X-OldHeader: From prevett@exchange.nvidia.com-DeleteThis.com Wed Feb 21 10:29:06 2001 Return-Path: <prevett@exchange.nvidia.com-DeleteThis.com> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id KAA05896 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.59]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id KAA17088 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from thelma.NVidia.COM (nvgate.nvidia.com [140.174.105.2]) by msgbas1t.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E0E461 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:29:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from exchange.nvidia.com (exchange [172.16.30.109]) by thelma.NVidia.COM (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA20391 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:28:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 by exchange.nvidia.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:28:59 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Received: by exchange.nvidia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1QDHBKQX>; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:28:58 -0800 Message-ID: <6D61E14565E3D41190DC00D0B78EE4CB106322@nvrocky.nvidia.com-DeleteThis.com> From: Bob Prevett <prevett@nvidia.com-DeleteThis.com> To: "'wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com'" <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com> Subject: RE: Carbon Booms? Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:27:54 -0800 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: prevett@exchange.nvidia.com-DeleteThis.com
My $0.02:
Having sailed both carbon and aluminum booms, I will not go back to
aluminum, especially for larger (5.0m2 and up) sails. Carbon booms really
do feel stiffer, and increase a sail's stability and performance.
I have sailed with two types of carbon booms: the Fiberspar all-carbon and
the Chinook carbon. The Fiberspar is stiffer than the Chinook. However,
the Fiberspar didn't last that long. After 1.5 seasons, the Fiberspar
carbon front end developed cracks on the inside corner, near where it
inserts into the mast clamp mechanism. Inspecting other similar booms when
at 3rd Ave showed that my case was not unique. I did replace the Fiberspar
front end, but this was expensive ($100) and alot of work; a fun project for
the mechanically inclined but not something I would want to do many times.
The second problem that I have had with the Fiberspar is that the boom
extension lock wears out, and I have had to replace this twice. The design
is not that good; the Chinook pin and hole mechanism is a more solid design.
I have had the Chinook for almost one season now. No reliabilty/quality
problems yet. My guess is that the molded plastic front end will eventually
crack and fail, but these front ends are easily replaced, unlike the
Fiberspar front ends.
Bob
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Scott [mailto:edscott@best.com-DeleteThis.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:30 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list WIND_TALK
>Subject: Carbon Booms?
>
>
>
>I bent my aluminum booms last year getting rinsed. Just
>curious, since I'm
>in the market again, what others thought of carbon booms,
>especially for use
>in surf. I always thought that aluminum was preferable over
>carbon in waves
>because of it's ability to bend rather than break. However,
>I've heard
>that aluminum's tensile strength isn't that great, has the
>tendency to break
>rather than bend, and it corrodes inside where it is
>undetectable. Input on
>brands would be appreciated, too. I know (think) that
>Fiberspar fixed their
>problems from a couple years back, lots of folks tend to have
>them, but the
>all-carbon Chinooks look pretty nice (pretty hefty price tag, too!).
>
>Thanks.
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:06 PST