True, but how much of that is just 'covering his arse'.
There are plenty of smaller craft, like the 24-ft mono that recently sailed right round the American continent, that probably would not be 'recommended' for offshore work, never mind rounding the Horn.
Equally there are numerous designs of all shapes and sizes - designed specifically for 'offshore' sailing - that 'failed to return' due to misadventure.
And let's not mention Webb Chiles or Frank Dye.....or William Bligh.....or Matthew Flinders....or Ernest Shackleton.... all of whom set off to cross oceans and dangerous seas in boats clearly not 'designed' to do so, and lived to tell the tale.
Simply stating that a boat is 'not designed' *specifically* for a selected purpose does not necessarily make it, ipso facto, *un*-suitable.
Not perfect, not ideal, not designed, but not necessarily unsuitable.
There were a number of smaller Farrier boats that circumnavigated back in the day, when they were still being home-built from plywood
with nothing more than an epoxy
coating to waterproof them.
And it is testament to the initial *over*-engineering of Ian's folder design that he has since then altered it a few times so that the system relies entirely on the pivot bolts to carry the loads, without the additional inboard 'beam structures' that were in the initial design of the aka.
Considering Ian does design his boats for racing
, and racing hard, which as we know can involve massive shock loads and heavy strains when sailing at 9/10ths or more, the inherent 'fat' built into the design loads ought to be more than enough to cope with loads placed on the components when sailed offshore by a prudent
I certainly wouldn't take a Farrier into the Southern Ocean under race
conditions, although given the coverage and SAR focus duing such ocean races, it's probably safer to do so than for a relative novice
cruiser such as Cull setting off unaccompanied into the Tasman Sea.
Unless sailors are regularly communicating via satellite
their position and intentions, too often I think in such cases it is way too late before the authorities even start
looking for 'lost' sailors.
For example, Cull and Vernon could have been overturned two days out of Wellington, but not reported missing for up to a week or even two weeks later, as it would depend on what allowance they'd offered as a 'window' for arriving in Tonga
and returning to contact with the world.
Not knowing where the boat went over, it makes it hard for SAR to calculate drift and likely location for the upturned craft, or a dinghy
or life raft. It's akin to the search for the Malaysian aircraft in the Indian Ocean
. Needle in the proverbial damp haystack.
Personally, I think multis should be required to be capable of self-recovery, but with all the comms aids these days we've become complacent and simply expect 'the authorities' to come to our aid regardless.
How many times do we read of mono (and multi) sailors being winched from otherwise floating and functioning craft, said craft later washing
ashore relatively intact, often thousands of miles away?
, they'd have had to stick it out and figure out how to survive and then how to navigate to safety
, or at least, to stay afloat and survive long enough to be spotted by another vessel.
Whatever the case, it was a tragedy that they lost
their lives, and as we can't possibly know the circumstances, we should just let it go at that.