GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

It's not evasion of obfuscation to point out that the facts aren't known yet and that everyone here speculating are doing just that, speculating. Some with much glee and hope that the marketing is wrong - why is that?


So, at this stage only maybe ten people from lawyers, insurance companies, skippers and crew actually know what happened. Until they provide more details you're only speculating that the Gunboat can't meet it's stated claims. But that doesn't seem to stop you, and others, from getting stuck into them. With relish.

Uhhh, some are "hoping" the marketing is wrong, or "speculating" this boat didn't meet the stated claims???

Perhaps I'm misinformed, but RAINMAKER actually WAS abandoned off Hatteras a few weeks ago, no? After failing to "sail around a storm", and despite being "the safest platform for surviving the worst weather", and being "unsinkable", even in the event "the unthinkable" should occur?

SAFETY

Speed = Storm Avoidance

The ultimate safety feature is pure speed. Sail around storms. If a storm is unavoidable, safety is derived from the ability to surf sideways. With daggerboards up, the round bottom hulls will skate sideways along waves, and the long high bows offer tremendous reserve buoyancy. We believe mega catamarans are the safest platform for surviving the worst weather.


Unsinkable

Six water-tight bulkheads, and a carbon reinforced underbody make flooding very unlikely. The composite laminate’s foam core acts as the ultimate reserve buoyancy. Even with the unthinkable, it remains unsinkable.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Uhhh, some are "hoping" the marketing is wrong, or "speculating" this boat didn't meet the stated claims???

Perhaps I'm misinformed, but RAINMAKER actually WAS abandoned off Hatteras a few weeks ago, no? After failing to "sail around a storm", and despite being "the safest platform for surviving the worst weather", and being "unsinkable", even in the event "the unthinkable" should occur?

Yes, you are hoping and you are speculating. How do you know they tried to sail around it; aren't you making an assumption about their intentions? Yes, you are. Just because a boat is capable of something doesn't mean that the person behind the wheel is making that decision. Or because your decision would be different. We all have different risk profiles, experience and perspective.

And again, you don't know what happened so you don't know whether they would have survived on board if they stayed or not. Or who made the decision or why the decision was made to abandon the boat. Further, you don't know whether the boat sank or not.

All my points stand and I'd urge you to take a step back and have a think. What is assumption, what is fact, and why are you so quick to jump to these conclusions? Do you know what confirmation bias is?

Honestly, I'd expect all this stuff over on sailing anarchy but not here.


One last point - if these aren't assumptions that you've made, please post your facts.

[SailingMum]

but we do know they went slow, then abandoned.

i'll repeat a question: do you think the layout and superstructure looked safe to be swept by breaking waves? does anybody? if so, explain.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by SailingMum

but we do know they went slow, then abandoned.

i'll repeat a question: do you think the layout and superstructure looked safe to be swept by breaking waves? does anybody? if so, explain.

No, you don't know that. You assume that because their time looks slow they went slow - how do you know they didn't stop for any reason? Or take an indirect route?

The design looks susceptible to being pooped to me but I would make the point that I don't know that the designer hasn't accounted for this in some way. As I understand it, Irens knows his onions so it would most definitely not be my first assumption to think that he's dropped a bollock on this one. I'd probably ask Peter from GB what the plan was for that scenario and hear him out.

[tp12]

But hey, I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good old group think led, assumption based, pitch fork waving internetz lynching!

YEEHAW!

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by SailingMum

i'll repeat a question: do you think the layout and superstructure looked safe to be swept by breaking waves? .

Do they carry "storm boards/ shutters" for all that glass?

[tp12]

I've always liked this quote:

[SailingMum]

Originally Posted by tp12

No, you don't know that. You assume that because their time looks slow they went slow - how do you know they didn't stop for any reason? Or take an indirect route?

The design looks susceptible to being pooped to me but I would make the point that I don't know that the designer hasn't accounted for this in some way. As I understand it, Irens knows his onions so it would most definitely not be my first assumption to think that he's dropped a bollock on this one. I'd probably ask Peter from GB what the plan was for that scenario and hear him out.

Do a search - he's been asked. The speed thing has been asked too. The problem is the people who know refuse to answer. I guess they're holding back because the answer makes them look too good.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by SailingMum

Do a search - he's been asked. The speed thing has been asked too. The problem is the people who know refuse to answer. I guess they're holding back because the answer makes them look too good.

I've read the thread on here and on SA, I don't need to go searching for anything thanks.

There was a very well thought out post in this thread earlier which very reasonably explains the process they are likely going through with insurers and lawyers. Yet people keep posting as if they're entitled to an explanation when, quite frankly, they're not. These things take time to process and the public at large posting wild assumptions are not really a consideration. It's very unlikely to damage his real, narrow market.

I think that any real, potential GB customer, who had concerns about the design would either be posing those concerns to Peter on the phone, or in person. Not looking to cruisersforum for the answers. Peter has stated on SA that he's willing to talk to anyone with those concerns. If you're a legitimate potential customer you should pick up the phone and ring the guy.

[SailingMum]

you're right that there's no enitlement to an answer.

but there's no principle of insurance or law that says it's unsafe to respond here but safe to respond to potential purchasers directly. that distinction is one driven by PR not by law.

and i guess maybe you're right about the true purchasers: they're the cream of the crop intellectually. when they want advice on product quality, they'll take it only from the salesman and ignore the rest. google is for the guys who build plywood boats.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by SailingMum

you're right that there's no enitlement to an answer.

but there's no principle of insurance or law that says it's unsafe to respond here but safe to respond to potential purchasers directly. that distinction is one driven by PR not by law.

and i guess maybe you're right about the true purchasers: they're the cream of the crop intellectually. when they want advice on product quality, they'll take it only from the salesman and ignore the rest. google is for the guys who build plywood boats.

I think you may be ignoring what is in the insurance contracts. I think it very likely that there are clauses limiting or preventing the public disclosure of facts until a claim is resolved and if I was dealing with a $2.5m claim and a lawyer told me to lay off the keyboard, I'd be laying off the keyboard.

I know my car insurance prevents me from admitting liability at the side of the road. I could be blatantly in the wrong but I'm still bound by contract law to not say so.

[tp12]

Anyway, thanks for being reasonable

[Duct Tape]

An interesting question that arises from all this that of the professional dynamics between skipper and owner. Ultimately, only the skipper can make the decision to put to sea. I wonder if any pressure was put on him to go due to time constraints...imo any pro would have been reluctant to depart and would have voiced those concerns...

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Duct Tape

An interesting question that arises from all this that of the professional dynamics between skipper and owner. Ultimately, only the skipper can make the decision to put to sea. I wonder if any pressure was put on him to go due to time constraints...imo any pro would have been reluctant to depart and would have voiced those concerns...

There's a lot at play in a dynamic like that, many shades of grey, and very difficult for us to know. A lot of very individual character traits come into play.

You may be right and I hope we get to understand more what actually happened in the near future. I'm dying to know what really happened

[smj]

[QUOTE=SailingMum;1751095]but we do know they went slow, then abandoned.



i'll repeat a question: do you think the layout and superstructure looked safe to be swept by breaking waves? does anybody? if so, explain.[/

What would happen if the superstructure was ripped of the boat? My guess is the boat was designed as an open bridge deck and any water that made its way into the bridge deck area would quickly exit by the way of the stern. I would worry about the electronics as it seems this is what controls the boat.