Forum Index |  Albums |  Classified Ads |  Catamarans For Sale |  Calendar |  Submit Events
Announcements
New Discussions
Round the world record in trimaran
by northsea junkie. 12/17/17 03:09 AM
Adding a Jib to a Mossie
by Gary Fleming. 12/07/17 11:29 PM
F101 finally in production
by Jake. 12/05/17 06:49 PM
Tradewinds Regatta?
by samc99us. 12/05/17 04:30 PM
Easy way to really learn the Racing Rules
by Mike Fahle. 11/28/17 07:30 AM
Dynema trap lines diameter?
by mmadge. 11/25/17 08:10 AM
foiling chasing UFO
by northsea junkie. 11/23/17 03:12 AM
New Mystere 4.3 in Central Florida
by Mike Fahle. 11/22/17 04:46 PM
36th America's Cup
by waterbug_wpb. 11/21/17 12:10 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 10 of 18 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 17 18
#206054 - 03/18/10 01:50 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
I remember that Scarecrow disclosed some extrusion price information recently and using his data suggests that one can have 34 superwing masts made from a single 500 kg batch costing about the same as 2 carbon masts.

Even when cherry picking the lightest (and straight) 50% of that batch and scrapping the rest will see a builder end up with 17 (light tipweight alu) masts at the cost associated with only 2 carbon masts.

Thus making the alu masts about 8.5 times cheaper then a carbon mast. Falcon marine states 3800 USD for a carbon mast upgrade. Divide that by respectively 17 and 8.5, compare the results and ... ... well I'm not allowed to continue here. But a careful reader can now draw his own conclusions.

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 03/18/10 01:59 PM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
--Advertisement--
#206058 - 03/18/10 02:14 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
macca Offline
old hand
macca  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
Wouter, You are making a very good argument to limit masts to Alloy...

As I have said previously,and you have just confirmed, the Carbon mast adds a huge amount of cost over the Alloy option and as you all keep telling me there is no advantage in using Carbon so why add cost for no gain?

And if there is a gain, how can you expect boats to compete equally?


Last edited by macca; 03/18/10 02:15 PM.

________________________
http://aus300.blogspot.com
#206060 - 03/18/10 02:31 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: macca]  
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 893
waynemarlow Offline
old hand
waynemarlow  Offline
old hand

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 893
As you well know Macca, there are some manufacturers who charge way over the odds for a Ali mast, I think the N20 owners were having a right old whinge about the fact they could buy a carbon mast cheaper from an outside source ( I think it was Marstrom ) than the Ali unit from the manufacturer.

That excess price comes simply from having only one class supplier which we could easily end up with if we ban carbon masts. Composites are a great low volume production method and if we take the first 10 masts as the cost of production then I would say the Composite masts would be a cheaper cost per unit. The problem with Ali extrusion are the initial numbers required to make the die and production viable.

We could also end up with the mast supplier refusing to do business with a new manufacturer, leaving the newbie no alternative but to set up a batch of masts to service his annual production of 10 boats a year. I somehow don't think we would have many new manufacturers starting production anytime soon.

#206064 - 03/18/10 02:45 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: waynemarlow]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
macca Offline
old hand
macca  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
Wayne, if you read Wouters post and calcs its pretty easy to see that any carbon mast is a lot more expensive than any alloy mast.

The rest of the issues are all related to the retailing of each mast and have nothing to do with the production costs.

How would you end up with only one alloy mast supplier?? it's cheaper to tool up for a run of 40 alloy masts then it is to tool and produce one carbon mast! So the cost to entry into alloy mast production is so low that it ensures competitive pricing...


Last edited by macca; 03/18/10 02:46 PM.

________________________
http://aus300.blogspot.com
#206073 - 03/18/10 03:58 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: macca]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
Matt M Offline
addict
Matt M  Offline
addict

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Originally Posted by macca
Wouter, You are making a very good argument to limit masts to Alloy...

As I have said previously,and you have just confirmed, the Carbon mast adds a huge amount of cost over the Alloy option and as you all keep telling me there is no advantage in using Carbon so why add cost for no gain?

And if there is a gain, how can you expect boats to compete equally?



Andrew,

The rub with a bunch in this group seems to stem from this comment. You seem to be proposing a state where everything (or most things) are restricted and not open to use, trial etc. as is the case with the F18, Tornado etc – classes that you have come from.

An attraction to the class for a lot of the owners is that it allows for a certain freedom in experimentation. IF the item in question does not stand to fundamentally change the class equilibrium, why ban it? If somebody wants to have an all carbon machine (even though they will gain no appreciable advantage) why should they not be able to have one.

On the mast issue, you and Wouter are failing to recognize what all the costs are involved in them. Aluminum is soft and damages easily and is not reapirable, so a relatively high percentage of the sections are scrapped way before you could start looking at only using ones of the min weight. They have to be run in mill quantities, so 30+ masts, even at a low price per unit are very expensive to purchase, ship and stock, for whatever period of time it takes to use them up. Small builders are not going to want to inventory mill quantities of aluminum extrusions(There is more than just the mast too). Shipping individual extrusions is ridiculously expensive (not to mention the shipper ruins them half the time when shipped alone) The cost with shipping of aluminum becomes much closer to the total cost of a carbon mast depending on locations. You cannot build your own Aluminum extrusion, but it is possible to build your own carbon mast if you wished. The list goes on further if you wish.

Again though, with the tip weight rule an appreciably faster boat has yet to show. If it does not matter there are many reason to keep it for the good of the class, and other than fear or impression, there is no real reason to ban it.

Matt

#206077 - 03/18/10 06:42 PM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Matt M]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
macca Offline
old hand
macca  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,021
Australia
Originally Posted by Matt M

Aluminum is soft and damages easily
Matt


I think an alloy mast on a beach cat will always outlast the competitive lifespan of the platform, this damage you speak of would also apply to a carbon mast, if you abuse something then its gets damaged no matter what the material. A suitable treated alloy mast will last as long as a carbon mast at a mere fraction of the outlay both for the builder and owner. I haven't noted any great number of broken alloy masts in the class that would justify going to carbon, so again it seems to just increase costs and as you have stated yet again, there is no performance gain... (I sure as hell would like to take 4kg off the tip of my rig!)

How about you factor in the cost of all the tooling to build a carbon mast including moulds and oven long enough etc?


________________________
http://aus300.blogspot.com
#206095 - 03/19/10 12:55 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 221
Hans_Ned_111 Offline
enthusiast
Hans_Ned_111  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 221
Netherlands
Wouter,

Ofcourse the metal part is not taken in account, this would add almost 2 kilo's to the 8.0 kg.
The diamond wires are not dyform but just 1x19 wires almost 4 mm thick and the end cap is alloy but is adding 50 grams maximum to the weight, if it will reach 50 grams but i do not that excatly because i am not going to take it of , so i have to fix the mast.
As told we supplied Valterri a wrong section and i did a check on this section and this mast is very close to the superwing section but has more wall thickness so when this mast is weighted then it could be that the tipweight is higher. Logic ofcourse.
I do not know where the difference with your figures are coming from but you seems to be one of the people who has a light alloy section. Lucky you.

Hans

#206103 - 03/19/10 03:18 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Matt M]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe


I wish to add a few points to this discussion.


To Matt,

Quote

On the mast issue, you and Wouter are failing to recognize what all the costs are involved in them.



I was actually the one who secured the Superwing deal with AHPC for all F16 builders. I was also directly involved in the first production batch that was shipped to multiple parties and imported a batch of 10 masts to Dynautic in NL. In addition I ordered and shipped my own mast from Aus to NL for 800 bucks (a number I can quote) where a carbon mast (build locally) would have costed me 3500 bucks (both costs in Guilders not Euro). I was also involved with the specialized F16 beams that now also are fitted to the Falcon F16 (next to the Aussie Blade). Of course I've build up my own mast from bare parts as I wanted full control over how it was fitted out. I too know a thing or two about producing/shipping/pricing/fitting out these items.

That is not to say that I'm always right, God forbid, but I do feel justified to be taken seriously.

Of course, alu masts do cost money as all things related to boat building. That kind of argument is not valuable. Shipping them is hard and yes transporters seem intent on destroying as much as they possibly can, but that is the same for carbon masts. It is also true that extrusion batches contain a sizeable number of crooked masts. My argument here is that the basic process of extrusion is so inexpensive that very large percentages of masts can simply be disguarded without resulting in unacceptable price rises of the completed product. Of course, this does mean charging more, but I for one will easily decide for say a 500 bucks additional charge if that means I can get a tipweight that is truly close to the statistical average (8.1 kg).

If I'm like that then I'm sure other customers feel similarly, if not all.

Why not introduce a system that we all know from electronics and other retail products. The "A" and the "B" branding of a product coming of the same production line ?

Customers not worried at all about tipweights can get a F16 for the standard pricing using one of the "heavier masts" (and get more robustness as the heavier mast will also be stronger)

Customers wanting a low (alu) tipweight pay a little bit more and get a carefully selected low tipweight alu mast. Running a batch of 30+ masts through a simple "bare section tipweight" measurement is not that hard is it ?

Customers looking for the pinneacle of F16 racing can buy the carbon mast and pay lots more. (but still the same as for a alu masted modern F18)


If indeed we have such a great swing in bare section tipweights then accept that publically and lay the choice to go with which one with the customer. I feel strongly that that is the F16 way of doing things.




To Macca,

Fair racing is secured when all participants have reasonable access to equally competitive boats. That is not to say that ALL BOATS BUILD OR SOLD MUST be equally competitive.

If a given customer (like myself) prefers to spend less or build his own boat and accepts being overweight or whatever, then that is the personal choice of the owner. This is fair to anyone else. If this owner decides to be fully competitive then a viable boat is available to him for the cost equal (or less) then a modern F18. I feel that qualifies as "reasonable access to equally competitive boat"

I feel no need to regulate on F16 boats more tightly then that. The mythical 30.000 Euro F16 that blows all other out of the water is just that : mythical !

I'm sure a 30.000 F16 can be ordered and build but it won't be significantly faster then the cheaper boats. That is all the class rules have to do. Everything else is best left to the intellectual capabilities of the owners/customers.


I do agree that it is cheaper to tool up (produce and ship) for a 40 mast batch of alu masts then to tool up for even 1 single carbon mast (in a commerical sense). Or at least the pricing I'm aware of suggests as much. Hell, throw out 75% of the alu batch and you are still several times cheaper.

Matt is however right that homebuilders and some in-house mast builders can produce carbon masts for a very attractive price that makes the price advantages normally associated to aluminium too small to matter. For example, Stealth marine already has the tooling and the cost for each additional mast made is very low because it is done in-house. The finish guys are handy and shipping anything to Finland is expensive/risky. They to prefer to make their own carbon masts. Why should we disallow them this (better) option if the difference between alu and carbon is limited due to the tipweight rule ?

In my opinion it is better to guarantee the most inexpensive option for ALL then just for those who life in certain area's where international shipping is cheap (like myself). Allowing maximal freedom in choice of materials is a key feature in this respect. Afterall, the carbon masted Stealth F16 is still the least expensive F16 on the market today. Why should we ruin that ?

Wouter




Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#206104 - 03/19/10 03:20 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 954
Mark P Offline
old hand
Mark P  Offline
old hand

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 954
Mumbles Y.C Wales U.K
I was at the UK Single handed Dart Championships last September and met Brian Phipps. Brian is the sole importer of Dart 18's which are now made in South Africa. If people haven't heard of a Dart 18 they are a single manufacturer one design beach cat. However, what I found to be very interesting is that there can be a difference of up to 6 kilograms between Alloy masts. The lightest masts being 18kgs and are kept back for the more discerning racer whilst the heavier masts are sold onto the non racers and people who aren't seen on the TT Circuit.
So if a very successful Cat SMOD Class can accept a 6kg discrepancy in mast weight what's the problem.


MP*MULTIHULLS
#206106 - 03/19/10 04:02 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Hans_Ned_111]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
Quote

The diamond wires are not dyform but just 1x19 wires almost 4 mm thick


Well indeed, that will add weight.

My own diamonds are 3 mm 1x19 and seem to work well. Phill useds the old imperial 1/8 inch 1x19 wires (3.18 mm). I know that AHPC themselves use 3 mm dyform on their Taipans (and most likely on their Viper) and I seem to remember that Falcon/VWM does so too but I have to check that. Matt, can you confirm ? Hans, didn't you use 2.5 mm dyform on your own F16 mast ?

4 mm 1x19 is used on F18's and seems a bit like overkill for an F16 in my opinion.

12 mtr of 4 mm 1x19 will weight in at 178% of 12 mtr of 3 mm 1x19; thus translating into a difference of 0.400 kg. (a 0.150 kg contribution to the tipweight)



Quote

As told we supplied Valterri a wrong section and i did a check on this section and this mast is very close to the superwing section but has more wall thickness so when this mast is weighted then it could be that the tipweight is higher. Logic ofcourse.


Lets have this confession become part of the public record.

I'm sure that you now store this non-superwing section well apart from the superwings.


Quote

I do not know where the difference with your figures are coming from but you seems to be one of the people who has a light alloy section. Lucky you.



Well, I didn't think so when I learned my tipweight. For it is heavier then both Frank's and Phill's masts. My tipweight of 8.3 kg is in fact above the (theoretical) average, so I have one of the heavier masts as well.

However, I do blame myself for that partly. I used the heavy proctor spreader arms where I should have used a much lighter fixed length laminated set like Stealth Marine uses. Just have three knotches in the wing tips to allow for some rake adjustment and forget about being able to adjust the spreader length (I never used that feature anyway). I also have a heavy closed cell foam seal that is 8 cm tall in the top of my mast and use both a 4 mm spi halyard as a 4 mm mainsail halyard. AHPC uses push up mainsail that require no halyard or top pully fitting at all. I may switch over to that system next time.

Interestingly enough I do have the lightest spinnaker bail setup possible. My uphaul line simply has a loop at its top end and that is thrown over the top of the mast and rests on the mainsailhook fitting. I have never replaced that line and it doesn't seem to wear down under use. The line used is 3 mm dyneema (1 mtr in total incl. the bail itself) and supports a Ronstan RF20100 microblock. These are respectively 7 grams and 20 grams; making my spi bail setup (ex halyard) only 27 grams ! But the best part is that no holes are made in the top of my mast ! The mainsail hook has rivets in the sail track and one that goes directly into the foam block that seals the top. My hound fitting (2.5 mtr down) is the first element that may compromise the seal of my mast. I used this setup as I was lazy and hadn't found a better alternative at the time. Now after several years of use I feel pretty happy with this solution.

But anyway that is beside the topic of tipweights at this time.


More importantly are the following three (possible) conclusions and solutions :


- A - If the die has been consistantly producing heavier masts over the time then making a new die is an inexpensive solution. (Start all over with light masts that increasingly growing heavier with more masts produced). The cost of such a new die will be spread out over what; 100 masts ? Or 50 bucks or less per mast in additional cost ?

- B - If the extrusion process has a very large (random) variation in produced mast weights then selectively picking the best masts is a viable option for what can be considered a reasonable increase in costs (a few hundred bucks at most). Putting the choice to the customer can then still allow for the medium weight masts to be sold and thus reduce the number of masts that are disguarded. It will also prevent any bitching afterwards by disgruntled customers as they know what they will get when they sign the contract.

- C - It is smart to precheck any mast before shipping them out to any far off place. Recognize and correct any 10+kg tipweight issue before the situation becomes irreversible. Best is to precheck each mast blank before fitting it out. But this is of course common sense.


With kind regards,

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 03/19/10 04:13 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#206109 - 03/19/10 05:17 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,669
Tornado_ALIVE Offline
Pooh-Bah
Tornado_ALIVE  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,669
Melbourne, Australia
Thread hijack...... Are you permitted to have synthetic rigging on an F16?


#206111 - 03/19/10 05:34 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Tornado_ALIVE]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Jalani Offline
veteran
Jalani  Offline
veteran

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,382
Essex, UK
Quick answer - Yes


John Alani
___________
Stealth F16s GBR527 and GBR538
#206113 - 03/19/10 05:59 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Wouter]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
(bare with me guys, this is my day off and I feel like writing up posts. grin)


This post is intended to glarify things by a simple example.

But first a short introduction

I know this is the way industries like consumer electronics do things (TV’s for example). In the past there used to be only three production lines for television tubes (now we all have flat screens), but we easily had 30 TV brands from which we could choose. Even if we bought a Aristona TV set; at its core was still a Zenith, Sony or Phillips tube. These three companies together controlled 100% of the world market and simply selected the best tubes for their own high flying brandnames and then sold the lesser tubes (various grades) to other companies or created a separate brandname to act as an (undercover) outlet for the tubes that were disguarded for their own high quality brandnames. In fact this is a profitable business model and it is copied by many other industries.

Say we have a single production line were quality control is either limited to say a 30% variation or further improvements in quality control are too expensive to be economically viable. Similar situation are fact quite common. Say each product costs 240 Euro’s to produce and ship (uncorrelated to the quality variation) and the variation among all products is random. Lets assume that the distribution of the variation is uniform; this means that each individual grade occurs about as many times in a single batch. In short, there is no dominance by a single grade or a group of grades. This assumption is made to simplify the example, but the principle explained is still valid for more complex distributions. Lets also assume that each product grade (five in total) is expressed as a weight. These being respectively 7.5 kg or lighter, 7.5 to 8.0 kg, 8.0 to 8.5 kg, 8.5 to 9.0 kg and 9.0 kg or higher. Of course these values are chosen completely arbitrarily ! wink

Summarizing :

240 Euro’s per item fabrication/shipping costs

Five qualities groups

< 7.5 kg
7.5 to 8.0 kg
8.0 to 8.5 kg
8.5 to 9.0 kg
> 9.0 kg

A company like Phillips, Sony or Zenith would then first disguard the true outliers on both sides as these are just to far away from the norm (quality wise) to even be sold to adventurous price-stunters. Some margin of dependability and respectabilty must be maintained; although it is rumoured that Africa is awash with such products. Therefore 40% of the production is disguarded immediately. Leaving 60% of the production to be sold as products of acceptable but varying grades.

The unit cost per approved product has to be raised to compensate for the money lost on disguarded products, thus resulting in a unit cost that is now 400 Euro’s per (approved) item. Now this batch of varying grades is subdivided into quality groups.

The first much sought after group of 7.5 to 8.0 kg weights is given a price tag equal to 3 times 400 Euro’s.
The medium quality group of 8.0 to 8.5 kg weights is then given a price tag of 2 times the 400 Euro’s
The third quality group is of 8.5 to 9.0 kg weights is then given a price tage of a single unit of 400 Euro’s

Now lets assume there is also a handcraft department that makes custom-order-all-carbon products of 6.0 kg weight at a price tag of 3400 Euro’s. The brochure of the company to the customer or business partner will now look like this.

Standard price for a 8.5 to 9.0 kg grade product (= 400 bucks)
+ 400 Euro’s for a 8.0 to 8.5 kg grade product upgrade
+ 800 Euro’s for a 7.5 kg to 8.0 kg grade product upgrade (= top of the production line)
+ 3000 Euro’s for a 6.0 kg hand build carbon product upgrade

The customer can now decide what he feels is the right balance between quality grade and costs for him. Of course the distribution of pricing is such that even when all customers choose to pay for the (top of the line when not hand build) 7.5 to 8.0 kg group that the supplier will never loose any money. Afterall, each customer in that group effectively pays for the other 4 lower graded and disguarded masts as well. These can now be sold as scrap aluminium or be sold under their market price without any loss of investment. When done right the producer can earn even more money that way. The combined earnings (after profits) can then be spend on a new batch of products with the same quality distribution.

If for some reason all customers decide that the standard grade product (8.5 to 9.0 kg) is expensive enough for them then the supplier can always unload the higher grades into that pool without any complaints by the customers. Who will refuse a free of charge upgrade ? A smart company will them make lots of hoopla about how they present a special offer for the next 3 months where they waver the upgrade price if you buy a product now. Thus get some promotional value from their surplus of high quality products (without losing any money on the deal !)

If by expectation the bulk of customers decide for the mid range product (8.0 to 8.5 kg) then the supplier is guaranteed the highest profit margins of all options. For he can sell 67 % of the entire approved batch against double the single unit price and ALSO have some special offer free-of-charge upgrades promo actions. Thus netting him 30% higher profits with additional promo then when all customers decide for either exclusively the top category product or the lowest catagory product.

That is indeed how many companies operate these days.

So why not the F16 class ?


Regards,

Wouter

Last edited by Wouter; 03/19/10 06:27 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#206115 - 03/19/10 06:15 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Jalani]  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,669
Tornado_ALIVE Offline
Pooh-Bah
Tornado_ALIVE  Offline
Pooh-Bah

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,669
Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by Jalani
Quick answer - Yes


Thanks, quick answer is all I need.


#206120 - 03/19/10 07:00 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: macca]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
Matt M Offline
addict
Matt M  Offline
addict

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 548
MERRITTISLAND, FL
Originally Posted by macca
Originally Posted by Matt M

Aluminum is soft and damages easily
Matt


I think an alloy mast on a beach cat will always outlast the competitive lifespan of the platform, this damage you speak of would also apply to a carbon mast, if you abuse something then its gets damaged no matter what the material. A suitable treated alloy mast will last as long as a carbon mast at a mere fraction of the outlay both for the builder and owner. I haven't noted any great number of broken alloy masts in the class that would justify going to carbon, so again it seems to just increase costs and as you have stated yet again, there is no performance gain... (I sure as hell would like to take 4kg off the tip of my rig!)

How about you factor in the cost of all the tooling to build a carbon mast including moulds and oven long enough etc?


Macca,

No argument on the life cycle at all. The aluminum masts are very good and have a very large wind range window. The sail generates the power and with the exception of the Stealth having a different section shape the other carbon masts out there are all a nearly identical profile to the superwing aluminum one. In our working with carbon, besides changing the cut to match the mast, getting a mast with a full range has been an issue.

The aluminum masts are very easily scratched and dented in handling and shipping. They are not repairable and it makes for a lot of scrap extrusions as it may be cosmetic but you cannot sell a new boat with a bunch of scratches and or small dings. The carbon masts we have sourced are significantly more robust, and carbon is repairable in the worse case.

Again this is a philosophical debate of banning or not. You seem to propose as it is more expensive, it should be banned. The class premise is that if it does make a material difference, cost or not, why ban it? Carbon has an “exotic” reputation as expensive aerospace grade materials. With the expense to performance gain argument we could ban many things to make the boats less costly. Epoxy is 2 times more expensive than a good vinylester resin, but in practice it is nearly impossible to discern differences between the 2 in production parts. Daryls example of going back to the 70’s grade hardware is also applicable. A block is a block but we spend a lot more on the new Carbo and Orbit series stuff than using the still available GP series stuff, for what gain? We could ban all new models, because designing and tooling up a new boat is expensive and that cost has to be recovered by the builders somehow. The list is endless and it is a bit of a witch hunt to be on the war path against carbon (or any particular material for that matter) in my opinion.



In my garage if I wanted to build a 1 off mast, I could tool up and do this for very little money. We build temporary ovens and 1 off molds (there are a variety of low temp cure epoxies) for projects all the time. A small amount of wood, screws, bondo and a lot of elbow grease and it can be accomplished for very little to no money. Scrap water pipe from a construction site down the street was used just recently to build a quick oven for some hydrofoils. I have used temporary tents made from wood and visqueen to cure carbon epoxy parts as large as 135 foot. If I am building these in my shop on a production basis, I would spend a bit more money to get a real tool and I have to count my labor hours. We have looked at it and it is almost the same cost to get a production mold as a new die made at an extruder for aluminum. A more permanent oven is still pretty inexpensive. Marstrom, Bim and Hall are the only ones making autoclave masts. Fiberfoam, the most popular A class mast, as well as a lot of others are just bagged laminates. Once an extruder sets up his run, they have almost no labor per mast. This is more of a factor in the cost difference than the raw material price and the reason carbon masts will always be expensive. No real reason to ban it though.

Sorry for the Wouter length post. blush



#206125 - 03/19/10 07:45 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Matt M]  
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,021
Timbo Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Timbo  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,021
Sebring, Florida.
Matt, that was only a 1/2 Wouter, see Real Wouter post above!

Now log off and get back to work, I want my Carbon Mast done NOW! Then you can get to work on my Carbon hulls and beams...check's in the mail, honest, would I lie to you?

:^)

(Wouter, that was just a joke, I actually like your posts as they go into great detail...when I have time to read them!)


Blade F16
#777
#206127 - 03/19/10 08:37 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: macca]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia

Sorry but your slippery sloping again..

If cost is the motive,.

then a case could be made for banning any professional or semi-pro sailors in the class as they are expensive and thus with your reasoning should be made illegal.. crazy crazy crazy

#206128 - 03/19/10 08:44 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Timbo]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe

Quote

(Wouter, that was just a joke, I actually like your posts as they go into great detail...when I have time to read them!)



I understand.

But sadly the sound-bite generation is dominating.

I too know that most prefer that complex issues are boiled down to one single funny punch line, but real life was never like that, right ?

Therefore I won't insult the issues at hand by pretending that they can be covered fully by a mere few sentences.

Wouter


Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
#206130 - 03/19/10 09:02 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Matt M]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Stewart Offline
old hand
Stewart  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 953
Western Australia
One could make an mast autoclave from steel piping. Not sure what the cost is now but should be around $1000 for a 40 foot section in structural pressure steel 0.4' in wall thickness.. Flanges each end will give a seal to a few atms.. make the mold to slid inside .. a long heating element small fan .. compressor and a few hours work by a boiler maker. just dont ask me to pick it up!

#206131 - 03/19/10 09:14 AM Re: lets join forces and get this sorted out [Re: Stewart]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
Wouter Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Wouter  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582
North-West Europe
After some searching I have found the original statements by Scarecrow.

Link : http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=203938

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Originally Posted by Wouter

I'm not allowed to say how cheap exactly but trust me on this, ....

I can... 500kg of extrusions should cost about AUS$3500-4000
or $70-80 per boat (assuming Wouter's 50). You'll pay a premium
beyond that depending on the tolerances you demand. The premium
is based upon wastage and also how often the die will need to be
replaced.





From other endeavours I can tell that making a new die can cost in the order of 1000-2000 Aus$

Shipping (as one single batch) dependents on distance and whether you are close to a busy shipping route. In my experience the shipping costs were not higher per item then the extrusion+die costs.

High school arithmatic can now be applied to calculate the cost for each <15.0 kg mast or <10 kg set of beams when various percentages are disguarded because of dents, scratches, crookedness or other undesireable features (high tipweights).

These are indicative numbers only as indeed finding an extruder willing to produce 1.6 mm wallthickness can be challenging. However, from 2 mm onward even Chinese companies are willing to stand by their product. Hence one reason why most beams have 2 mm walls !

Happy calculating everybody !

Wouter

P.S. What an effort must be made to not run afoul of past agreements !

Last edited by Wouter; 03/19/10 09:39 AM.

Wouter Hijink
Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild)
The Netherlands
Page 10 of 18 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 17 18

Moderated by  Damon Linkous, phill, Rolf_Nilsen 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 21 guests, and 313 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
NilsonPardal, corrinezhan, pussycatcatman, Shotsailor, PointDume
7727 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Jake 5
Timbo 3
P.M. 2
Forum Statistics
Forums27
Topics22,269
Posts266,192
Members7,727
Most Online554
May 12th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.014s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9542 MB (Peak: 1.2284 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 12:03:30 UTC