GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Jim Cate]

I'm not familiar with this design, so maybe someone can clue me in: if there is no front beam, what does the forestay attach to? And, depending on the answer to that, could this unconventional means of support for the mast in way of loads from the bow have been the reason that o n board reports were that the rig failure was due to a big wave coming over the bow and striking the base of the mast?

From an innocent perspective, seems possible!

Jim

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I'm not familiar with this design, so maybe someone can clue me in: if there is no front beam, what does the forestay attach to? And, depending on the answer to that, could this unconventional means of support for the mast in way of loads from the bow have been the reason that o n board reports were that the rig failure was due to a big wave coming over the bow and striking the base of the mast?

From an innocent perspective, seems possible!

Jim

There is a large for/aft aligned prodder which the forestay is attached to. And the trampolines.

But really, there is still bridgedeck structure forward of the mast. And again - how much protection do you think a forebeam offers?

To be honest, the question that was asked before - about this boat having no lower shrouds and no jumper struts - basically no structure resisting fore and aft movement of the middle of the mast, nothing keeping the mast in column - is probably more to the point.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

Currious- Where is CG report (public).
If going to Miami BS why not use ICW at least part way ?

They were not headed for Miami... And, if they were, their air draft of almost 84' rules out the ICW - by a considerable margin, to say the least ;-)

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

So lets look at what we know.

1. The mast and rigging came crashing down following a large frontal wave.

How do we know that? Where is that information coming from?

It's not what Peter Johnstone has said. Although he mentioned that the conditions included a "large South swell", his statement was that while sailing to a storm jib and triple reefed main, the encountered a squall which included a 70-knot "wall of wind", and the mast came down as a result...

There's been no shortage of speculation about stuffing the bows or something similar, but I'm not aware of any confirmation yet from a reliable source that a wave caused the dismasting... Certainly not unlikely nor out of the question, but to the best of my knowledge that's yet being reported...

[Sailingcouple13]

This was hull #1 and was at Miami last year I believe. Hull #2 is supposed to be at show this year. Will know more next week. We have a boarding scheduled for Thursday. It will be interesting to hear what the word is directly. We were considering this boat as an option.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Imprezza72

For those still wondering this was just posted within the hour on Peter's FB page:

Joining Gunboat on a search and rescue mission to try to recover Vandal's sister ship "Rainmaker" - she is still out there floating in the Atlantic waiting to b...e located. We've kitted out the SAR plane with orange dye and strobes to try to drop if we spot it, satellite phone and all of the most powerful binos we could muster. Let's bring her home.

I take that to indicate that fancy GOST tracking/monitoring system isn't workng, and they're gonna be looking for a needle in a haystack... Given the weather out there over the course of the past week, that thing could be well on its way to Ireland by now...

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Sailingcouple13

This was hull #1 and was at Miami last year I believe. Hull #2 is supposed to be at show this year. Will know more next week. We have a boarding scheduled for Thursday. It will be interesting to hear what the word is directly. We were considering this boat as an option.

It's actually hull #3 named TOCCATA that will be in the show...

To my eye, at least, I think it's just as well they're not showing Hull #2..

;-))

[Sailingcouple13]

Lol I agree!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I'm not familiar with this design, so maybe someone can clue me in: if there is no front beam, what does the forestay attach to? And, depending on the answer to that, could this unconventional means of support for the mast in way of loads from the bow have been the reason that o n board reports were that the rig failure was due to a big wave coming over the bow and striking the base of the mast?

The lack of forebeam wasn't the problem here. The design looks fine to me, and the marketing saying it is the only catamaran built without a forebeam is taking liberties - check out most of the new racing catamarans starting with the AC45 and AC72.

If you check out these boats, you will notice that there sprit is actually a backbone tied into the rest of the structure. I suspect it is the same here.

As you can see in the attached picture, the forestay attachment to the sprit backbone is supported by a more conventional gull striker, while the forward end of the sprit itself is supported by two sets of dyneema lines (stays and tramps).

From an engineering perspective, I suspect this type of structure may be stronger than most conventional aluminum beams on fiberglass hulls. But I am not an engineer.

Mark

[smj]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Bulls eye. The Gun Boat people spoke highly of their revolutionary doing away with the front cross beam. Even saying they were the only catamaran in the world built without a front cross beam.

So lets look at what we know.

1. The mast and rigging came crashing down following a large frontal wave.
2. The front of the catamaran was built without a front cross beam

This leaves the question. Did the wave bring down the mast and rigging from a forceful direct hit of the mast? OR .... Did this powerful wave cause a structural separation that caused the mast and rigging to come down as the wave almost instantaneously followed through from crashing into the bow and then crashing into the mast.

I think it is incumbent on the boat builders to disclose the tests conducted on their new NO front beam cat. Again I want to remind everyone that the manufacturer himself brags that no other cat in the world has this design.

Should all such designed cats now be viewed with suspicion until this doubt over its structural design is satisfied one way or the other.

If this were a plane or car that had a new design that may be implicated in a serious life threatening crash then they would be grounded or taken off the road. What would the Government do if a totally new car design involving a cars front wheels and then this revolutionary new car was going down the road and the front wheels flew off? Certainly if it was an experimental novel new plane design that was involved in a crash, all remaining aircraft would be grounded.

There is enough here with the failure of this new kind of cat to call for a don't sail in a wave over 1' until a full investigation is made. If in fact there is a structural design fault then the manufacturer would have owners sending back their boats and demanding their money back. In my opinion.

Peter Johnstone also said the Gunboat 55 was the first catamaran to open up the salon to the cockpit, something Seawind started 20 years ago. And here's a picture of a Dazcat with no forward crossbeam, built way before the Gunboat was ever designed.

[tomfl]

Some random thoughts. If the standing rigging parted close th the top of the mast that may have been what fouled the props. Not sure how long the mast and running rigging would stay close to the boat in a windy seaway but the standing rigging would be attached to the chain plates and drag under the hulls.

Also wonder if some wind blown debris could have hit the mast and/or rigging and damaged or weakened them prior to the forces that brought down the mast.

Lots of times there are multiple causes of a disaster.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Some random thoughts. If the standing rigging parted close th the top of the mast that may have been what fouled the props. Not sure how long the mast and running rigging would stay close to the boat in a windy seaway but the standing rigging would be attached to the chain plates and drag under the hulls.

Also wonder if some wind blown debris could have hit the mast and/or rigging and damaged or weakened them prior to the forces that brought down the mast.

Lots of times there are multiple causes of a disaster.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

What do you mean by "wind blown debris"??

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

What do you mean by "wind blown debris"??

Wayward shipping containers, tree limbs, pieces coming off other boats, flying fish??

[Imprezza72]

Originally Posted by smj

Peter Johnstone also said the Gunboat 55 was the first catamaran to open up the salon to the cockpit, something Seawind started 20 years ago. And here's a picture of a Dazcat with no forward crossbeam, built way before the Gunboat was ever designed.
Attachment 96816

This is from the GB listing on Yacthworld .The Seawind is separated by doors that are folded up and out of the way....
Just sayin'

Rather than several smaller spaces on the main deck chopped up by bulkheads, the GUNBOAT 55 has one huge uninterrupted space from the mast to the aft crossbeam. Let's face it, the moment we step aboard any cat, the aft doors and windows are opened immediately, and usually stay open until we leave the boat. Why not be able to have an open aft end when conditions permit? If it gets cold or damp, the aft end seals up snug as a cocoon with a semi-rigid enclosure.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Imprezza72

This is from the GB listing on Yacthworld .The Seawind is separated by doors that are folded up and out of the way....
Just sayin'

Rather than several smaller spaces on the main deck chopped up by bulkheads, the GUNBOAT 55 has one huge uninterrupted space from the mast to the aft crossbeam. Let's face it, the moment we step aboard any cat, the aft doors and windows are opened immediately, and usually stay open until we leave the boat. Why not be able to have an open aft end when conditions permit? If it gets cold or damp, the aft end seals up snug as a cocoon with a semi-rigid enclosure.

The Seawind 1160 is separated by doors, the Seawind 1000 has no doors just wide open from rear beam to almost mast. The Seawind 1000 can also be enclosed with a canvas enclosure.

[clockwork orange]

I wonder Nearly every beach cat in the world (except my P cat) has no fwd beam, oh, and the big cat Pete Goss was going to sail in The Race but that one didn't work out too well as a bow broke off, so not exactly an innovation. I don't think its fair for anyone to be pointing to the carbon mast as a cause for failure, we just don't know but what we do know is that rigs can come down from the failure of just one realativly inexpensive fitting so there is no point in speculating until more is known. What I would like to know is if they had a suitable sea anchor to deploy or did they just think they can sail around a storm. Assuming the boat was not sinking or at risk of breaking up being tethered to a large parachute could keep the boat head to wind and waves and even if they did get taken off it would be a lot easier to locate as its drift would be far less and more predictable. Another thought for me is this habit people have of getting off the boat and leaving it floating as a hazard to shipping. Skip Allen scuttled Sunflower when he was taken off, even Rebel Heart was scuttled, its the responsible thing to do, should this not be a part of the decision making process when deciding whether to go or stay. To me its about thinking about others instead of just yourself. So you get rescued to save yourself and crew but you leave a floating boat for someone else to run into and possibly lose their lives. Now I doubt a commercial ship would even notice it but there is bound to be other small cruising boats out there that if they ran into it at night in bad weather could be sunk. My personal feeling is that if you choose to be removed from the boat you should scuttle it for the safety of other small craft, if your not willing to do that then stay aboard and tough it out. This brings up the problem of scuttling a boat that has built in floatation, I wonder if anyone makes provision for flooding the buoyancy tanks.


Steve.