Aluminum Mast Breakage
Should We Go To Carbon Fiber?

Updated October 7, 1997 09:15

Larry Rosenfeld, who owns what is probably the first carbon fiber mast built for a 505, suggested to the 505world e-mail list that perhaps it was time to reconsider allowing carbon fiber masts, after a Saturday that saw 5 masts broken at the Hyannis pre-pre-Worlds and 7 broken at the Europa Cup UK. The following is a compendium of the e-mail discussion.

It looks like Saturday 20th was a bad day for 505 masts ....

In addition to the 5 broken in Hyannis there were seven broken at Hayling (mine included) six of which were due to capsizing in water too shallow for a 505 to invert.

The conditions were 25 knots wind against tide with very short steep waves. I think it had been so long since we had sailed in any wind we had forgotton how!

Regards,

Simon J Lake
GBR8635

Simon,

If 505 masts were made from Carbon Fiber these masts would not have broken.

That is my experience from my own Carbon Fiber mast that Ethan and I built in 1979. I stuck it in the mud in Annapolis up to the compression batten, the waves were pounding the boat into the bottom, we rolled the boat over the mast and it was fine (no bending, no breakage, just a little mud to wash out). The other boats that were caught in the squall, (as I remember there were a quite a few) also turtled and instantly snapped their aluminum masts. I would like to see us discuss the introduction of Carbon Fiber masts to help bring the class into the modern age. I believe The next generation of sailors will see aluminum masts as antiquated as we see wooden ones. The costs are now coming in line, especially when you consider the costs of breaking the aluminum masts.

What do other people think? Is it time yet? 25% breakage in the fleet is pretty sorry when it is avoidable.

Larry Rosenfeld
USA 8190
lwr@concentra.com

I'm not entirely sure these breakages would have been avoidable. A Carbon Spar will still break if subjected to the sort of abuse the Aluminium ones got at Hayling.

Having said that, the advantages of Carbon, like the ability to repair a break and the potential weight reduction do make it an attractive proposition. It's also a reasonably cheap way of starting to reduce the overall weight without obsoleting loads of boats.

I for one would be in favour of Carbon, although I do believe we would need some sort of phased approach to avoid frightening people with older kit out of the class.

Andy Williams
GBR8445

My helm and I are 'mast breakers'..., so the idea of using stronger masts in carbon sounds pretty interesting !

The debate whether carbon masts are a good thing or not for the 5o class is quite old, but it would be interesting for the class and especially for the newcomers, to know:

Can we chat about that on a forum ?

KOHLER Jean-Yves
Crew of the FRA 8037 Kyrwood,
Marseilles, France.

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest about masts and carbon masts in particular.

In general I think it is time we look at carbon spars again. However I have the following reservations :-

Cost - Carbon spars are much more expensive than their aluminium equivalents for example a bare tube for a 505 for M2/Antares is less than GBP400 and a Proctor D under GBP500. A competitive carbon mast for an international canoe (much smaller and less complex than a 505) GBP800.

Repairability - I will take a lot of convincing that you can repair a carbon spar and retain the bend characteristics.

Reliability - When we as a class last played with carbon masts in the early 80's (Cork Worlds), the failure rate was much higher than for metal masts.

I don't think a carbon spar would have survived the abuse we put our mast to last weekend.

If we can get carbon spars at a similar price to metal ones, now could be the time to try them out.

Regards

Simon J Lake
GBR8635

Two comments.... The first is that we should not be racing in water that shallow. This is more important than the Championship Rule that says race courses shall be at least one mile offshore. I was not at this year's Hayling Island event, so cannot comment as to why 505s were racing in shallow water. I was at Hyannis, and we could easily have been racing further offshore in deeper water. Many Race Committees not familiar with 505s, think racing inshore is safer (perhaps they think its a shorter distance to swim to shore!)... this is a little like thinking airplanes are safer if they fly low and slow. A 505 is a very seaworthy boat, and is easily righted. The vast majority of people racing 505s are quite capable of capsizing, righting the boat, and continuing racing (something many race committees in the US are not familiar with, as some other popular classes are not easily self rescuing). So, RACE COURSES SHOULD BE IN DEEPER WATER, PRESUMABLY FURTHER OFFSHORE.

My second point is....
I believe the 505 class ban on carbon fiber masts (actually a ban on anything except aluminum (aluminium in the UK) and wood) stems from the belief that carbon fibre (fiber in the US) masts are more expensive than aluminum and not readily available in some countries were 505s are raced.

F.Y.I. Here is the relevant class rule from the 505 NA web page.....

URL for measurement rules is: http://int505.org/measure.htm

"7.1.3 Except for fittings, spars shall be constructed solely either from aluminium alloy containing not less than 90% by weight of aluminium or from wood. Construction is otherwise unrestricted."

I believe that some carbon fibre masts could be purchased for less than the cost of a Proctor D. If we get pricing for carbon masts and a typical aluminum mast (probably a Proctor D) in various countries and can establish that the carbon mast is a viable option for most 505 racers, then we can vote to remove the ban. While carbon fibre masts are probably not locally made in places like South Africa (I'm guessing), Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, Denmark, Sweden, etc. neither are Proctor Ds.. In either case the mast is being imported.

So, how about getting quotes on rigged carbon fibre masts and rigged Proctor D masts in the UK, USA, Germany and a few other countries....

Ali Meller
USA 7200 & 8263

I think that there have been several good points made about masts. I was at Hyannis and can understand both Larry Rosenfeld's and Ali Meller's viewpoints.

I do believe that more education would help--for the race committee and the competitors. I am well on my way to collecting enough capsize points at Hyannis through the years for the "golden snorkle" award. However, I've never turtled there. I'm sure much of this has to do with luck. I've also been warned by the locals that turtling can be very expensive at Hyannis.

We need to educate ourselves as well as our race committees.

I'd like to know a lot more about carbon fiber masts. Perhaps the cost is now reasonable. Perhaps they are less likely to break in a turtling situation. But how about longevity? Will they withstand the wear and tear year after year? I'm amazed, quite frankly, how long aluminum masts last. Will switching to carbon fiber masts have a deleterious effect on the hulls?? Are there other materials that should be considered?

I'm intrigued by the notion of switching to better materials, but I'd like to see a thorough, and broadly-focused, examination.

Jonathan Phillips
USA7879

Larry,

Where did you get the carbon fiber to make the mast from? What did it cost and what is involved in the construction process?

Rick Keffer

In answer to Richard's question, We (Ethan [Bixby]and I) made it ourselves with a weave from Composite Technologies in Boston. It was the first mast they ever did. It was too stiff at first (too little taper) so when we got to the worlds in S. Africa in 1979 (we made it and stuck it in the container without testing it), we sliced three tapers out of the tip and glued it back together, went out and won the pre-worlds. I don't know yet what a tube costs today, but we can find out. I know the A-cats and international canoes are using them exclusively today. Usually from Composite or Hall, both in New England. We can do some research if there is enough interest. I also agree with some of the comments about finding a way to phase a change like this in gradually. Perhaps we could start with requiring a weight at the spreaders for some defined period of time until the fleets have had a chance to phase it in?
Mr. Phillips wrote [Ed. I think he means Jonathan... Mr. Phillips indeed]:

I'd like to know a lot more about carbon fiber masts. Perhaps the cost is now reasonable. Perhaps they are less likely to break in a turtling situation. But how about longevity? Will they withstand the wear and tear year after year?

My only piece of information to add to the discussion:

The Sobstad loft in San Diego (home of Mark Reynolds and until recently Joe Londrigan) performed deflection tests on a series of Melges 24 carbon masts. They had masts from a low double-digit series boat (maybe 4-5 years old), and high 100's series boat (maybe 2-3 years old), and a brand new 300's series boat. Using the same setup with the same load (probably two sawhorses and a hunk of something from around the loft) they observed that the older masts had a lot more deflection under static load (the report is up on their website www.sobstad.com under Melges 24). Now whether this due to fatigue, or an improvement in construction methods in the course of building the masts, I don't know (Omohundro builds all of the Melges masts, I believe).

John Fracisco

This is definately a touchy subject, but I feel compelled to comment based on my experiece with windsurfing and offshore yachts. I feel that carbon masts in the 505 class should be examined and tests supported at the international level. Consider that over the past decade carbon spars have become much more popular on boats of all types (i.e. offshore racing, cruising and dinghies). Given this popularity, carbon construction has gotten much better and costs have dropped. Fiberspar, a popular windsurfing label, also makes various carbon products for dingies (Escape masts and America's Cup battens among many other things). It would be easy to contact a company like this one to get the vital statistics on a suitable carbon 505 rig, including cost. Various other manufacturers like Southern Spars and Omohundro produce high quality carbon spars for offshore boats, so I'm certain that they have a great deal of information. Also, we should look at how carbon spars have affected classes like the Int 14.

In the very least, we should support a detailed inquiry into this matter and keep our minds open to the possibilities.

Jesse Falsone
8643 crew
Hyannis Pre-Pre-Worlds mast victim

I don't believe the reason 7 masts went last weekend at Hayling Island was that the boats turtled and the mast ended up in the bottom. The failures I know about happened whilst sailing.

At Hayling the club is on a low lying bit of sand (Sandy Point) at the entrance to Chichester Harbour and to get to where we were sailing you had to sail out of the harbour (2 sail reach), out to a beacon marking the end of a sand bar, turn right 90 degrees and then sail (run) about 3 to 4 miles down the coast towards the Isle of Wight - this took about 30 minutes in a force 5.

On Saturday we went out for the first race, sailed the first beat and then decided to retire - we didn't capsize and in fact we'd done ok on the beat, but the sea was pretty lumpy and the wind was about force 6 and seemed to be increasing. Anyway we headed back and had good fun reaching back in from the beacon, and had an undamaged boat to sail in the three races held on Sunday.

OK so how did the masts break:

I don't know about any others. Anybody else know?

However out of interest I'd be interested to hear how people have broken masts in the past.

On a previous 505 we had a Z-spar mast and on a not particularly windy day, about force 3-4 the bottom section of the mast below deck level buckled (leaving even less space than usual to get under the boom).

Chris Romans
GBR8467

Email: cgr@hplb.hpl.hp.com

I went back to find the article, and it took some digging, so I thought that I would just cut and paste it below.

John Fracisco

[Ed - rather than reformat it here, I found the article and here is the link to it]. http://www.sobstad.com/m24mast.htm

Its very funny for me to see every one calling for Carbon rigs! Its seems the hardest sell for the 505 class is the cost of boat and gear. How many times has some one told you I would love to get in the class, but its too much cash? I just got through sailing Finns where Carbon rigs are now allowed. By the 96 Olympic regatta the state of the art Carbon rig was 4000 USD! Just think thats with no shrouds wire etc! No matter how many times the builders told us they could build identical rigs they could not! Yes Carbon Rigs do break!!!! I have seen a lot more carbon rigs go down then Proctor D's Right now the 505 class is as even as it ever has been...With a Proctor D, a good hull, a lot of practice you can call Ullman, Pinell, North etc., buy sails, follow their tunning guide and be competitive! If Carbon rigs come in Every sail has to be cut to match your mast! Cost goes up on sails as well! Its my feeling that carbon is a bad road to turn down at this time for our class!

David Shelton

A lot of the skiffs are going to glass mast tops, with metal on the bottom and glass higher up, similar to a Goldspar. Any thoughts on that.

I really think it is time for someone, mabye the IRC, to do a real in depth study on the pros and cons of different mast material, not just carbon.

Simon may have opened up a hornets nest, but it seems that someone opens the same discussion every year, with the same people saying basically the same things every year. For the most part no one has yet been able to convince the mail list, let alone the class, that alternate mast materials should or should not be allowed.

What I am suggesting is a group of people, including builders, sail makers, and sailors in a few different countries (maybe a few in UK, a few in the US, etc.) could conduct a structured study of different materials, designs, and costs. At some future AGM they would report their findings to the class, and the class would decide what it wants to do. I believe this is fairly common in the skiff classes.

I would not be surprised if the answer is to stay with what we have now, but at least we would have a strong basis for our descision.

Bill Green
USA 6491

I can only echo Dave's comment. Windsurfing over the last few years has made the transition from aluminum (aluminium so some) masts, and the cost of the good masts has gone from about $160 (US) to $300 and more.

Compared to aluminum, carbon windsurfing masts are lighter or sturdier, but not both, and a lot more expensive. It may be that the 90% carbon windsurfing masts are both lighter and sturdier, but they are REALLY expensive in comparison to the others. All masts break.

Chad
US5169

Dear World,

It seems to me that jumping to a carbon mast is just using high tech to be high tech. Yes it would make the boats slightly faster, but everyone else with that mast would also be slightly faster.

When cost is included, which I definitely think it should be, it would seem that the developments in the Tasar, 18's, 49r, and boards should be utilized.

More specifically, two piece masts are used successful on the first three classes and on some boards The 18's are the premiere development class and I believe they don't even use carbon for the tips because they want flexibility in the tip. Even some board masts are made in two pieces. Thus the problem of coupling two sections for a mast appears to have been solved.

Board masts are made in all sorts of tapers and stiffness and are cheap due to the high volume production.

I feel that the class should develop a straight aluminum section mast with a fiberglass/carbon/????? tip. The result should be cheaper new or when replacing all or part of a mast. The result should be easier to transport and store. The result should be more easily tuned.

Tapered aluminum masts are expensive to make. I believe you start with a straight extruded section, cut a taper section out, swage it to back together, weld it, heat treat, then anodize. That is a lot of operations. Straight mast sections are almost free by comparison.

I believe the present masts have all the tapering above all the attachments to the mast. If the class developed a D equivalent with maybe a D straight section and a modified tapered board mast top section, the cost should decrease. If you sail with a heavier than normal crew, you just use a stiffer tip and visa versa. When you stick a mast in the mud you, maybe you break just the tip. Storage and shipping become much simpler also. Minor modifications to stiffness and/or location of stiffness can be obtained by laying on some uni where stiffness is desired. Similarly, the uni can simply be sanded off if the result is too stiff.

To me, this seems like a much more practical approach. It increases tunability, reduces cost both new and damage, eases storage, and minimizes development cost, eliminates obsolescence of existing equipment.

Actually, some of the old Beta, Epsilon, etc. mast sections might be usable with the taper cut off and a fiber tip installed.

Comments!!!!

Graham Alexander
614 424 7709 w
614 861 1491 h
email addr alexandg@battelle.org
Columbus, Ohio


Sail fast but sail smart.
US7685 and US4593

Don't be fooled about two part mast,they are not the answer.

Yes the 18s use two part mast. They used to use carbon but made it illegal because of the extreme cost and frequent breakage. Now they use glass. the problem is as the glass ages it becomes more pre-bent and flexible. As a result you have to re-cut your luff curve a couple per season as the tips age. To avoid this problem last year Chris Nicholson, used an aluminum tip, and won the Grand Prix series by miles.

49ers use two part glass tip mast and this class has a much much bigger problem with broken rigs.

boards use 2 part carbon mast for easy travel. (The pros use 1 piece)

Aluminum mast are the most durable lowest cost mast available. Any mast at any cost that is pounded into the rock bottom off Hayannis is going to break.

Mike Martin

If 505 masts were made from Carbon Fiber these masts would not have broken.

That is my experience from my own Carbon Fiber mast that Ethan and I built in 1979. I stuck it in the mud in Annapolis up to the compression batten, the waves were pounding the boat into the bottom, we rolled the boat over the mast and it was fine (no bending, no breakage, just a little mud to wash out). The other boats that were caught in the squall, (as I remember there were a quite a few) also turtled and instantly snapped their aluminum masts. I would like to see us discuss the introduction of Carbon Fiber masts to help bring the class into the modern age. I believe The next generation of sailors will see aluminum masts as antiquated as we see wooden ones. The costs are now coming in line, especially when you consider the costs of breaking the aluminum masts.

What do other people think? Is it time yet? 25% breakage in the fleet is pretty sorry when it is avoidable.

Larry Rosenfeld
USA 8190
lwr@concentra.com

And even if they should break, they are quite repairable, as compared to aluminum.

Tom Price
8351

I put a carbon spar in my Fourteen and it kept the boat reasonably competitive for a few more years(early 80's). It was made by Steve Clark in a female mold with an inflatable plastic bag mandrel inside, to consolidate the layup. Low tech but 1/2 the weight of a Procter D (9 lb tube vs 18) It had similar bend but wasn't tolerant of sloppy holes cut in, load points concentrated (like side walls at partners) and easily crushed by rivets. It conducts well, so alum and stainless can connect via carbon and corrode. Also, sunlight ate away the UV shield varnish in time, requiring refinishing. (gee I'd like to sail today, but I've got to varnish my spar). They have come some way now I'm sure, but probably require more care than the aluminum spars. Mine broke (at Hyannis actually at the 14 nationals - saw Ted Kennedy alongside, he waved but couldn't help - boy, is he big!), and was repaired in a few days with no problems and for all I know may be still going.

It cost $900. in '81 and I'd guess the price today to be similar. When it went it went with a BANG! right at an old topping lift exit hole. You must repair these discontinuities. a chain and it's weakest link and all that.The break was clean and easily realigned in a alum angle, and rebonded with material inside and out. Sail track was external and patched afterwards.

I agree that it's a good buy for older boats looking for an edge, but they are not as robust and tolerant as the aluminum spars - but HALF the weight! Hard to resist that, especially up high.

Tom Price
8351

I feel that the class should develop a straight aluminum section mast with a fiberglass/carbon/????? tip. The result should be cheaper new or when replacing all or part of a mast. The result should be easier

This is what I was getting at earlier. There are already masts to copy or use. It seems to me that if you did stick a tip in the mud and break it, you could just replace the tip. The 49ers have a new mast awaiting approval, and all they are going to ship is the glass tip. This is not too disimilar from the current Aussie Goldspar rig. Correct?

My only concern is that I believe that most of the two piece masts are multi-spreader designs. That sounds like and new rig...more cost and problems.

To me, this seems like a much more practical approach. It increases tunability, reduces cost both new and damage, eases storage, and minimizes development cost, eliminates obsolescence of existing equipment.

Does this mean that instead of buying a new mast, which would likely cost more than I paid for my boat (6491) I could have the top chopped off and a new glass tip installed?

Actually, some of the old Beta, Epsilon, etc. mast sections might be usable with the taper cut off and a fiber tip installed.

Comments!!!!

Sounds good, sign me up. My concern is wheter we would be able to make a change like that, which sounds simple enough, and still use our current sails? This sounds lie this could be leading to a major sail shape problem.

On another note, Chris Romans was saying that many of the casualties at Hayling were while sailing, and I have never heard of that happening with the North American rig. Is this because of the higher tension? According to the P&B sheet they may have had 200-300 lbs on the shrouds where the Norths would have more like 600-800 on the shrouds.

Bill Green

OK Dave!

I think its time for some Danish comments

We have the same observation in the Europe Class as in the Finn class

The mast costs twice as much as a 505 mast, can only be used for 1 season, and there is much more work with the sails because of difference in the masts. The result of that is that the class in Denmark is decreasing because of the cost.

Why change masts, it wonīt make the boat faster, not as much so you can tell the difference, it wonīt make it easier for newcomers in the class (more expensive) You have to use a lot more time for developing sails, because there is a difference from mast to mast (costs even more money).

About breaking masts, I had seen many broken masts of all materials, and you can be lucky to stick your mast in the mud and it wonīt break, but if there is some wawes and you are unlucky, your mast will break no matter what material (if it is so strong that it canīt break, it might damage your boat instead!)

At the AGM, it was decided to do some testing with new sail designs (jib and spinnaker) I think that if we want to make changes to the boat that influence the speed, that is the way to go.

Tom Bojland
DEN - 8622

I have watched with some concern the discussion that has arisen, yet again, of Alloy masts compared to Carbon Fibre. The issue has obviously arisen again as a result of a couple of very windy regattas which have cost the fleet quite a few masts. I'm not sure why it keeps on getting raised in this forum. The class has discussed this topic, considered all the available information and made a decision which is binding until new, substantial, significant and convincing information gives the class a satisfactory reason to change is present policy. To date there is no such new information that warrants the class reconsidering its position on masts.

A couple of the comments that have been made I wholeheartedly agree with. Given the conditions that have been described ANY MAST would break when rammed into the bottom of the ocean. And you can be thankful that it does break, it sure beats pushing it through the bottom of the boat because it is too strong to break.

Someone mentioned it would be much cheaper to use plain Alloy tube and rig it accordingly.
Bravo!! It absolutely would. This is where we started some thirty odd years ago but very quickly, (1) evolution (2) the desire to make things better and (3) ambition, saw very rapid design improvements to tapered masts and oval shaped masts and pear shaped masts all shapes that were considered far superior to a plain round tube which of cousre they were. (or were they?) They were also more than double the cost.

One thing has always remained riveted in my mind.

In 1966 I sailed the famous Worlds in Adelaide with Paul Elvstrom. Paul used a mast which was a section he used in his newly designed Trapeze dinghy. It was a plain straight (very cheap) section which he rigged with a double spreader arrangement to support it and control bend. Most would say there was too much windage to be acceptable. Let me say, we (he) won the first race in very light drifting conditions ( the lightest race of the series) we won the second race in gale force conditions and huge seas (the heaviest race of the series) and we won the last race, which was a puffy offshore land breeze, after leading round every mark of the course. So there was no doubt about its performance capability.

Since about 1967, despite the many and varied attempts at design improvements over the years, I see the "the good guys" are still using Proctor D masts which have been in vogue since about 1967 or even earlier. (I think the Proctor E was most popular prior to the "D") (I wonder if any one is keen enough to try to save themslves a lot of money and experiment with a straight tube but rig it as Elvstrom did in 1966.)

Sometimes I think we try to outsmart ourselves with "science" but may not be making improvements. I find it very interesting that despite the enormous technological advances that various aspects of society have made in the last 30 years, we are still using a mast which has survived the test of time. It's a bit like the 505 itself. Still the best designed two man dinghy ever.
Food for thought!

Pip Pearson
International President.

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Chad Price wrote: At 10:58 AM 9/29/97 -0700, John Shelton Inc wrote: Its very funny for me to see every one calling for Carbon rigs! Its seems the hardest sell for the 505 class is the cost of boat and gear.

I can only echo Dave's comment. Windsurfing over the last few years has made the transition from aluminum (aluminium so some) masts, and the cost of the good masts has gone from about $160 (US) to $300 and more.

Some leading windsurfers are moaning that high tech equipment is killing their sport.
(see the current issue of Wind Tracks magazine)

In the local fleet, we are splitting into two 'classes' as some people upgrade past the $10,000 mark (well past!). Those of us who can't or won't do this suspect that we are in a different fleet.

Maybe we should require all the 8nnn boats to drag their spinnakker.

cheers -- Rick
Rick Leir
CAN 7951
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

My 2 cents worth on the mast debate- experience in international 14s in Australia is that carbon sticks offer a significant performance advantage particularly in terms of weight saving but are about 50% more expensive and still frequently break under extreme loads (and not just capsizes).

A cheap alternative is pulling the spun tapered top out of your broken goldspar or spunspar and slotting it into a tube of straight section alloy tube available from your local aluminium supplier for less than 100 bucks AUS including anodising. This is non marine grade alloy but seems to work just as well at a fraction of the cost. This allows relatively cheap experimentation with wall thickness and other variables.

Malcolm Higgins Aussie expatriate, temporarily without a 505, currently in Toronto, Ontario, Canada

From one of the ancient ones,

I like Graham Alexander's spin on this mast discussion. Pip's reasonings are very sound but it is worth discussing those changes which might help the class without destroying it. I recently assisted at the Int 14 Worlds, sailed on our "Berkeley Circle"(San Francisco Bay). EVERY boat capsized, mostly more than once(which leads to whole new area for discussion. Boy how I would like to have put a 5-0h among that lot!). We anticipated many broken sticks, in that the depth is only 6 to 16ft over the course. There were indeed many muddy top masts, not to mention one very muddy spinnaker pole!! There were, however, very few breaks. That may be coincidence but it is a fact that virtually all of the 82 boats had carbon fiber masts. The masts that broke were repaired in the boatyard by the sailors and, in addition, I watched one of the Aussies (a friend of Pip's) adjust the bend of his spar by adding carbon during one of the laydays. A carbon fiber tapered section at the top might be really good sense. It could certainly be argued that the 505 is nothing like as unstable as the 14 but, if a break does occur, I like the idea of effecting a repair oneself.

I enjoy the exchanges;keep em coming,

Dennis Surtees

We had our 505 Pacific Coast Championship at the same water two weekends ago. One capsized, with a predictable result for the mast. He won the Windex award to make him a little bit happier before going to Proctor.

Having said that, I don't like the uneven quality of carbon masts. With each mast being a bit individual, requiring semi-indivdual sails, will probably result in bigger speed differences through the fleet. Even high-volume graphite (carbon) golf shafts cannot be made as consistent and accurate as steel shafts (I know this is suppose to be sailing).

Also, to have carbon masts in an open class risk the price to sky rocket. One manufacturer classes like 49er or Boss can at least keep the cost under some control. I14 referred to [by Dennis] is open, but that fleet is really spread out at the races.

I agree with Dennis, to have this discussion at this forum helps the class to make the right decisions. The decision itself, is however for another forum to make.

Johan Backsin,
SWE-8593

Just 2 cents on the carbon mast deal. Why can you have a carbon hull but not a mast? Sounds a bit silly. Me? I can't afford a carbon mast. Wouldn't buy one, but think they should be allowed. And if one does get one, wouldn't the boat now come in too light? (wasn't there a new rule about not being allowed to add more the x amount of 'weight' to make the minimum?)

There would be a learning curve with them. The rich guys can test them out and stuff. I don't think the carbon mast will be the top boats the first year anyways.

---
Triak #35 "Eleven"
5o5 #4936 " Mud Shark" "Life's a reach, then you gybe"

There are several issues brought up with this and here is some additional food for thoughts:

The fact is that the 505 mast easily breaks when the boat turtles, what are the solutions to avoid this issue:

  1. Don't race in shallow waters... Unfortunately this limits only the number of cases and it is hard to impose on every RC this condition...
  2. Rig the boat with a stiffer and more reliable mast, this may break the boat instead... and is not the right solution...
  3. Don't let the boat turtle, which is as simple to say as "don't let the sun rise"... unless there is enough buoyancy at the top of the mast which may be the way to go. However the boat may be the hell to keep in sudden stormy conditions...
  4. Don't race when it is windy... or don't have fun... pouah !!!
  5. Take a good insurance policy, keep breaking masts and let's talk about it...

In summary, turtling in shallow waters is the major issue with regards to broken masts. Top of rig buoyancy may well be the only solution to avoid this. I am sure this is not a new idea and has been rejected within the class,... Does anyone would like to comment about why ?

Carbon masts: May be this is an issue which has nothing to do with broken masts but with class image and technology trends.

Let's go back a few years ago with wooden masts versus aloy/carbon masts, and let's just say the class put a ban on alumium/carbon masts to protect investment costs and keep boats even. Now what would look like our beloved 505s with wooden masts compare to all the other classes sailing with aluminium or carbon masts... would they look attractive any longer, would they make the youngest dream about the boat and its legend ? They would certainly be nice among the old boats at the "Romantic Cup" hold once a year though... Isn't it good for the class to keep up with the technology trends to avoid competition grabing our folk (49ers, Laser 5000,...). Isn't it time for the class to make itself more attractive to the "windsurfer generation" who are using such carbon spars for quite some time ?

Our boats are not even, we have "super boats", "good boats" and "boats". Boat construction differenciates them significantly so do sailmakers, mast profiles and many other things... Therefore the carbon mast introduction would not change much the current uneven situation of our fleet and the fact that the best team will still be ahead. Since carbon masts would likely make our boats faster without changing in any way the way we are sailing our 505s, they would certainly make our class more attractive in keeping up with its legend and the current technology trends and in enhancing the class image (I recall the interest for the 505 we presented at the 96 parisian boat show with her technora sails for instance).

Is there a major price issue since other classes can afford carbon spars?

Would our boats be more fun with carbon masts ? (sailing faster, planning earlier in lighter wind conditions...). If the response is no we can wait a while, if it is yes, just go for it.

May be the actual decision ahead of us is already when will the class lift the current ban on carbon spars ?

Jean Baptiste
FRA 7931

The simple summation of the attributes of carbon fiber masts, from my biased point of view is:

While many companies can build carbon fiber tubes of a similar size to the 505 mast, it still will take development to build and get it right. Some who try will fail to get it right, and some will fail to be cost effective.

An option I proposed in July 1995 was to allow masts of other materials with a minimum weight (which is the same as a typical aluminum mast), and perhaps a minimum CG height, for a trial period of 1 to 3 years. The rule could be evaluated at the end of the period.

Larry Tuttle
Waterat Sailing Equipment

Ali,
I spoke to Ben Hall (Hall Spars) who is a friend and local Bristol resident about the carbon rig concept. They have a bunch of experience with small boat rigs, such as Finns, A-Cats, and DN iceboats, and he thought that a bare tube with a bonded carbon sail track would run around $1400. This would be for an autoclaved section made around a mandel. One could then use stock Proctor parts to finish the rigging process. Both he and Lars feel that this type of mast would be much more durable than any aluminum section. Ben also pointed out that with carbon construction, one can add material in high load areas, such as below the deck, spreader bracket, toping lift hole, etc. which would even further the strength advantage.

If there is a real proposal taking shape here, we could also get a quote from Ted van Dusen, who builds Canoe rigs, but these would not be autoclaved.

Looking at the cost of the tube, it seems the costs would be about $800-900 more for carbon set up, roughly twice a standard D. But this mast might just last you four times longer, so the economy might be there.

Peter Alarie
Guck, Inc.
17 1/2 John St.
Bristol, RI 02809
(401) 254-5090 phone & fax

[ What's New ] [ Search ] [ Schedules ] [ Why a 505? ] [ The Boat ] [ The People ] [ Getting In ] [ Getting Better ] [ New & Used ] [ More Information ] [ 505 Forum ] [ Association ] [ Fleets ] [ Home ]