GUNBOAT Dismasting

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Aren't a few Catana models rigged this way?

Sent from my SM-T210R using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

They may be, but if so I haven't seen them. The Catana's I've seen had lower shrouds AND jumper struts, IIRC.

[pbr]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

They may be, but if so I haven't seen them. The Catana's I've seen had lower shrouds AND jumper struts, IIRC.

Catana actually offered spreaderless carbon rotating wing masts in the past, don't know if they still do.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I read the report on the Lagoon that was abandoned. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. How refreshing to have a frank disclosure by its owner/captain. It was a 3 year old craft that had been around the world. It took omen water with water up to the floor boards. The source of the leak was not known and the decision was made to abandon the boat.

Mr Garner and crew were only 16 Nautical Miles from the mainland at 2am when the hull began to fill with water after being battered by 35-knot westerly winds and 3m seas.
“We were in the last leg of our journey,’’ Mr Garner said.
“The water was coming over the floorboards. We did our checks, but couldn’t detect where the leak was coming from.

The big difference here it wasn't a maiden blue water voyage. They admitted it was taking on water. This was no secret. It serves as an instruction to regularly check your vessels belly including through holes. I would also say having a number of well located sensors to detect water in the hulls as well as a good pump system.

If the GB took on water and this was admitted early on then no one would be saying what they are saying now. Yes questions would be still asked about its design but that is expected when you have a boat with a radically new design. The Lagoon incident you brought up is so very different to the GB saga.

It's already been proven it wasn't Rainmaker's maiden voyage either. But TBH I don't see the relevance. In fact I'd suggest more is likely to go wrong in a maiden voyage than later. A big cruising boat is a complicated thing. It's quite possible, even with the most diligent intentions, mistakes can be overlooked.

And you don't know the Rainmaker was taking on water. You don't know where the Lagoon was taking it on from. The one that was nearly abandoned near Bundaberg, (they decided not to abandon when they lost their dinghy while trying to launch it - they were to be airlifted from the dinghy.) ended up next to us in the marina - it had been opening up at the hull/deck join.

[pbr]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

To be honest, I think the rig design is worth questioning. I've never seen any other modern cat with a rig like that. There are no lower shrouds or jumper struts. Basically nothing (except the stiffness of the mast section) to prevent the mast from being bent forward in the middle.

And DDW with triple reefed main in strong winds would see a considerable load doing exactly that.

Actually a rig like that needs to be set up with pre-bend with the diamond tension and swept spreader to stabilize it, like a bow lets say. The problem would be if this failed or was not adequate and the mast inverted the other way aft then it would fail. Seriously doubt it failed in the forward direction.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by pbr

Catana actually offered spreaderless carbon rotating wing masts in the past, don't know if they still do.

Fair enough, as I said, I haven't seen one. Although now I think of it, I have seen a completely unstayed carbon mast.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It's already been proven it wasn't Rainmaker's maiden voyage either. But TBH I don't see the relevance. In fact I'd suggest more is likely to go wrong in a maiden voyage than later. A big cruising boat is a complicated thing. It's quite possible, even with the most diligent intentions, mistakes can be overlooked.

And you don't know the Rainmaker was taking on water. You don't know where the Lagoon was taking it on from. The one that was nearly abandoned near Bundaberg, (they decided not to abandon when they lost their dinghy while trying to launch it - they were to be airlifted from the dinghy.) ended up next to us in the marina - it had been opening up at the hull/deck join.

Thanks. I'm sure these guys looking back were happy they didn't give their vessel to Neptune. Wondering were they able to fix it? How old was it? Had it been battered in a recent storm? I can learn, in fact we all can learn so much from other peoples accidents so that we hopefully we can take measures so as not to experience first hand the same. Isn't that really at the heart of all the interest in the GB accident. Don't tell us snippets as this gives the appearance of something to hide.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Thanks. I'm sure these guys looking back were happy they didn't give their vessel to Neptune. Wondering were they able to fix it? How old was it? Had it been battered in a recent storm? I can learn, in fact we all can learn so much from other peoples accidents so that we hopefully we can take measures so as not to experience first hand the same. Isn't that really at the heart of all the interest in the GB accident. Don't tell us snippets as this gives the appearance of something to hide.

Do you find the insurance company/lawyer explanation unreasonable?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by pbr

The sea anchor is much more versatile than a drogue and much easier to retrieve. You can't stop the boat with a drogue and effect repairs or an injured person, the drogue could very likely send you the wrong direction and much further out of your way. If it were a choice between sea anchor or drogue it would be sea anchor every time.

Conditions where a drogue would be deployed are typically beyond the usefulness of a sea anchor. A drogue is considered an extreme storm management tool. Issues like effecting repairs or going the wrong way and retrieval are not on the radar. Basic survival of the boat and seamen are at stake.

In survival conditions the shock loads put the rode at risk. There have been a number of accounts where the rode has quickly chaffed through or parts due to shock loading. The chute can pull out of the wave face. Finally, the sea anchor puts the rudder at risk.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Thanks. I'm sure these guys looking back were happy they didn't give their vessel to Neptune. Wondering were they able to fix it? How old was it? Had it been battered in a recent storm? I can learn, in fact we all can learn so much from other peoples accidents so that we hopefully we can take measures so as not to experience first hand the same. Isn't that really at the heart of all the interest in the GB accident. Don't tell us snippets as this gives the appearance of something to hide.

The boat was to be fixed by the insurers. Don't know the exact age, not very old. It was a series which have a stainless rubbing strip up the sides. The hull/deck join is under this.


They had rough, but not extreme weather, about 35 knots SE from aft of the beam. The join opened up in the weather hull aft of the chainplate. It was taking more water than the pumps could handle. To make matter worse they were nearing breaksea light, and going to have to turn SW to head to Bundaberg, which would have put them more beam on.


When the attempt to abandon failed, they decided to run to Lady Musgrave island, which protected the damaged port hull. They waited out the weather in the lee of the island.


As for the Rainmaker "incident." Isn't it possible the builder has told us all he knows? I mean he wasn't there, the boat hasn't been salvaged, all he has is the accounts from the crew.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by tp12

Do you find the insurance company/lawyer explanation unreasonable?

No I don't. However a disclosure in the public interest if not the interest of the business trumps whatever lawyer has to say. I do realize and sympathies if his insurance policy has a no freedom of speech clause but the boat builder has already opened his mouth. He also has said he is happy to give full disclosure of the accident to bona fide buyers. One CF member has said on here that he was given such a talking with at the Miami show. This leaves me to believe that his insurance company has not silenced him but maybe his PR firm and or lawyers. I can see them collectively thinking as part of damage control one on one private information presentations would be easier to control than opening up the facts to the world of other boat builders and seasoned sailors.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

The boat was to be fixed by the insurers. Don't know the exact age, not very old. It was a series which have a stainless rubbing strip up the sides. The hull/deck join is under this.


They had rough, but not extreme weather, about 35 knots SE from aft of the beam. The join opened up in the weather hull aft of the chainplate. It was taking more water than the pumps could handle. To make matter worse they were nearing breaksea light, and going to have to turn SW to head to Bundaberg, which would have put them more beam on.


When the attempt to abandon failed, they decided to run to Lady Musgrave island, which protected the damaged port hull. They waited out the weather in the lee of the island.


As for the Rainmaker "incident." Isn't it possible the builder has told us all he knows? I mean he wasn't there, the boat hasn't been salvaged, all he has is the accounts from the crew.

Thanks. I wouldn't be buying a boat with this kind of join myself. As far as the boat builder goes he was giving private explanations to bona fide selected boat buyers at the Miami boat show. So he does have something to say. Just saying.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Delancey

I'm quoting myself quoting SA quoting Peter Johnstone because maybe a couple salient points in what he said have been missed, or maybe I'm not hearing what he is saying correctly. Tell me if I am wrong-

The boat protected the crew during a disastrous dismasting. An event which can in-and-of-itself be potentially fatal to both the crew and the vessel.

If the rigging and attachment points were all intact after the incident as stated, it can be presumed the the failure occurred within manufacture of the carbon spars themselves or as a result of flaw in the design. This is a Hall Spars problem and not GB problem.

Scuppers drain on the low side.

From that account the vessel did OK.
Until we hear more from the builder/crew all is speculation.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by pbr

Catana actually offered spreaderless carbon rotating wing masts in the past, don't know if they still do.

A spreaderless mast puts all loads as bending loads in the mast.

Trees are loaded like this but they use mass and an evolving structure to survive. Many don't.

Spreaders allow tension members (the rigging) to convert bending loads to compression loads in the mast. The tension stays can be thin and the mast is supported against buckling failure allowing it to be relatively thin. An age old and elegant solution.

With many stays redundancy is inbuilt. Also dynamic loads are constrained within material fatigue limits.

A spreaderless and stayless mast sounds like the ultimate goal. Unfortunately the quality of the carbon masts I've seen is poor. I suspect some focus on very high quality filament wound masts may yield more reliabilitity.

I suspect (haven't done any tests or calcs) bending loads span a range that is too wide for the current mast quality to survive. I used to build bows and have a motorsport background so I understand composite failure modes well. Bending loads on highly stressed members are intolerant of build quality issues.

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

[tp12]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

No I don't. However a disclosure in the public interest if not the interest of the business trumps whatever lawyer has to say.

Maybe, that would be at the business owner's discretion and only if he's not bound by his insurance contract. He posted up pretty quickly after it all happened and it's likely that his insurance company/lawyers got involved after that.

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I do realize and sympathies if his insurance policy has a no freedom of speech clause but the boat builder has already opened his mouth. He also has said he is happy to give full disclosure of the accident to bona fide buyers. One CF member has said on here that he was given such a talking with at the Miami show. This leaves me to believe that his insurance company has not silenced him but maybe his PR firm and or lawyers. I can see them collectively thinking as part of damage control one on one private information presentations would be easier to control than opening up the facts to the world of other boat builders and seasoned sailors.

Talking to potential customers is a long way different from posting information on the internet. None of us are entitled to anything here. Also, it's very unlikely that a potential customer is going to join a legal argument but a forum can easily be used as such so the advice could reasonably be different.

I understand your points though and would agree that more information would be great.

I'm hoping Clean publishes his interview with the skipper soon.

[pbr]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Fair enough, as I said, I haven't seen one. Although now I think of it, I have seen a completely unstayed carbon mast.

I have built a catamaran with one of those too, and believe it to be a viable design for a cruising cat, not so much for high performance cat