Minimum mast weight - time for review?

[MikeDay]

We're currently requiring masts to be a minimum of 5.5kg.  As far as I can ascertain, that weight was chosen at some point simply to reflect the weight of Superspar carbon masts then on the market.

My Chipstow carbon mast came out at 1 kg lower.  I didn't specify a low weight - I just asked for a normal version of their standard carbon mast and that's what I got. As a consequence, I have a strip of lead fed in to each of the spreaders and a large lump wrapped round the mast above the goose neck.  

My mast appears to be perfectly robust enough - and other Chipstow masts, which also carry lead, seem to have been equally reliable.

I don't think it makes any sense for us as a development class to restrict the mast weight in this way.  For boats  that are on the borderline of 78kg, having a lighter mast is another way to get the boat down to weight.  From a PR perspective, wrapping lead around the mast says some odd things about the class.  

So, this is not an argument for reducing the all-up boat weight - we can have that elsewhere - but a plea for our mast weight to reflect what is now normal.

I plan to ask the technical committee to have another look at this but would be interested in others' views first - in case I have missed something critical which would justify retaining the 5.5kg min weight.

Mike D
N3496

[Mikey C]

Being the proud owner of another Chipstow mast with lead glued onto it, I am with you.
Unfortunately, Superspar and Angell masts are unable to get to this weight, the Angell especially due to its narrow section and thick walls.

My biggest problem is with the centre of gravity rule, and its effect on deck stepped masts. My mast is underweight, and even with the lead attached is still nowhere near the centre of gravity point, I think I would have had to add another half kilo to get it on, but obviously that defeats the point and has no benefit anyway as the tip weight will be the same.

Crazy stuff

Mike C
3489 Radical Edward

[Kevin]

I never did get my head around the arguments for a minimum mast weight. So far as I can remember there were two justifications put forward: one was that having a minimum weight would stop people building them too light and having them constantly breaking; two was it would prevent people spending zillions of pounds in developing a super light section that would be unstoppable.

The first is clearly not a valid point. Anyone who constantly breaks masts doesn't win races too often. The current rules did not stop builders leading the pole elastic through the mast walls and causing a weak spot where they kept breaking until people realised this was not good. Now no-one builds them like that. The point of this is that it is possible to build a mast under the current rules that will break when it shouldn't. Rules do not and should not try to prevent this as they then can and do have unintended side effects.

In my opinion, the second reason is also invalid because a) the money would be better spent on the hull; b) the all up weight still applies so it would only reduce the pitching/heeling moment, which is not a hugely significant factor in 12 sailing; c) Graham/Zoe or Tom/Liz would still beat them anyway; d) we don't have any rich saddo's in the class.

I too have a Chipstow mast and I have a premanently fitted compass and a lump of lead right at the foot to get it down to weight. The C of G is still above minimum height.

If the minimum mast weight is viewed as a problem per se, then it would be set at the weight of a metal mast, which it isn't. Let's get rid of the minimum weight and the C of G and rid ourselves of one of the areas of expense from adding unnecessary bits onto perfectly servicable bits of equipment.

Kevin

[Unsure (Guest)]

[Kevin]

Like I said, Graham/Zoe & Tom/Liz still win!

Anonymous posters are the subversive scum of the earth.

Kevin

[David G (Guest)]

Firstly, this forum seems to be a perfectly good place to air ones views about any aspect of the class.  Mike who started the thread was not at Burton week, one could ask whether Burton week is still the best venue to discuss important aspects of the class?

Secondly, I think anyone who does not identify himself on this forum should be blacklisted by the webmaster, particularly given the offensive postscript, if you can't say it in the bar, don't say it on this forum.

On the original point, I think the rule was drafted early on, and the technology is now more reliable and may offer scope for the rule to be revisited, however I would be concerned if we inadvertantly pushed up the cost of 12 ownership my pushing people to use lighter more expensive masts (I suspect Tom would not be using the Superspar if you were allowed to take the correctors out of the Jacko masts).

Regards,

David
3461

[John Meadowcroft]

It is my understanding that Merlins have some degree of problems in getting insurance primarily due to the amounts of rigs claimed for in recent years.  They have no weight limit or c of g rule.  Everyone in the class pays for insurance so the lack of a rule here impacts everyone's sailing budget.

5.5kg may be wrong, but a weight limit and a c of g rule are both sensible.  I think that sticking lead to the mast is unattractive.  However this is as much an issue for the mast builder and the purchaser as it is for the Class as a whole.

In the OK we fill our masts with epoxy to bring them up to weight.  You are then allowed a small corrector (less than 0.5kg).  This solves the aesthetic problem but is a pain in the already mentioned a....

[Antony (Guest)]

There is certainly an argument that the initial reasons for the limit are no longer especially valid, as more people know how to make masts that won't fall down, but only one manufacturer seems to be making a suitable product significantly below the limit.  

There now seems the less intended purpose of the rule, to enable the lower cost option to be competitive......and until the class is a bit stronger I think this is probably enough reason to keep the rules as they are.

My vote.. spend more time encouraging people to sail the boats and less time on how to make them more expensive.  When our worst problem is that lead on the masts is unsightly then we can reopen this debate.

Antony
N3484 (proud owner of a Chipstow with a big lump of lead)

[Jane W (Guest)]

I think Antony is right - this is a class with far bigger problems than lead on the mast.  The overall perception outside of the fleet is of a bunch of ever dwindling 'geeks' looking for minimal ways to get the edge over someone else frequently at great expense.  Harsh but in my opinion all too true.  

We need to do some serious soul searching and understand where this class will be in 15 years time because continuing at the current rate it will be close to dead.

Think hard but positive...and put your name to your post chicken.

Jane Wade

[John Murrell (Guest)]

[MikeDay]

Having started the thread, I appreciate all the views, except those of the anonymous poster.  It's a good debate about what I accept is a relatively minor point.  Three things strike me:

1. Clearly, lead on the mast is not the biggest of the Twelve's challenges.  And no-one would claim that changing the rule would solve any of the big problems.  However, I wasn't offering it as the solution to all our ills - just as an arguably pointless irritant that could easily be removed if we choose.  Future direction for the Class needs a proper strategy - and my understanding is that the Committee is constantly working on that.

2. I cannot understand the cost argument.  A new Twelve is an expensive (though beautiful) thing.  We allow the hull, foils and every other fitting to be made in whatever material we like.  If we were truly serious about limiting the cost of a new boat (which we last tried to do in the early 1950s) there are many ways to do this, (including not allowing carbon masts at all).  If people want to build a cheaper boat, they do it themselves in wood and use the minimum number of cheap fittings - and that's great.  Others want to invest more and are choosing carbon, and other exotic materials.  Either we limit everything to keep the cost down, or we allow everything - picking on the mast alone is daft.

3.  I could understand the structural integrity argument if remained true.  However, Chipstow have shown that you can build a perfectly strong mast at 4-4.5kg.  We don't limit the weight of any other component (eg the boom, foils etc) to preserve strength so why the mast?  As Kevin said, no-one wins races with a mast that keeps breaking.

Thanks for engaging with this - it's all good stuff.

Mike D
N3496

[David G (Guest)]

[Terry Cooke (Guest)]

The original reason of min wieght was to try and cap costs. I gave up with my light wieght Chipstow option after the second time it broke and it cost the same to repair as to buy a Super Spar section. When we are insisting in putting 20KG of lead in the boats why worry about a 1kg in a mast! We used to be able to attach the lead to the jib halyard inside the mast, this sorted the CofG and looks issue  the rule makers did not like it though.

I agree with Jane, we have a great product ( it can always be better) lets look at how we sell ourselves to the market.