of sections required and overal excessive costs of stock "on the shelf" -. If I was to source my masts from some one like Boyer or Goodall then I could possibly buy in smaller numbers, but (no disrespect to them) that would put me at the discression of their "goodwill", which is a position that no manufacturer likes to be in from another "competitor". To try to optimise the use of masts in stock, in the past we have been obliged to use the same section for cross beams as for masts, this creates a lot more waste but it means that we could justify holding larger numbers of masts in stock. It also meant that, to have a good profile for the mast, I always had to engineer the beams which added weight to them (particularly the rear beam) to restrict the flexibility of the beams between hulls.
To give you a comparison of prices, after we have launched the F14 of ours onto the market towards the end of this winter here in Australia, we will then work full time on putting the F16 on the water in it's final configuration, so that, hopefully it will be "out" before the end of our next summer. At this stage, it looks very promising that, although the F16 will be "ALL" carbon fibre, it is shaping up to be no more than the price of an F16 Taipan and probably less. The F14 is actually the "test bed" as far as prices go for the F16 as most, if not all the components that we are using for the F14 are the same on the F16. This means, amongst other things, that we are able to ascertain our cost stucture very accurately from our experience with the F14.

Gary I can't send you a private message as every time I try a window pops up saying that "this user is not accepting private messages st this time"

As you keep reiterating Wouter this discussion is NOT on the banning of the use of carbon fibre BUT on the banning of "glued" beams to the hulls! As to that proposition I see no reason to ban or not to ban their being glued, I am completely ambivilent to the proposition! I can live with either way for as I have said, I feel that anyone who has their beams glued to their hulls is just wasting their money, BUT as to the banning of carbon fibre beams themselves, I am strongly against the banning of any type of material that is readily available and used commonly already in marine construction, especially when it seems quite obvious to me at least, that this will be the standard in a very few years and not the exception. Why ban it if, as you have been obtusely pointing out there isn't any great advantage between aluminum and carbon fibre when it comes to beams? other than price. If price is the only consideration, then I have to say that I think it is a narrow view of the future of boat construction. It was only a few years ago that no one having a boat built would even consider carbon fibre simply because of the "totally out of reach" cost of the material. As we all know that is not the case now, and it should only get better. Why should it be any different with beams??? Who doesn't feel that the price of carbon fibre beams will not follow the same trend and come well within the price range of the average sailor in the forseeable future? If this only had a remote chance of fruition, it would seem to me to be a very valid argument NOT to ban carbon fibre beams!
P.S. Why not, for the same reasons that you want carbon fibre beams banned, ban titanium alloys from beams? Just because no one uses them doesn't change the fact that they would be much more advantagous than either aluminum or carbon fibre

I am sorry Wouter but your "order of expense" of "carbon" componants for a cat are "out of order" (I apologise for being pedantic here)
The most expensive unit costs are in the order of
1 Each hull is more expensive than any of the other listed components
2. The carbon mast is less than each hull
3. each beam is considerably less than one mast

Wouter please explain to me how a carbon mast which is more expensive (in real terms) than carbon fibre beams can be 3-4% of the total cost of a cat while carbon fibre beams which cost less than a carbon fibre mast, you say represent 8-10% of the total cost???? I'm afraid my maths leave me floundering to make sense of that calculation! Or have I read your posting wrong?
The observation made in a posting here is interesting in that "mosquito sailors were finding it difficult to source supply of their mast section". The Mosquito section is one of the most commonly used "wing" type (as opposed to round) sections ever used in Australia. It has been used on many other cats, trailor sailors etc as masts, booms, and beams etc, and traditionally it is one of the few sections that most reasonable sized chandleries kept always in stock. I have been informed by the main three chandleries here in South Australia that they do not intend to stock them any more, not because of any down turn in demand for that section, but because they cannot afford to hold in stock the numbers and the price demanded of them from the manufacturer. As I have said earlier, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify using any thing other than carbon fibre now.

Seems like both sides of this discussion have very valid points regarding the use of carbon in beams. Most of the considerations are regional, for example in Aus the aluminium supplier is monopolising the industry. If you want to use any extrusion other than round or square, you need a dye & minimum orders, which can make the alu. option costly. This problem is also experienced in South Africa. If we want to use round beams, we have to settle with a 76mm X 3mm wall thickness, as that is the only size that comes close to 80mm X 2mm, which would be lighter & more suitable. The Mozzie class is using 50x50x3mm square tubing as that`s all that is available that is close to the original specs. If we could use carbon in the beams we wouldn`t, I don`t think the performance gain (if there is one) would warrant the costs.
I don`t believe a boat with full carbon beams would have any performance advantage over a well-designed aluminium beam boat, as long as the beam to hull joints are well-designed. In my opinion the first part of the proposed rule is sufficient to keep the advantage to a minimum, and allay any fears of a "percieved" advantage of glued-in carbon beams. I`m making the assumption that carbon beams weigh the same as aluminium ones, based on previous posts, and the only gain is in stiffness. If the beams are not glued then part of this advantage goes away.
It`s been shown that a well-sailed Mozzie with a 10% speed disadvantage can get to the finish line ahead of Hobie Tigers, F16 Taipans etc that are not sailed to their potential, so a less-than-1% advantage in equipment is not going to determine the winner.
If we want to worry about carbon fibre in performance terms, I believe it will give much bigger returns in the hulls & more importantly the mast, as this determines sail shape characteristics. Since Carbon IS allowed in these areas, I would think it illogical to disallow it in the beams, especially given that in some areas it may actually be cheaper due to the difficulty of sourcing aluminium extrusions. By allowing carbon beams we should be able to source cost-effective solutions through the network of suppliers that are already involved in the class, as posters such as Darryl & Scott are implying. Perhaps a thorough investigation into these aspects should be done before we go to vote.

Unless of course you have to drill holes and create a point failure in the carbon beams.. Then you will be the one swimming as the alloy beamed boats sail past..

>>If I was to source my masts from some one like Boyer or Goodall then I could possibly buy in smaller numbers, but (no disrespect to them) that would put me at the discression of their "goodwill", which is a position that no manufacturer likes to be in from another "competitor".


The AHPC Superwing mastsection is featuring on the Taipan 4.9, US Blade F16 and EU Blade F16.

Two years ago we worked out a deal with AHPC to is mutually beneficial and we have found AHPC to be fully accomodating in everything.


>>after we have launched the F14 of ours onto the market towards the end of this winter here in Australia, we will then work full time on putting the F16 on the water in it's final configuration, so that, hopefully it will be "out" before the end of our next summer.

That will be very cool !

>>At this stage, it looks very promising that, although the F16 will be "ALL" carbon fibre, it is shaping up to be no more than the price of an F16 Taipan and probably less.

THAT will even be more cool. I will say, let this quide you on how you vote on the proposals. I will do the same.

Wouter

Darryl,

Please direct your posts to the wider F16 public. I am, afterall, not the party proposing the changes. I'm guiding the voting proces. There is no point in trying to convince me as I can't alter my path at this time in favour of one direction or the other. I have to see this proposal to the end and only during the voting my I make may I express my private views by entering my vote.

Regards,

Wouter

>>I am sorry Wouter but your "order of expense" of "carbon" componants for a cat are "out of order" (I apologise for being pedantic here)

No offense was taken.


>>The most expensive unit costs are in the order of
1 Each hull is more expensive than any of the other listed components
2. The carbon mast is less than each hull
3. each beam is considerably less than one mast


No I was not wrong. I was talking about price DIFFERENCES between items of different materials not the absolutely prices.

Example the price difference between a carbon mast and a alu mast, when I received the quotes, was LESS than the difference between the quote I got on the alu and carbon beams. This despite the fact that in absolute terms the masts were more expensive than the beams.

I hope this clearifies issues.

Wouter

>>I'm afraid my maths leave me floundering to make sense of that calculation! Or have I read your posting wrong?

You have read my posting incorrectly. I refer to another post of mine explaining the difference.

>>but because they cannot afford to hold in stock the numbers and the price demanded of them from the manufacturer. As I have said earlier, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify using any thing other than carbon fibre now.


There are other ways of running a stock. One has currently been employed using the three regions of Aus, US and EU. and none of these builders has put anything like you quote into their stock of masts. Not even 1/10 of what you quoted and that includes other parts like beams as well. It will be a long time till chandlers won't stock 80mm x 2mm aly tubes anymore some for 40x2 mm tubes for booms etc.

Wouter

My references to beams "as stock" has been based on mast sections as beams, the price of, and availability of round aluminum beams is, and should always be (one would hope) more readily available, but it is difficult, at times, to get the diameter and gauge that is wanted, usually a compromise has to be made for "what is available" and it is very rare that anyone can procure standard round aluminum beams with a "thin" wall thickness that has been hardened to "T6" which is the prefered for beams. The usual is more like a 3mm wall thickness with a hardness of only "T4". There seems to be this uncertainty of future "availability" and an escalating price structure of aluminum which, to me is very puzzleing. It is almost as if the sailing community is only of "nuisance" value to the aluminum manufacturers and they don't really want to know about us? Personally i prefer to have a little more certainty in my life and in particularly I want to know "where my next material supply will come from"

How is the vote going to be worded. will it be broken up such as
1 glued beams, yes, no
2 carbon fibre beams, yes, no
or will it be as one vote ie
carbon fibre beams glued onto hulls, yes, no.??????
or will the vote only be for glued beams disregarding any reference to Carbon fibre??
Any way, are we ready yet for the vote? I think that the discussion has just about covered all the pertinent points

The vote will be worded as is given in the leading post.

Note how part one doesn't specify anything about beams being from carbon or not. Part one only states :

"The hulls, beams and trampoline shall not be permanently fixed to one-another"

That'll be the wording on which vote #2 (#1 was about the jib leech) will be held.



Then a seperate and independent (3rd) vote will be held on part 2 dealing with the propose rule :

"The beams shall be made of an alumimium alloy."

And yes this rule ban titanium beams as well (Joke !)

Of course there is no reason why a builder won't weld alu plates to the beams and laminate them in.


One reason for splitting the vote is that the two proposals are trully independent and one is still valid without the other no matter what gets vote in and what gets voted out. They other is that we found that several persons would like to give a different answers on de individual parts.



>>Are we ready for the vote ?

We are getting to the final stages; I will propose that anyoen having a good idea on altering the proposals in text itself shall speak up in the coming week. That and the cooling off period that we use will put the introduction of the vote at about 1 to 2 weeks time.

Wouter