GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by smj

So now I'm confused. If a Gunboat 55 gets caught in 70 knot winds and loses its mast, then the crew gets airlifted it's not a blue water boat. But if a Westsail 32 gets caught in 70 knot winds, does a 360 and comes up without its mast then the crew gets airlifted it's still a blue water boat. I would guess the Gunboat 55 would be a hell of a lot more comfortable after the loss of the mast as everything would still be pretty much in place, where the Westsail would have all its contents, including battery acid floating around above the floorboards. Now which boat took care of its crew? What truly makes a blue water boat? All that said, even if I could afford one I wouldn't buy a Gunboat 55. I can definitely afford a Westsail 32 but I'd be damned if I'd own one of those either.

Hmmm... I must have lost the plot somewhere, SMJ, because I don't see where a Westsall fits into the picture, nor how an imagined rollover in one shows that the Gunboat is a better cruising boat.

I openly admit that I have never voyaged on a W-32. However, I have several times experienced 70 knot gusts (and even 70 knot sustained winds) in our cruising boats and neither lost our mast nor been rolled as a direct result... and this was with just Ann and I as crew. That is what a cruising boat should do IMO... survive intact and get its small amateur crew to their destination.

As I said before, this is my personal definition. You and others may have differing ideas, but they do not mean that mine is wrong

Oh... I never use the term "blue water boat", for it has no meaning, so please don't quote me as doing so.

Jim

[smj]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Hmmm... I must have lost the plot somewhere, SMJ, because I don't see where a Westsall fits into the picture, nor how an imagined rollover in one shows that the Gunboat is a better cruising boat.

I openly admit that I have never voyaged on a W-32. However, I have several times experienced 70 knot gusts (and even 70 knot sustained winds) in our cruising boats and neither lost our mast nor been rolled as a direct result... and this was with just Ann and I as crew. That is what a cruising boat should do IMO... survive intact and get its small amateur crew to their destination.

As I said before, this is my personal definition. You and others may have differing ideas, but they do not mean that mine is wrong

Oh... I never use the term "blue water boat", for it has no meaning, so please don't quote me as doing so.

Jim

So if you were in 70kt winds and your mast fell down because of faulty equipment would your boat no longer be a cruising boat? I'm sure you get my point. If the Gunboat lost its mast because of faulty equipment should that reflect on the entire design or maybe just the crap equipment that was installed. And the "blue water" wasn't quoting you, it was quoting Pallaran.

[smj]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Well I'm not a lover of Westsail's either but in the conditions that were described... while the Westsail may have lost its mast as this can happen to any boat at anytime it would never have rolled as the steady winds and seas were just not that big a deal. I don't know enough about multihulls to give a reasonable opinion but I certainly have opinions on monos. I'll sit back and learn what I can from multi guys that know far more than me.

My point is not mono vs multi, it's should a boat be condemned as a non cruiser or non blue water because they may have had the bad luck of having a faulty piece of equipment.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by smj

So the question stands. Is the Westsail 32, one of the most seaworthy vessels built, more seaworthy than the Gunboat 55? When it comes to seaworthiness length does matter. Which boat would you have rather been on?

Personally, I wouldn't leave in either one of them, given the storm forecast. Fronts often contain individual storm cells, embedded in them, and for me, the cold of the Atlantic in January would also have been off-putting.

In addition, and this is just me, having seen what happened with the Alpha 42 last January in the Atlantic--also an untried vessel, I would be extremely leery of being on any maiden voyage of any untried boat into those conditions. Like they say, YMMV To me the prospect is closer to suffering than great adventure.

I would say that Rainmaker's maiden voyage has done nothing to make me respect GB, but I agree that any boat can lose a mast due to a misadventure. Since we don't know what caused the mast to split (manufacturing defect? failure of the "instant dump?" design flaw?) we haven't got the data we need to evaluate the whole situation. We don't know if she was low in the water due to collision damage or to just plain old falling apart. I rather suspect there will be little more data, but a lot of finger pointing.

Ann

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by smj

So if you were in 70kt winds and your mast fell down because of faulty equipment would your boat no longer be a cruising boat? I'm sure you get my point. If the Gunboat lost its mast because of faulty equipment should that reflect on the entire design or maybe just the crap equipment that was installed. And the "blue water" wasn't quoting you, it was quoting Pallaran.

If I had just paid multi millions of dollars for that boat, I would view failure of any part of the rig as a reflection of the entire design. Having ANY "crap equipment" on such a boat is totally unacceptable. At least one of the attributed accounts of the event was that the mast "split" from a wave strike, possibly at the same time as a strong gust struck. One possible explanation of such failure is poor design of the spar, or poor quality control at manufacture.

And as others have pointed out, one of the principal design features was an automated safety system that would prevent overload of the rig. This system apparently didn't work, so that is, to me, a specific design failure that kinda condemns the boat as a cruiser.

Again, I feel that a good cruising boat is strong enough to withstand both bad weather AND bad crew decisions; we as amateurs need all the help that we can get! And these "professionals" apparently needed a bit more help, too!

OK on the "blue water" biz. Without specific line by line attribution it is difficult to keep things straight in these multi participant threads

Jim

[robert sailor]

One comment I will make is to not believe the BS thrown around by manufacturers. My favourite one is that if you own a multihull you can out run storms. Well here is a case and point...one of the quicker multihulls that could not and did not out run a storm, so so much for that pipe dream. Best idea is to never have to rely on the boats speed to get you out of trouble you shouldn't have been in the first place. I'm not saying that speed is not your friend because at times it sure is but just don't count on it.

[toddedger]

I believe the GB technological problems have all been solved. From now on nobody is going to have any mainsail up down wind over thirty knots going into a squall line. Problem solved.

That will work for an awful lot of other boats too. Maybe Hall should put a sticker on the boom.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Personally, I wouldn't leave in either one of them, given the storm forecast. Fronts often contain individual storm cells, embedded in them, and for me, the cold of the Atlantic in January would also have been off-putting.



In addition, and this is just me, having seen what happened with the Alpha 42 last January in the Atlantic--also an untried vessel, I would be extremely leery of being on any maiden voyage of any untried boat into those conditions. Like they say, YMMV To me the prospect is closer to suffering than great adventure.



I would say that Rainmaker's maiden voyage has done nothing to make me respect GB, but I agree that any boat can lose a mast due to a misadventure. Since we don't know what caused the mast to split (manufacturing defect? failure of the "instant dump?" design flaw?) we haven't got the data we need to evaluate the whole situation. We don't know if she was low in the water due to collision damage or to just plain old falling apart. I rather suspect there will be little more data, but a lot of finger pointing.



Ann

Great post. Usually the boat is more seaworthy than the crew, which I think holds true in this case. I wasn't aware of the boat being low in the water.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by smj

My point is not mono vs multi, it's should a boat be condemned as a non cruiser or non blue water because they may have had the bad luck of having a faulty piece of equipment.

The chance of faulty equipment that affects seaworthiness on a boat like this must be very high.
With all the technology such as electric winches, sheet load sensors, dump buttons, retractable sun roof (or moon roof if you prefer the GB speak) etc etc and lots of computer controlling, its only a matter of time before the custard hits the fan when one adds salt water.

Seems more like a rich boys toy/ greenhouse than a serious off the beaten track safe ocean cruiser

[Sailingcouple13]

This thread has lost all reasonable credability. Sorry all you guys have such penis envy on a guy with more money than you. Mistake where probably made, not a concern for youplea because most of you will never have the ability to experience the the newer technology first hand. It's a good thing there was nothing like this when the Wright Brothers thought they could fly.....please enough already

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

[Sailingcouple13]

Let's put this in perspective, If you could buy a state of the art gunboat 55 right now at say $5,000 and set sail 200 miles of North Carolina at speeds you never imagined and ran into an unpredictable or non imaginable weather condition lost your rig and engines and lives could be at risk. I would be the first to say come get us, get right back to shore and say we are almost there. Here is $7,000 this time lets do it again with these modifications. Thank goodness we have the risk takers with the resources to push the envelope. Why would anyone want to go to the moon? Insane for sure no water or air.....

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

[Sailingcouple13]

Ok yes in South Beach for the boat show and the RUM got the best of me.....

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

[Sand crab]

The YouTube vid is from July 2014 so it was launched before that and we don't know what it did or where it went since. The point I'm trying to make is that this is not a brand new boat and had actually probably done some sailing before this incident. To throw the entire design of these in the trash can is not logical.

No one knows what happened except the crew.

[44'cruisingcat]

This thread is getting beyond ridiculous. ONE boat has had it's mast fail, for reasons we don't even know yet, and people are writing the entire boat design off?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

One comment I will make is to not believe the BS thrown around by manufacturers. My favourite one is that if you own a multihull you can out run storms. Well here is a case and point...one of the quicker multihulls that could not and did not out run a storm, so so much for that pipe dream. Best idea is to never have to rely on the boats speed to get you out of trouble you shouldn't have been in the first place. I'm not saying that speed is not your friend because at times it sure is but just don't count on it.

They sailed right into a storm. How does that prove the boat couldn't have outrun one? That's like saying human beings can't outrun brick walls, because on the odd occasion someone might walk into one.