GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Palarran]

TP and Jon - Can you take the cat fight somewhere else? It's ridiculous to have us read it. Please.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

We completely agree, just use a different definition for "toy". I mean a toy like a Ferrari is also a toy; something a rich person buys to have some exciting fast fun with

Yes, most have a strange definition what is a toy and what is not. A powerful rewarding cruiser that gives a lot of fun to sail is a toy while an old slow boat (that does the same thing in a boring way) is not a toy.

Well, they are both toys, the first one is just a more fun toy to play with.

What defines a toy is its use. By definition pleasure crafts, cruisers or otherwise are toys.

When a boat is not used professionally to make a living or to contribute to it in an useful way but it is used for fulfilling a personal passion by some non professional activity (sail racing, sail cruising) then we are talking about expensive toys. For the ones that love sailing or cruising sailboats can give lots of pleasure and beside cruisers can be used as a "summer house" (another rich men's toy).

Nothing wrong about having toys, I love them and I love to play. I have a small sports car but if I could I would have a Ferrari too. I have owned other toys, namely fast two wheel machines. I even had raced them...but since I was never a professional they were only more expensive toys to play with.

I love big men's toys

[tp12]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Palarran

TP and Jon - Can you take the cat fight somewhere else? It's ridiculous to have us read it. Please.

...

[Palarran]

Since there hasn't been anything new to discuss in two plus weeks I thought it would be interesting to think about the sailing manouveurs that the "Pro" GB captains use. I read this on SA and just can't believe it.


From poster Soma:
If used often the Upside Up system is great. Unless you're a singlehanded racer, though, it's probably decorative. In normal sailing mode you're WAY far away from hull flying. If you decide to get sporty and bone everything on, then sure, put someone on the winch. We'd go months without sailing in that mode though. It's totally impractical to have someone on the winch 24/7. My boat, yeah, we could flip on a sleepy day. But a GB, you go to the edge infrequently and you know long before you get to it.

Interestingly, you may not want an automatic sheet dump. We got caught with full main and solent in the high 50's tws. We had been close reaching in 15-20 in the night and had seen some squalls to 25 or so. We saw a nondescript squall approaching but took no special precautions. Generally you soak it off til it's over. The wind climbed from 20 to 30 to 40 in about 15 secs. I jumped up from the settee and took over the helm and drive down to about 179 twa. Crew asked if they should ease but I told them not to. At that point having the main in was the only thing that saved us. We furled jib and after that we smoked the main halyard as I rounded up. I'm not smart enough to do the math but I think 55 true is plenty to flip with full main and jib in "sailing" trim.

My experience with upside up doesn't impress me.

I just can't understand how a catamaran captain would be close reaching with full sail, have a squall approach with the wind increasing to 40 knots in seconds, then decide to turn downwind through the power band to DDW in order to roll in the jib. Then, in order to deal with the main they dump the main halyard at the same time as steering back through the power band. Would any of you do this same thing? I'd think the logical action would be to head closer to the wind, roll in the jib, and reef the main. But I'm not a GB Pro.

[Polux]

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.

One of the glass panels broke, exposing the boat to incoming water and it did not seem to me that the boat could have been made water tight from the interior. I looked for interior hatches ans I found none (but I can be wrong).

Regarding the mast hall spars makes masts with different specifications. The ones that choose the mast and the specifications were the boat designer and eventually Gunboat shipyard. The rigging of the mast has not to do with all spars but with the ones that designed the rigging on Gunboat shipyard. It could have been made in association with hall spars or independently.

I agree with this, except the conclusion:

"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."

Yes, it can be a mast manufacture problem or defect even if I find it unlikely, given the vast experience of Hall Spars but I find much more probable a flaw in design and that can have nothing to do with Hall Spars but with the way the mast was rigged and the extensive use of textile stays. That probably has nothing to do with hall spars.

[Polux]

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.

I agree with you on that.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by pbr

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.

It seems to me that a rig like that is more dificult to tune and more prone to fail if not correctly tuned. I can see the marginal speed advantages of a cleaner rig but in what regards cruising reliability should be the main drive on design.

[transmitterdan]

Palarran,

I agree the tactic to head down wind seems crazy. I'm not a cat sailor but that would seem to put the boat in a place with few options. I'm actually surprised the main came down. If the main gets pressed from aft sometime it won't. I agree it makes way more sense to ease the sheets while turning up to the wind. Get the headsail rolled up, reef the main and see what's what.

For those thinking the pro crew was over pressing RM it didn't get them many miles per day.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Poozer

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.

I am still puzzled with that average 6K speed. If they got a top professional skipper and top pro sailors (that as was said like to push the boat) how to explain that low average speed?

[smj]

Originally Posted by Polux

One of the glass panels broke, exposing the boat to incoming water and it did not seem to me that the boat could have been made water tight from the interior. I looked for interior hatches ans I found none (but I can be wrong).

Regarding the mast hall spars makes masts with different specifications. The ones that choose the mast and the specifications were the boat designer and eventually Gunboat shipyard. The rigging of the mast has not to do with all spars but with the ones that designed the rigging on Gunboat shipyard. It could have been made in association with hall spars or independently.

I agree with this, except the conclusion:

"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."

Yes, it can be a mast manufacture problem or defect even if I find it unlikely, given the vast experience of Hall Spars but I find much more probable a flaw in design and that can have nothing to do with Hall Spars but with the way the mast was rigged and the extensive use of textile stays. That probably has nothing to do with hall spars.

The Gunboat 55 has sliding hatches to close the hulls of from the bridge deck, they looked pretty water tight to me. I'm sure she was designed as an open bridge deck concept. Seems to me that any large volume of water that made its way into the bridge deck area would shed out the sterns at a rapid rate.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tp12

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.

LOL! Gotta admit, I suppose you're got me there... If there is any real difference, it's a pretty 'subtle' one, for sure... ;-)

Originally Posted by tp12

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.

Again, we'll agree to disagree... Certainly, this single incident, and the little we know about it at this point, offers no 'proof' of anything. However, I would suggest that the abandonment of Hull #5501 200 miles into her first bluewater passage does represent a "fact" quite at odds with the builder's marketing hype, and casts some serious doubt that these "Guided Missiles" represent the "perfect" choice for bluewater sailing by amateur "owner-operators" who wish to sail without crew...

And with that, I'll gladly quit, wherever I am... And, my apologies to Palarran and anyone else for having to endure this nonsense...

:-)

[Jon Eisberg]

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.

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.

That's always possible, I suppose...

However, in this particular instance, I doubt RAINMAKER would have been in more capable hands being sailed by an owner who only took up sailing fairly late in his life, has owned only one boat far less powerful and demanding than a Gunboat previously, and who was making his first open ocean passage on the first multihull he's ever owned...

:-)

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems to me that a rig like that is more dificult to tune and more prone to fail if not correctly tuned. I can see the marginal speed advantages of a cleaner rig but in what regards cruising reliability should be the main drive on design.

A large number of catamaran designs are with single spreader diamond rigs held up only by a forestay and two shrouds. They are dead-simple to tune - just set the prebend with the diamonds, set the mast rake and center with the stay/shrouds, and tension. Go for a sail and reset tension so that the leeward shroud is not flopping around on a beat in decent wind.

Mark

[Jon Eisberg]

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.

When I saw RAINMAKER in Newport and Annapolis, I wish I'd had a closer look at that whole "longeron" arrangement. I must confess, I'm having a bit of difficulty following what that's all about in the technical discussions about it over on SA...

However, it seems apparent that in the event of a dismasting, the fact that it's no longer supported by the rig could present a serious liability when motoring into any significant seas... So, even if RAINMAKER's props had not been fouled, it seems likely that she still might not have been able to effect a self rescue, by attempting to motor back into Beaufort Inlet against any significant wind and sea...

One of the more interesting tidbits dropped by Mr Johnstone, is that the boat did have the use of her engines after the rig was jettisoned, and lines were wrapped around the props AFTER the rig was "cleared away"...

Oooops...

First thing that occurred to me when I read that one, I was reminded of Bill Belichik 'throwing Tom Brady under the bus' during his first "Deflategate" press conference...

:-)

[Dave852]

Originally Posted by Palarran

Since there hasn't been anything new to discuss in two plus weeks I thought it would be interesting to think about the sailing manouveurs that the "Pro" GB captains use. I read this on SA and just can't believe it.


From poster Soma:
If used often the Upside Up system is great. Unless you're a singlehanded racer, though, it's probably decorative. In normal sailing mode you're WAY far away from hull flying. If you decide to get sporty and bone everything on, then sure, put someone on the winch. We'd go months without sailing in that mode though. It's totally impractical to have someone on the winch 24/7. My boat, yeah, we could flip on a sleepy day. But a GB, you go to the edge infrequently and you know long before you get to it.

Interestingly, you may not want an automatic sheet dump. We got caught with full main and solent in the high 50's tws. We had been close reaching in 15-20 in the night and had seen some squalls to 25 or so. We saw a nondescript squall approaching but took no special precautions. Generally you soak it off til it's over. The wind climbed from 20 to 30 to 40 in about 15 secs. I jumped up from the settee and took over the helm and drive down to about 179 twa. Crew asked if they should ease but I told them not to. At that point having the main in was the only thing that saved us. We furled jib and after that we smoked the main halyard as I rounded up. I'm not smart enough to do the math but I think 55 true is plenty to flip with full main and jib in "sailing" trim.

My experience with upside up doesn't impress me.

I just can't understand how a catamaran captain would be close reaching with full sail, have a squall approach with the wind increasing to 40 knots in seconds, then decide to turn downwind through the power band to DDW in order to roll in the jib. Then, in order to deal with the main they dump the main halyard at the same time as steering back through the power band. Would any of you do this same thing? I'd think the logical action would be to head closer to the wind, roll in the jib, and reef the main. But I'm not a GB Pro.

I would do the same thing, that's what you do on a cat when caught in a situation with to much sail up. You never round up in a cat, just increases your speed and therefore the apparent wind speed. A cat turning up is powering up. When you turn downwind the apparent wind decreases and by keeping the main sheeted in he was in fact further de-powering it as the wind came around behind him. So to summarize he did not turn downwind to furl the jib, he did it to de-power the boat. Sadly when the story of the Atlantic 57 was recounted they were rounding up and blowing sheets prior to the capsize. This is a monohull tactic which is all to often carried over to multihulls, I believe due to the fact that the majority of sailors learned how to sail on a mono. Just replying to a specific comment, sorry to interrupt the thread as I definitely have nothing to say about the Gunboat loss.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum