Originally Posted by Stumble
I would always choose a carbon rig over aluminium. Weight for weight the carbon is worlds stronger, reduces rigging
loads, weight, tension on the hull
, motion, etc. standing rigging
attachment to carbon masts is a pretty well understood issue, isolation isn't difficult or tricky.
The one issue I can see is that it may cause to to spend money
on performance sails
, and then decide to start racing
... The cycle can be problematic.
Carbon has a high specific stiffness relative to aluminium assuming the actual built mast
has been optimally designed. Without any details I wouldn't blindly claim carbon is better or worse.
The downside of an unknown provenance carbon mast
is latent defects. Something that is virtually unknown in aluminium extrusions that have no visible damage.
I would inspect it carefully for any visible defects which could be from usage or manufacturing. I would also inspect attachment and contact points closely. Carbon has low hardness compared to an anodized aluminium mast so any wear or contact may tender
will tend to be unsightly and lead to the introduction
of stress risers unless you have access to an autoclave, the original laminate schedule and resin specifics.
One question I would ask is why did the po fit a carbon mast? Did he get it cheap
? Why was it cheap
? Who engineered the rigging, spars and interfaces?
Where do all those carbon masts go that fail quality control? Don't assume that because it is carbon it's good.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app