GUNBOAT Dismasting

[pbr]

Originally Posted by clockwork orange

Wow, that stern on view is most unimpressive, the steps are deeply awash and very low bridgedeck clearance, where did you get the 30" figure from?

From the specs on the website

[pbr]

The cockpit has large areas of exposed glass, curious if those were laminated and tempered, and what thickness. They are large flat panels and would need to be quite strong to sand up to large waves. Also I never saw any provision for windshield wipers/washers, again with blowing rain and salt spray visibility would be very poor without them.

[clockwork orange]

Originally Posted by pbr

The cockpit has large areas of exposed glass, curious if those were laminated and tempered, and what thickness. They are large flat panels and would need to be quite strong to sand up to large waves. Also I never saw any provision for windshield wipers/washers, again with blowing rain and salt spray visibility would be very poor without them.

Good point about wipers, I have an old Gemini and you are looking through the windshield and in driving rain or even spray you cant see a damn thing.

[Sand crab]

FWIW the bridgedeck clearance is listed as .855 meters or 33.66 inches.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by smj

When you say "she" are you referring to the entire boat? Seems as if the mast fell down, does that even make the mast at fault? Amazing how people can take the failing of what could be one small part and proclaim the entire boat to be at fault.

IMO, one of the essential attributes of a cruising boat is that she takes care of the crew... ie, gets them where they want to go in good order. The crew has the responsibility of not asking her to do what she ain't meant to do.

In this case, we had a crew of five, three of which were professional sailors. They chose to go to sea in dubious conditions/seasons, and must shoulder some of the blame. But one of the common experiences of long distance cruising is finding oneself in worse conditions than expected or desired, and again IMO a good boat takes care of the crew and herself. It is true that the failure may have been in some small and inexpensive part of the boat, but fail it did, and as a result the boat has been abandoned and apparently lost.

To me, the apparent requirement in this boat and other very high performance multihulls of having someone with their hand on the mainsheet 24/7 (or some other means of rapidly depowering the boat) keeps them from being a true cruiser. Your definition may be different...

Jim

[smj]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

IMO, one of the essential attributes of a cruising boat is that she takes care of the crew... ie, gets them where they want to go in good order. The crew has the responsibility of not asking her to do what she ain't meant to do.



In this case, we had a crew of five, three of which were professional sailors. They chose to go to sea in dubious conditions/seasons, and must shoulder some of the blame. But one of the common experiences of long distance cruising is finding oneself in worse conditions than expected or desired, and again IMO a good boat takes care of the crew and herself. It is true that the failure may have been in some small and inexpensive part of the boat, but fail it did, and as a result the boat has been abandoned and apparently lost.



To me, the apparent requirement in this boat and other very high performance multihulls of having someone with their hand on the mainsheet 24/7 (or some other means of rapidly depowering the boat) keeps them from being a true cruiser. Your definition may be different...



Jim

I truly understand what you're saying but to be honest the crew never gave the boat the chance to prove itself as a "true cruiser". I'm guessing if the crew had stuck with the boat, they would probably have survived. I'm also guessing if the mast hadn't failed for whatever reason they would probably be in the islands now, no story to be told. I would also think there have been many "true cruisers" that have been abandoned for similar reasons. So my point is, maybe the Gunboat Rainmaker was a "true cruiser", but the crew sure as hell weren't.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

To me, the apparent requirement in this boat and other very high performance multihulls of having someone with their hand on the mainsheet 24/7 (or some other means of rapidly depowering the boat) keeps them from being a true cruiser. Your definition may be different...

Jim

What, you mean to say you wouldn't trust Gunboat's "Auto Dump" feature?

;-)

It has a true distributed-power system, with full-on digital switching, and load-sensors on all the rigging, so that all working loads can be monitored in real time when sailing. To keep the boat from capsizing, or even from flying a hull (a distinct possibility), you can set all the sheets to release automatically when rig loads hit a pre-set limit.

GUNBOAT 60: The Future Is Now

Hell, I'll bet on the 55, you can dump the main while lying in a berth below, using an iPhone...

;-)

Too bad the pinger isn't working, sounds like they haven't a clue as to its whereabouts, now...

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

IMO, one of the essential attributes of a cruising boat is that she takes care of the crew... ie, gets them where they want to go in good order. The crew has the responsibility of not asking her to do what she ain't meant to do.

In this case, we had a crew of five, three of which were professional sailors. They chose to go to sea in dubious conditions/seasons, and must shoulder some of the blame. But one of the common experiences of long distance cruising is finding oneself in worse conditions than expected or desired, and again IMO a good boat takes care of the crew and herself. It is true that the failure may have been in some small and inexpensive part of the boat, but fail it did, and as a result the boat has been abandoned and apparently lost.

To me, the apparent requirement in this boat and other very high performance multihulls of having someone with their hand on the mainsheet 24/7 (or some other means of rapidly depowering the boat) keeps them from being a true cruiser. Your definition may be different...

Jim

This is a very good post Jim. In some of the recent discussion there is a debate about a "Cruising" boat. Cruising capable and blue water designed are IMO completely different. Palarran is a cruiser, but not IMO totally Blue
Water, even though she has crossed the Atlantic twice. Rainmaker is a cruiser and a racer, but not really a blue water boat, which is where the crew made the mistake. Could Rainmaker, like Palarran, cross oceans? Of course. But not when driven like a racer into a gale.

In regards to the safety feature of a sheet that automatically eases when overloaded, this really wouldn't work when broad reaching. The only way to have unloaded the sail would have been to sheet in, not out, and head more ddw.

[CarlF]

Wow. I had also missed no windshield wipers. And deeply tinted glass. With the boat buttoned up to keep the water out, they would have had no way to see the wave sequence. They may have buried the bow into the back of a wave at the moment the gust tried to accelerate the boat. That would have put any mast at risk.

Even hull #3 that's at the Miami Boat Show has no wipers. I assume they'll clean the salt off the lower left of the windshield before the show.

[smj]

So now I'm confused. If a Gunboat 55 gets caught in 70 knot winds and loses its mast, then the crew gets airlifted it's not a blue water boat. But if a Westsail 32 gets caught in 70 knot winds, does a 360 and comes up without its mast then the crew gets airlifted it's still a blue water boat. I would guess the Gunboat 55 would be a hell of a lot more comfortable after the loss of the mast as everything would still be pretty much in place, where the Westsail would have all its contents, including battery acid floating around above the floorboards. Now which boat took care of its crew? What truly makes a blue water boat? All that said, even if I could afford one I wouldn't buy a Gunboat 55. I can definitely afford a Westsail 32 but I'd be damned if I'd own one of those either.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

So now I'm confused. If a Gunboat 55 gets caught in 70 knot winds and loses its mast, then the crew gets airlifted it's not a blue water boat. But if a Westsail 32 gets caught in 70 knot winds, does a 360 and comes up without its mast then the crew gets airlifted it's still a blue water boat. I would guess the Gunboat 55 would be a hell of a lot more comfortable after the loss of the mast as everything would still be pretty much in place, where the Westsail would have all its contents, including battery acid floating around above the floorboards. Now which boat took care of its crew? What truly makes a blue water boat? All that said, even if I could afford one I wouldn't buy a Gunboat 55. I can definitely afford a Westsail 32 but I'd be damned if I'd own one of those either.

Time to take your Meds your getting cranky!

[smj]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Time to take your Meds your getting cranky!

Not cranky just confused. I would really like to know ones definition of a blue water cruiser. Seems to be a very subjective subject!

[Palarran]

Are you really confused? Your comparison is so far off base it's crazy. To be more accurate either the cat has to be upside down or the Westsail has to have lost it's rig without rolling. And, it wasn't 70 knot winds, it was a 70 knot squall line with immediately took down the rig. It wasn't a 32' boat but a 55', it wasn't 40 years old and cost $30k. But mostly it apparently wasn't very comfortable or comforting for the crew anymore then the Westsail would be. This really gets back to recognizing the limitations of boats and boat designs.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

Not cranky just confused. I would really like to know ones definition of a blue water cruiser. Seems to be a very subjective subject!

Well I'm not a lover of Westsail's either but in the conditions that were described... while the Westsail may have lost its mast as this can happen to any boat at anytime it would never have rolled as the steady winds and seas were just not that big a deal. I don't know enough about multihulls to give a reasonable opinion but I certainly have opinions on monos. I'll sit back and learn what I can from multi guys that know far more than me.

[smj]

So the question stands. Is the Westsail 32, one of the most seaworthy vessels built, more seaworthy than the Gunboat 55? When it comes to seaworthiness length does matter. Which boat would you have rather been on?