GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Delancey]

Regardless of the cause, what a mess?

Makes me shudder to imagine having to manage that situation with large seas and high winds.

Interesting to note the crew was able to "knock the forestay pin out." which suggests it was SS rod? As for the rest, that's a lot of fancy dyneema running and standing rigging to cut away. Where's that damn tomahawk?

How about hydraulics? Now you got hydraulic fluid spraying all over the place. Did a get it correctly that the glass was tempered? Add a million pieces of broken tempered glass to the mix just as a nice little garnish.

Oh yeah!

A excellent choice for a couple to comfortably and safely circumnavigate with the benefits of unprecedented speed and luxury. It's like a new paradigm in cruising!

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

I'm sorry but that's still not correct. Saying that someone failed to do something implies that they tried to do it in the first place. You don't know that they tried, you're assuming they did.

SERIOUSLY ???

But, yeah, perhaps you're right, it really is quite a stretch to assume their intention was to successfully complete a passage from the Gunboat yard in Wanchese to the Eastern Caribbean, in as a safe and expeditious manner as possible... Maybe, instead, they were just going out for a little sail in the North Atlantic in January, with no particular plan or destination in mind, just going wherever the wind blew them, perhaps?

Well, you can believe whatever fantasy it is you might wish to believe, but I'll go with the owner's intentions that he Tweeted on the morning they departed Hatteras Inlet...

https://twitter.com/brianscohen/stat...16269159858176

Originally Posted by tp12

You even call out your assumptions, unbelievable. You really don’t get it do you. You have no idea of their intentions or what routing, stops, what happened in the lead up to the event. All of this is your assumptions, which I’ve already pointed out.

Obviously, you've failed to comprehend that all of those "assumptions" I've cited re their route, are actually those of the Gunboat pro skipper 'soma', as posted over on SA...

But again, you're probably right, it's a real stretch to assume he would have a clue as to what their passage plan would have been, either...

[pbr]

I personally feel all boats should have a sea anchor on board they are better and easier to deploy than ever. I particularly like the Fiorentino. I have been thinking for years about an auto deployment canister for sea anchors that could be built into the forward strut, like a mini nacelle, that could be deployed with the pull of a release lever. I see no reason why it could not be done. Hell they are making planes with deployable parachutes why not boats?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

SERIOUSLY ???

But, yeah, perhaps you're right, it really is quite a stretch to assume their intention was to successfully complete a passage from the Gunboat yard in Wanchese to the Eastern Caribbean, in as a safe and expeditious manner as possible... Maybe, instead, they were just going out for a little sail in the North Atlantic in January, with no particular plan or destination in mind, just going wherever the wind blew them, perhaps?

Yes, SERIOUSLY. The facts aren't known yet you keep insisting that your assumptions are fact. I can't believe you are SERIOUSLY still doing this despite it being pointed out to you. SERIOUSLY!

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Well, you can believe whatever fantasy it is you might wish to believe, but I'll go with the owner's intentions that he Tweeted on the morning they departed Hatteras Inlet...

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

https://twitter.com/brianscohen/stat...16269159858176

You’ll note that I haven’t speculated on what happened. I don’t think there’s enough information yet to clear up some discrepancies. And certainly not enough information to present any assumptions as fact and start bringing manufacturers claims into question….

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Obviously, you've failed to comprehend that all of those "assumptions" I've cited re their route, are actually those of the Gunboat pro skipper 'soma', as posted over on SA...

But again, you're probably right, it's a real stretch to assume he would have a clue as to what their passage plan would have been, either...

I haven’t failed to comprehend anything. You clearly have no idea what is going on here. If anyone has failed to comprehend something it’s you and the difference between a fact and an assumption. Its’ really not hard. The dictionary can help you out…

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by pbr

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

Yes they do spreaderless carbón mast in the past, a big fiasco!! the company who made the mast is out of bussines since long time agoo and the quality of construction just suck!! imposible to trim well or to tune the mast properly, or it lean FWD or you get a nice snake form tightening the uppers,, a really bad idea.....

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

More winking … bloody hell. But you ARE second guessing it by trying to claim that the GB hasn’t lived up to its marketing. You really haven’t thought this through.

JFC, I feel like I'm in a debate with someone from a different planet...

Are you suggesting that on her maiden passage - which came to a sad end 200 miles into a planned 1500 NM run - RAINMAKER actually DID "live up to Gunboat's marketing"?

One of the most notable claims made by Gunboat re the 55, is that is perfectly conceived to be sailed by a couple, without the help of crew:

The GUNBOAT 55 builds upon the sucess of her earlier sisters, and is the ultimate performance cat for those planning to circumnagivate as owner-operators. The series was designed on the principles of simplicity, reliability and ease of access, and is perfect for those who enjoy sailing and exploring without crew.

Never has handling a mega-cat been so easy. Within two steps of the helm are the sail and anchor controls, as well as the nav station. The forward cockpit offers unfettered and unobstructed access for a sailing crew of one.

And yet, in this instance, a crew of 5 - THREE OF THEM PROFESSIONALS, WITH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE SAILING OTHER GUNBOATS - failed to get this "Guided Missile" to their intended destination, and ended their trip with a ride back home in a CG Jayhawk... Again, is that another example of the boat living up to its hype, as a high performance boat perfectly suited to sailing without crew?

Oh, and btw, seems like my totally unfounded "speculation" about the potential liability of having had the owner aboard, may not be that far-fetched, after all...

Posted by Mr. Clean over on SA awhile ago, sounds like he might be putting the finishing touches on his 'report' of the loss of RAINMAKER:

Lessons learned: Don't leave in a winter storm. Don't bring inexperienced owners into potentially awful weather. There may be one or two more...

RAINMAKER DISMASTED OFF HATTERAS IN GALE - Page 6 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums

[44'cruisingcat]

A couple may have been more successful. A bunch of "pro" sailors might be far more inclined to push the boat too hard.


For example - I was talking to a guy who had sailed on one of Shawn Arber's boats an a Brisbane - Gladstone race. He was talking about how they were sailing under full main and spinnaker in 25-30 knot winds, gusting 35 at times.


A cruising couple wouldn't have had a spinnaker up, and most likely no main either.


Not saying it excuses this boat for breaking - that shouldn't have happened. But that maybe with a short handed couple it wouldn't have.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

JFC, I feel like I'm in a debate with someone from a different planet...

Me too … Simple question, do you understand the difference between a fact and an assumption? I mean, really?

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Are you suggesting that on her maiden passage - which came to a sad end 200 miles into a planned 1500 NM run - RAINMAKER actually DID "live up to Gunboat's marketing"?

No. I'm not suggesting anything, that’s you. I don't know the facts and therefore am not in a position to say yes, or no. THE SAME AS YOU! Again, you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. You’re making assumptions, stating them as facts and then dragging manufacturers claims through the mud … But you just won’t let it rest will you…

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

One of the most notable claims made by Gunboat re the 55, is that is perfectly conceived to be sailed by a couple, without the help of crew:

And yet, in this instance, a crew of 5 - THREE OF THEM PROFESSIONALS, WITH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE SAILING OTHER GUNBOATS - failed to get this "Guided Missile" to their intended destination, and ended their trip with a ride back home in a CG Jayhawk... Again, is that another example of the boat living up to its hype, as a high performance boat perfectly suited to sailing without crew?

Oh, and btw, seems like my totally unfounded "speculation" about the potential liability of having had the owner aboard, may not be that far-fetched, after all...

Posted by Mr. Clean over on SA awhile ago, sounds like he might be putting the finishing touches on his 'report' of the loss of RAINMAKER:

So you think that an owner CHOOSING to put a pro crew on his boat means that the boat is unable to be sailed by a couple? What a load of bollocks. The manufacturer doesn’t make the choices for the owner once the boat is sold, right? Surely you can see the difference. You’re drawing a long bow to support your assumptions and my whole point has been – YOU’RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND DON’T KNOW! Why is it so hard for you to see that? Personally, I think it’s because a bit of tall poppy syndrome is going on here.

Again, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT DECISIONS WERE MADE ON THE BOAT AND BY WHOM. By DEFINITION you are making assumptions on whether the boat is able to meet the manufacturers statements. I feel like I’m talking to a 3 year old.

Seriously, give it a rest and come back when you’ve got the facts and then you can go for it! Hell, you may even be right!

[tp12]

Honestly Jon, read what I've ACTUALLY written! Reading comprehension is not your strength it would seem

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

Me too … Simple question, do you understand the difference between a fact and an assumption? I mean, really?

Fine, we shall agree to disagree...

I consider it to be a "fact", that RAINMAKER did not complete her maiden offshore passage...

If you prefer to view that as a mere "assumption", you're certainly free to do so...

However, I will concede it is nothing more than "speculation" on my part, to "assume" that Mr Johnstone would be unlikely to consider the abandonment of Hull #5501 to be a shining example his Boat of the Year "living up to" its billing...

I could be wrong about that, of course... But I think that's a fairly safe assumption...

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Fine, we shall agree to disagree...

I consider it to be a "fact", that RAINMAKER did not complete her maiden offshore passage...

Again, that doesn't PROVE that the manufacturer claims are wrong ... you're still assuming...



There's nothing to agree to disagree about. Fact V Assumption is pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

If you prefer to view that as a mere "assumption", you're certainly free to do so...

However, I will concede it is nothing more than "speculation" on my part, to make the "assumption" that Mr Johnstone would be unlikely to consider the abandonment of Hull #5501 to be a shining example his Boat of the Year "living up to" its billing... I would guess few others would, either...

Finally! That must have hurt. I don't know what your inverted commas are about though. An attempt to save some face, likely.

There's no 'half pregnant' when it comes to fact vs assumption, something I'm not quite sure you get yet ... seeing as you've dodged my question and are throwing inverted commas around.

Regardless, when we find out the facts we'll know either way, won't we

Maybe you'll get your chance to gleefully shred Mr Johnstone's marketing

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

Again, that doesn't PROVE that the manufacturer claims are wrong ... you're still assuming...

Hmmm, what was that you were saying about "reading comprehension", again?

Care to show where I've asserted that "the manufacturer claims are wrong" ? Preferably, by pointing to the actual words I've written?

All I've been arguing since we got into this ridiculous exchange, is that Hull #5501 did indeed fail to "meet the stated claims" made in Gunboat's marketing, in direct response to your own Post #524:

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.

But, hey - if you want to continue to argue in opposition to what I've been saying, that RAINMAKER's short life of Boat Show appearances, FORBES magazine articles and videos, a slew of glossy sailing rag Boat of the Year awards, alone were sufficient to "meet the stated claims" of Gunboat's marketing team prior to being abandoned 36 hours into her first bluewater voyage, well... you're certainly entitled to do so... :-)

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Hmmm, what was that you were saying about "reading comprehension", again?

Care to show where I've asserted that "the manufacturer claims are wrong" ? Preferably, by pointing to the actual words I've written?

All I've been arguing since we got into this ridiculous exchange, is that Hull #5501 did indeed fail to "meet the stated claims" made in Gunboat's marketing, in direct response to your own Post #524:



But, hey - if you want to continue to argue in opposition to what I've been saying, that RAINMAKER's short life of Boat Show appearances, FORBES magazine articles and videos, a slew of glossy sailing rag Boat of the Year awards, alone were sufficient to "meet the stated claims" of Gunboat's marketing team prior to being abandoned 36 hours into her first bluewater voyage, well... you're certainly entitled to do so... :-)

If it doesn't meet manufacturers stated claims, they're wrong. Right? No? Please explain the difference if you think no ... Now you're just being ridiculous because you find it hard to admit you've jumped the gun.

I've never argued the opposite of what you've said - I've argued that you, and I, don't have enough information to make a qualitative assessment on whether the manufacturers claims have been met, or not, or are wrong, or whatever way you want to try and phrase it to weasel out of it. You still don't seem to get that despite me making it very clear in a number of posts So yes, your reading comprehension is sadly lacking.

Quit while you're behind.

[tp12]

Anyway, I'm over this and it's gotten beyond ridiculous. Make whatever assumptions you need to fit your desired outcome. Good luck with it

[Poozer]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

A couple may have been more successful. A bunch of "pro" sailors might be far more inclined to push the boat too hard.


For example - I was talking to a guy who had sailed on one of Shawn Arber's boats an a Brisbane - Gladstone race. He was talking about how they were sailing under full main and spinnaker in 25-30 knot winds, gusting 35 at times.


A cruising couple wouldn't have had a spinnaker up, and most likely no main either.


Not saying it excuses this boat for breaking - that shouldn't have happened. But that maybe with a short handed couple it wouldn't have.

I agree with your thinking here, and for most people buying a cruising catamaran, this logic would apply. It seems though, that Gunboat's impressive marketing has convinced some of their owners (and maybe crew?) that the "ultimate world circumnavigating boat" could handle these conditions with no problem.