GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Well, if having a barbeque clamped to the stern rail, and routine attendance at potlucks are among the basic requirements to be certified as a "Real Cruiser", looks like I'm not gonna make the grade, either...

;-))

..





Nor, would the latest and greatest Beneteau SenseBoat, for that matter... Oh, well - there's barely a spot for a barbeque on those puny stern rails, anyway... ;-)

Yes, a barbeque is very nice but few boats get it right. Designers and manufacturers should have a look at the Dufour 500 that shows how it should be done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKHwbrdT8ZU

I had seen it and it looks even better than on the movie. It really made me envious.
The boatDufour 500 is also a good performer offshore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlOCspZtT5c

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by colemj

I'm curious to understand your reasoning. Series drogues are active steering devices with the boat moving downwind at reduced speed, so one doesn't really lie to them like a parachute. A mono - particularly a Westsail 32 - is a rollamatic machine down-seas, while a catamaran hardly notices them.

Having a lot of experience with both monos and multis, I would vastly prefer running with a series drogue on a multi than a mono. I would not prefer a parachute on a multi unless one really did need to stop dead in the water.

But with either one, I would suspect the multi to have vastly more comfortable motion than a mono.

Mark

No doubt, the Westsail might be a bit less "comfortable", but in the conditions as I would imagine them to have been in this incident, and the weather that was to come, I'd be a bit more concerned with 'survivability', than 'comfort'... ;-)

I'm talking about a situation subsequent to a dismasting... Neither boat, running off, is gonna have as much forward motion as would be the case if the rig was still in the boat... With the possibility of taking a breaking sea from astern while lying to a drogue, I'd rather face that with the canoe stern of the Westsai, with her tiny cockpit that amounts to little more than a footwell, than to face the possibility of having that large patio and 'inviting' open walkways above each hull on the Gunboat inundated by a breaking sea...

One reason I might prefer to lay into the wind and seas on the Gunboat, might be to mitigate the potential for water intrusion into the engine compartments... After a dismasting, those engines could come in handy ;-) I seem to recall one of the cascading failures in the events that led to the abandonment of the Alpha 42, was water getting into the engine space, and shorting out a starter or alternator, or something to that effect...

The engine access hatches on the 55 are located just forward of those transom steps... Get a bit of green water flowing over those lids, it could result in a problem... I wouldn't want to put any serious money on those things being absolutely watertight... ;-)





Again, as always, It depends... Another compelling reason to lying to a para anchor as opposed to running off in this case, might have been to minimize the extent to which one was being blown further offshore... Thus making the means to effect a self-rescue after conditions moderated sufficiently to clear the props, and motor back into Beaufort or Charleston before the next onset of heavy weather...

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Even when that one component is the mast? Come on, 44, surely having a questionable mast design/construction/rigging is enough to say that the boat is not a good long term short handed cruising boat. Is is for me, anyhow.

And the conjecture that the whole failure was due to some unspecified small, inexpensive component is just that: conjecture. It could also be that the fiber rigging was poorly designed or executed, or that the mast section was too small or that the carbon work was not well done... all of which are unacceptable for the supposed purpose.

Jim

So absolutely every design that has ever had a mast come down must be written off as not suitable for cruising?

How about keel failures? Steering failures? Engine failures? Blocked toilets? Blown lightbulbs?

And, again, we don't even know WHY it happened. But yeah, write off the entire design anyway. In fact write off every Gunboat, right?

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So absolutely every design that has ever had a mast come down must be written off as not suitable for cruising?

No, not every design that has ever had a mast come down, but an un-tried vessel, of great purchase cost, sold as a fast, small crew cruising yacht. Something is wrong somewhere. Do you think that at ~2.5 million, mast failure on a maiden voyage is acceptable?

How about keel failures? Steering failures? Engine failures? Blocked toilets? Blown lightbulbs? unnecessarily vituperative post, IMO.

But I do expect if a keel fell off a mono on its maiden voyage, we would shy away from that make. If the builder is "careless", then he's careless, hence, avoid. Boycotting such a business may seem cruel to you, but voting our dollars is the only way the consumer can let a business know that something is unacceptable.

And, again, we don't even know WHY it happened. But yeah, write off the entire design anyway. In fact write off every Gunboat, right?

No, not necessarily, but if the veil of silence continues, regrettably, then, yes. They need to figure out what went wrong and fix it, demonstrate their accountability, and if GB don't, even though the concept may seem wonderful, the wealthy potential buyers will go elsewhere for their toys.

Ann

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

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

After 30 years of engineering i've yet to see a single panic button ever calm the situation that caused it in the first place.

Does anyone know the history of this feature?

I can envision it passing the verification test (does it work) but I'm struggling to imagine how it would ever pass a verification test(s) (does it work properly).

These types of features are wonderful brochure fillers.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So absolutely every design that has ever had a mast come down must be written off as not suitable for cruising?

How about keel failures? Steering failures? Engine failures? Blocked toilets? Blown lightbulbs?

Well that is what I've learned over the years here on CF. Why should a Gunboat be different and get a free ride?

[smj]

We were just on the Gunboat 55 at the Miami show. When I asked if they had retrieved Rainmaker the silences was deafening, just the sound of nervous feet shuffling. The amazing thing is the Gunboat at the show still had its mast intact, must of been a fluke.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

44. The problem is the manufacturer sold this boat on the basis that it had systems to survive catastrophic storm failure. When you tout systems that then don't work you have a serious problem.

The other issue for me is the total lack of disclosure surrounding this event and the contradictory statements that so far came out at the beginning. You had one on board eyewitness who said the mast came down after a large wave hit the front of the boat. Another said the boat was hit with a 70 knot wind. So what was it, wind or wave? If wind, why didn't there super duper sail system protections work? If a wave then my goodness are you telling me its carbon mast can't survive a big wave? Or since the boat is known to not have the usual front beam cats have was this a contribution to the demasting from a frontal large wave.

Why now this deafening silence? Where are the eyewitness accounts? Could it be that the manufacturer stands to loose all credibility that could sink their business that some compensation dollars in exchange for signing a secrecy agreement has been done with the eyewitnesses. Just thinking since no one is now talking.

And finally what happened to the boats own location systems?

Too many questions that raise serious doubt over this vessel. If I money was no object I wouldn't be in a rush to buy this boat now. And as for those who are saying we should be celebrating a builder who is at the bleeding edge of technology. I understand that the owners of these cats are not buying say an Oracle type racing cat. They are buying what was sold as a seaworthy ocean going fast cat. Not something that is a high performance racer that often looses a mast as it's pushed to its limits. After all these racers usually go out to sea with back up vessels nearby.

This issue is a reputation damage problem for GB. Once trust is lost it's very hard to win back.

The recreational yacht industry seems to promote unproven new technologies as proven solutions. Most boats would be classed as experimental prototypes in other industries.

The true test of whether something should be classified as proven or not depends on it passing a trusted validation test program. That would entail destructively testing one or more vessels under known and replicable test conditions or waiting decades for in service feedback. (modelling and simulation would not be acceptable for a yacht being tested in the appropriate test conditions) That test could occur before the first is sold (like a certification test) or decades after the last one is sold (empirical evidence)

Publishing of the results and independent verification of the tests is demanded in many other sectors. (Auto crash testing is a good example)

Its inappropriate to label GB or its design as anything other than an unproven experimental system.



Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=smj;1747493]We were just on the Gunboat 55 at the Miami show. When I asked if they had retrieved Rainmaker the silences was deafening, just the sound of nervous feet shuffling. The amazing thing is the Gunboat at the show still had its mast intact, must of been a fluke.[

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

...
One reason I might prefer to lay into the wind and seas on the Gunboat, might be to mitigate the potential for water intrusion into the engine compartments... ...
The engine access hatches on the 55 are located just forward of those transom steps... Get a bit of green water flowing over those lids, it could result in a problem... I wouldn't want to put any serious money on those things being absolutely watertight... ;-)




....

I don't see the reason to the hatch not to be watertight. On my boat I have a central hatch, a big one, a bit like the one on the photo on that cat. it is on the cockpit floor behind the wheel, I had waves crashing over the boat for 12 hours or so and no water come inside, no water at all. There is a water tight bulkhead that separates the rudder (and that storage compartment) from the rest of the boat anyway, but I had never had water there.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't see the reason to the hatch not to be watertight. On my boat I have a central hatch, a big one, a bit like the one on the photo on that cat. it is on the cockpit floor behind the wheel, I had waves crashing over the boat for 12 hours or so and no water come inside, no water at all. There is a water tight bulkhead that separates the rudder (and that storage compartment) from the rest of the boat anyway, but I had never had water there.

Water tight bulkheads at the rudder are very good features. Must be a decent boat!

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't see the reason to the hatch not to be watertight. On my boat I have a central hatch, a big one, a bit like the one on the photo on that cat. it is on the cockpit floor behind the wheel, I had waves crashing over the boat for 12 hours or so and no water come inside, no water at all. There is a water tight bulkhead that separates the rudder (and that storage compartment) from the rest of the boat anyway, but I had never had water there.

I agree, there's no compelling "reason" why such hatches cannot be reasonably watertight... I've never seen that hatch on the Gunboat, but in my experience, it's not unheard of for such claims to fail to meet the test in the real world...

No reason why the transom garage door on a $1.5 million former CW Boat of the Year from a top notch Dutch builder should leak, either... But it did, bigtime... And the water migrated forward through an electrical conduit towards the battery compartment, where we were extremely lucky to notice it before it might have caused an 'Issue', to put it mildly...

Likewise, no reason why one of the engine starters on BE GOOD TOO to be shorted out, or that the crew should have to bail out various compartments by hand after their electrical system went down, as well... However, seawater did get in there, somehow...

And so on... .-)

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by beiland

I'm not a real big fan of drogues as they require a bit of steering and speed adjustment along with their use. I've been swamped by a wave over the stern when my speed was not correct for the conditions (actually had to speed up so I would get the wave crest over the stern cockpit).

And remember the surface waters rotate in the opposite directions at the crest verses the trough,...that is one big contributor to our vessel's 'slewing' to the side as we surf down a big wave.

....steering and speed control required.


On one occasion I was down right tired after 2 days of 3-hour helm shifts, and without a chute anchor decided to just ly-ahull for 6-8 hours. I could have well imagined having a chute at that point.
....virtually no tending other than keeping an eye out for chaff

There is a lot of interesting discussion in that subject thread I referenced, so I won't take up any more of the subject here.

Thanks Brian. Very helpful. My cat experience is days on Sydney Harbour on Hobby Cats. I've even taken them out through the heads into the coastal Pacific. I did crazy things at a young age to get my fix of speed. Now all I want is a good solid breeze and enjoy the smooth massage to my soul that the ocean gives. But my days of sailing Hobby Cats sure taught me how to manage those sails. I very much appreciate your experience and that you passed it on.

Regards,
Chaya (GoingWalkabout)

[donradcliffe]

The de-masting is only one issue--the more I see of the GB 55, the more it appears that the emperor has no clothes.

First I see an interior which is open to following seas.

Now I see engine rooms which have their access from outside the boat??

Please, please don't tell me that the only way to get to the engines is to raise some hatches (to the boarding waves) which are just forward of the rear steps. I seem to recall a cat which was abandoned off the east coast of Australia because of this feature--maybe 44cruisingcat has more details. I also remember seeing the Santa Cruz 37 at the boat show and crossing it off my list because of the engine access hatch in the cockpit, and that was a lot more protected.

So how do boats like this get selected for Boat of the Year?? Probably the same way Moody and S&P rated toxic waste as mortgage backed securites--bribery.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

The de-masting is only one issue--the more I see of the GB 55, the more it appears that the emperor has no clothes.

First I see an interior which is open to following seas.

Now I see engine rooms which have their access from outside the boat??

Please, please don't tell me that the only way to get to the engines is to raise some hatches (to the boarding waves) which are just forward of the rear steps. I seem to recall a cat which was abandoned off the east coast of Australia because of this feature--maybe 44cruisingcat has more details. I also remember seeing the Santa Cruz 37 at the boat show and crossing it off my list because of the engine access hatch in the cockpit, and that was a lot more protected.

So how do boats like this get selected for Boat of the Year?? Probably the same way Moody and S&P rated toxic waste as mortgage backed securites--bribery.

Was an early Spirited 380. Sailing Catamaran Kits | Construction Plans | Spirited 380

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...sea-75182.html