Select to expand quote
Sandman1221 said..
It does not sound reasonable to me that just because the mast was not sanded it sucks air down. I think there is something off with the design of the mast that allows it to flex under load. If the mast flexes under load, and the load is coming from the windward side, then cavitation would occur on the leeward side, which it does.
Fluid mechanics is filled with weird things like this. A lot of airplanes have vortex generators on their wing top surface to increase turbulence and thus increase the angle of attack before flow separation. BUT, air is about 1000x less dense than water so different techniques are used. The paper I linked above shows that roughness DOES affect when ventilation occurs on a hydrofoil, so it's within the realm of plausibility.
The difficulty is we are already talking about fluids, which is a hard subject, but two-phase flow as well (liquid water and gaseous air) interacting in 3d. Not easy to model...
Throw in torsion of the mast, which can affect things if it's big enough, and it's a very complicated multiphysics problem. Lots of variables, hard to do. I think other control issues would start to manifest from mast torsion first, or a bad vibration that would look different. Because, if you do start getting appreciable flexure on something in water, it will start changing the flow dynamics and result in something like flutter and rapid disassembly. Not a big air bubble coming off the mast like you see in the video. Fluid/structural coupling (which is what flutter is) is going to have a lot of force in a liquid.
Am I 100% sure this caused the crash? No, but it's worth considering. I personally wouldn't sand my high modulus carbon mast unless I had an issue, and would be sure to check to make sure it wouldn't declass me from the IQFoil rules (light sanding is allowed but I don't know the specifics).