GUNBOAT Dismasting

[clockwork orange]

Originally Posted by Polux

Losing the mast was the best that could have happen to them: With a 70 knots wind wall and sails up, if the mast would not have broke they would capsize.

I still don't understand why the Mayday or abandon ship: they cut the mast off, the hull was sound and it seems odd new engines having a problem. Surely they had enough diesel, they were near the coast on a seaworthy boat with a big tankage.

Apparently they got lines caught around both props, don't know if they were running the engines with all that line in the water before getting everything cut away or just bad luck.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Polux

Losing the mast was the best that could have happen to them: With a 70 knots wind wall and sails up, if the mast would not have broke they would capsize.

I still don't understand why the Mayday or abandon ship: they cut the mast off, the hull was sound and it seems odd new engines having a problem. Surely they had enough diesel, they were near the coast on a seaworthy boat with a big tankage.

It was reported by Johnstone that both engines were disabled with lines wrapped around the props...

There have been many hints dropped by some who have apparently spoken with those aboard, to the effect that there was a LOT going on there beyond just a dismasting, implying significant collateral damage... Given the potential violence of losing an 84' stick in such conditions, that wouldn't surprise me at all, and it would seem to be a minor miracle no one aboard was seriously hurt...

One of the things that scares me the most about boats of that size and power, is how heavily dependent they often are on hydraulics... I assume there were hydraulic lines run to the mast, powering something like the boom vang, for instance... When the rig went over the side, such a line would have been broken, and all of a sudden you might have hydraulic fluid under pressure sprayed anywhere. As anyone who's ever had diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid spilled on deck offshore, it can turn any surface into a skating rink, and be a very dangerous and difficult situation to deal with. So, that's just one of the hypothetical situations they might have been dealing with...

I certainly think there can be legitimate and critical questions raised about the passage plan, the suitability of such a vessel for such a passage in winter, and so on - but I think it's a bit unfair to assume their decision to abandon was not justified. At this point, we simply don't know enough about what was really going on aboard RAINMAKER at that time... It's one thing to second-guess their decision to leave when they did, and so on, but another to doubt the legitimacy to bail once they'd lost the rig...

In any event, whether justified or not, the choice to abandon certainly does not surprise me... Not sure it's been confirmed yet, but a review of the owner's sailing resume strongly indicates this trip was likely his FIRST offshore passage, ever. He'd certainly never experienced anything remotely close to those conditions while racing his Swan 40 on and around Long Island Sound, and there's no indication he'd ever done something like the Bermuda Race in the one boat he'd owned prior to RAINMAKER... If there's one thing a venture capitalist worth hundreds of millions probably understands quite well, it's when to cut his losses ;-) Especially with his son aboard, it's not hard to imagine him getting on the satphone, and demanding to be taken off that freakin' thing NOW... Just a hunch, but I'm doubting it was the 28-year-old paid skipper who made the final decision to jump ship...

;-)

Only time will tell, of course, but at this point it seems increasingly likely that RAINMAKER may never be seen again... Over the time since she was left adrift, there have been some pretty horrendous conditions in that part of the North Atlantic, so perhaps their decision to get off when they did was the smart one, in the end...

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Yeah, and if they hadn't flipped they'd have broken up... yada yada yada...

Nope didn't say that at all. Your comments do suggest that you are discounting the capsize potential.

Since you know much more about cats than I do, are you saying they couldn't have capsized if the rig had stayed up in a 70 knot microburst?

Cats are great and do many things better than monos. I get it. But to slough off any suggestion of where cats, especially high performance ones, can get into trouble reeks of hubris. There are many boats, monos and cats, that may have come through this situation unscathed even if overcanvassed through the squall.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[sailorboy1]

How do people really know the wind hit 70 knots?

Sounds to me this was a $2.5M POC. I bet if it had been a production boat no one would blame the wind.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

How do people really know the wind hit 70 knots?

Sounds to me this was a $2.5M POC. I bet if it had been a production boat no one would blame the wind.

The builders did say the boat was unsinkable. I don't think a US lawyer would let such a statement be made. I remember the builders of the Titanic saying the same. And people should realize that unsinkable does mean unassailable. But using terms like unsinkable in the sales material would lead to a false sense of security IMHO.

Given the silence and no official statement from the owner or the builder I am sure there is a lot of "covering up" going on. Big money is at stake if not the survival itself of the boat builder. Personally I think the silence is doing more damage than the event itself. It allows speculation to continue and even a greater dark cloud of doubt is made over the seaworthiness of the boat. Even if it was a structural fault then the builder should go on the offensive and say so and then state the plan for changes along with modifications of already sold boats. Could be though that this is not feasible for the boat builder. The structural modifications that is.

Yes it could have been a rogue wave. Yes it could have been a 70 knot sudden puff of wind. And yes it could have been a rigging failure from a $20.00 part. But it also could have been the design of the boat itself. Until the facts are laid out on the table by both the builder and the owner and confirmed by independent witness accounts of the crew then silence will only lead to everyone thinking the worst and that the builder has something major to hide.

I would love to see the order book for Gun Boats at the Miami show coming up. Perhaps people generally are less skeptical than me but still it is going to be interesting.

[Imprezza72]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The builders did say the boat was unsinkable. I don't think a US lawyer would let such a statement be made. I remember the builders of the Titanic saying the same. And people should realize that unsinkable does mean unassailable. But using terms like unsinkable in the sales material would lead to a false sense of security IMHO.

Given the silence and no official statement from the owner or the builder I am sure there is a lot of "covering up" going on. Big money is at stake if not the survival itself of the boat builder. Personally I think the silence is doing more damage than the event itself. It allows speculation to continue and even a greater dark cloud of doubt is made over the seaworthiness of the boat. Even if it was a structural fault then the builder should go on the offensive and say so and then state the plan for changes along with modifications of already sold boats. Could be though that this is not feasible for the boat builder. The structural modifications that is.

Yes it could have been a rogue wave. Yes it could have been a 70 knot sudden puff of wind. And yes it could have been a rigging failure from a $20.00 part. But it also could have been the design of the boat itself. Until the facts are laid out on the table by both the builder and the owner and confirmed by independent witness accounts of the crew then silence will only lead to everyone thinking the worst and that the builder has something major to hide.

I would love to see the order book for Gun Boats at the Miami show coming up. Perhaps people generally are less skeptical than me but still it is going to be interesting.

I think it would be ill advised for either the owner or builder to speculate as to what exactly happened until the vessel is recovered. Last posted on the builder's FB page was an SAR aircraft being sent out to find Rainmaker and hopefully lead to a recovery.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Imprezza72

I think it would be ill advised for either the owner or builder to speculate as to what exactly happened until the vessel is recovered. Last posted on the builder's FB page was an SAR aircraft being sent out to find Rainmaker and hopefully lead to a recovery.

Hi Imprezza72. Still doesn't stop the owner, crew and passengers from discussing what happened. A couple of early statements and now nada. And I am sure the boat builder has gotten a lot more information direct from these eyewitness sources than what he is disclosing. Information control is often times a two edged sword. On one hand it can give you time to handle responses or even cover up and make up. While on the other hand silence can create suspicion and doubt.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

How do people really know the wind hit 70 knots?

Of course, no one who was not aboard would not "know" that, for certain... But, given the amount of speculation that has swirled around this incident, it is one of the very few details that have actually been 'reported' by someone in a position to know...

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Sounds to me this was a $2.5M POC. I bet if it had been a production boat no one would blame the wind.

Well, had a Hunter (or any other boat, for that matter) lost her rig or rudder in what was undoubtedly some pretty serious conditions off Hatteras in late January, would you be so quick to brand the boat as a Piece of Crap?

;-)

The Gunboat 55 IS a 'production boat', btw... Just a bit more expensive than most... ;-)

Introduced last year, the carbon Gunboat 55 has a unique indoor/outdoor layout. She was proclaimed Cruising World’s Domestic Boat of the Year and Best Multihull Cruiser; Sailing World’s 2015 Best Multihull; and Sail magazine’s 2015 Best Boat overall. Gunboat has more than a dozen 55s on order.

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

GUNBOAT 55....... One Design/World Cruiser!

The GUNBOAT 55 series is going from strength to strength. Eight GUNBOAT 55's are now on order. The GUNBOAT USA yard is a bee-hive of activity. The first three GUNBOAT 55's are now molded and a new GUNBOAT 55 starts every month. The clean, simple, and versatile design is aimed at owner-operators who do not want crew and desire maximum world cruising comfort and performance from an easy to sail and maintain platform. Several owners have one design racing backgrounds and talk has begun of racing the GUNBOAT 55's one design in Caribbean regattas. Contact meg@gunboat.com for the latest on the Gunboat 55 series.

GUNBOAT January 2013 Edition

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Nope didn't say that at all. Your comments do suggest that you are discounting the capsize potential.

Since you know much more about cats than I do, are you saying they couldn't have capsized if the rig had stayed up in a 70 knot microburst?

Cats are great and do many things better than monos. I get it. But to slough off any suggestion of where cats, especially high performance ones, can get into trouble reeks of hubris. There are many boats, monos and cats, that may have come through this situation unscathed even if overcanvassed through the squall.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

With triple reefed main and reduced jib, and running downwind, I really don't think a 70 knot gust would capsize that boat. When you deep reef, the centre of effort gets so low it would take phenomenal force to capsize a boat, especially end over end.

Simple fact is, the rig shouldn't have failed.

I think the earlier poster got it right - that rig didn't have enough stays on it to keep it in column.

[robert sailor]

People and especially sailors being who they are won't believe it when the so called facts come out anyways so the speculation will continue because people love the whole speculation ******** from slipping in hydraulic fluid to the vessel unzipping itself, may this thread continue!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The builders did say the boat was unsinkable. I don't think a US lawyer would let such a statement be made. I remember the builders of the Titanic saying the same. And people should realize that unsinkable does mean unassailable. But using terms like unsinkable in the sales material would lead to a false sense of security IMHO.

Doesn't seem to stop Boston Whaler, along with many others.

[Imprezza72]

I suppose it could be something as simple as the IMOCA 60, Hugo Boss, that recently got dismasted in normal conditions when the furler exploded. Again recovery of the vessel would at least rule things out and hopefully find a clear cause.

[Duct Tape]

You want fast, you have to build light...the lighter you build it, the greater the limitations.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Duct Tape

You want fast, you have to build light...the lighter you build it, the greater the limitations.

absolutely not acceptable for a boat met to be a cruiser and costly more than $2M to play such a card

[2Hulls]

Originally Posted by Duct Tape

You want fast, you have to build light...the lighter you build it, the greater the limitations.

Very poetic coming from a poster named "Duct tape." This made he spit very fine rum all over the screen... Thanks for the laugh!

From sailorboy1:

absolutely not acceptable for a boat met to be a cruiser and costly more than $2M to play such a card

In reality, these boats are not cruisers. I have never seen one in a cruiser anchorage with a smoking grill hanging off the stern, fishing rods in rod holders, and laundry on the lifelines and I've been in a lot of anchorages where real cruisers are getting together for happy hours and pot lucks. I've seen them anchored - or preferably docked - in St. Maarten waiting for the Heineken Regatta and in their home harbors, but never in a remote cruiser's anchorage with actual cruisers aboard having a sundowner. Never. Rather, these are toys for affluent day sailors and wanna be international racers - delivered from location to location by hired crews. This doesn't mean they are not sexy boats worthy of being swooned over. But cruisers? Absolutely not. Please do not insult real cruisers by use of that term...

p.s. - I'm available to be a starting helmsman. Racing resume available upon request.

2 Hulls Dave