soma

Gunboat 68

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

I had planned to use a pushrod like used on outboard motor tilts. But I could figure out if one of those would have a 'pop off' to let the board raise in a grounding/strike. The alternative would be to use block and tackle at the upper apex of the board sort of like I show in red in this screengrab. That apex needs to be a bit higher to stay above the waterline, not really but it would make sense. It would work fine manually but the client liked the idea of using an Antal Line Driver on the tackle system for push button use muck like on the SIG 45 and some of the more recent 'top shelf' cats. I had figured on scantling my board carbon use to where they would be just slightly buoyant in seawater. Should be plenty strong if that much carbon in the skins and web spar and with delrin roller pins in the tracks this board should raise and retract pretty easily. I'm going to rethink the idea in Fusion and would love for you to kibbutz if you are so inclined.

image.png.2d690d909769e356dbf662160c1296f6.png

It would be really interesting to compare the Tornado trunks and foils. If I still had one I'd map out the geometry. I know the Tornado still needs flaps but I remember being amazed at how small the trunks were, how easily the boards worked, and how well the boat sailed upwind. My G-32 has really good centerboards, but I'm always thinking about cutting the trunks out and putting in daggerboards. The rig seems like it overpowers the boards when going upwind with the screecher and there is no way to add area to the boards. having kick-up foils is great for someone like me (always cutting corners), but most of my cruising has been with daggerboards and I like them. One downside to kick-up foils is that hitting a kelp bed at speed with the kite up can lead to a violent spin-out. At least that's what my boat does. Four loud bangs (the boards and rudders releasing) and a race for a rudder pull-down line. I'll post a photo of my trip cleats for the rudders and boards. They work good... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Russell Brown said:

It would be really interesting to compare the Tornado trunks and foils. If I still had one I'd map out the geometry. I know the Tornado still needs flaps but I remember being amazed at how small the trunks were, how easily the boards worked, and how well the boat sailed upwind. My G-32 has really good centerboards, but I'm always thinking about cutting the trunks out and putting in daggerboards. The rig seems like it overpowers the boards when going upwind with the screecher and there is no way to add area to the boards. having kick-up foils is great for someone like me (always cutting corners), but most of my cruising has been with daggerboards and I like them. One downside to kick-up foils is that hitting a kelp bed at speed with the kite up can lead to a violent spin-out. At least that's what my boat does. Four loud bangs (the boards and rudders releasing) and a race for a rudder pull-down line. I'll post a photo of my trip cleats for the rudders and boards. They work good... 

My entire LONG sailing career has been in the PNW where we always hit stuff. I use daggerboards and put a foam crash box in FRONT of the board. In some cases I made the boards with an angle cutaway at the front from deck to exit. I then fill the cavity with a soft foam wedge . I like the box to be at least a foot at the top. Sometimes I lightly glass them, in a pinch I glued red cedar front and back. On my F9AR Redshift I made the case 18" longer on deck to nothing at the waterline. I filled this wedge with, again, a foam wedge. In the F31 the board comes up under the mast. This arrangement enabled me to remove the board without moving the mast. I tried  to talk Ian Farrier into using this feature in his plans. He thought a deadhead was someone who refused to work! With Crash boxes I have damaged many boards but never totalled one and have yet to damage a case. I now am sailing a Farrier F85SR without a crash box. I did not build this boat and am always super nervous about a strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flat out refuse to sail at night around here, so less chance of hitting logs for me. So the foam wedge at the top on the fwd edge could work as well as at the bottom aft edge? I think Newick did this too, but I haven't really thought about it. It would make it easier to keep things clean where the board exits the hull. I also think that modern foil building methods, where the main structure is only around a shear web running down the fattest part of the foil (and the fwd and aft edges are light foam and skin) make for a foil that could be heavily damaged in a grounding, possibly without damaging the important part of the foil and with little chance of damaging the trunk. In other words, the soft fore & aft edges of the board would crumple before breaking the shear web, and the shear web would break before the boat would. Am I wrong about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try a rectangular section case to match the top of the board (the part that’s in the case top to bottom when fully down) with a shock absorber at the bottom of the case aft. Never had any more of a drama than big deceleration and dinged leading edge on the underwater foil, an easy fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree with your rational about damage to the “soft” part of the foil, Russell but the damage incurred to the foil is all about speed/mass and how resilient the “soft” part of the foil is - I like the addition of a resilient, truly “shock absorbing” element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Newick started with the triangular 'crash box' at the bottom of the trunk but then he made a diagonal cut as described above on the front of the board up top. One of his designs I sailed had added a fiberglass batten the was screwed from the leading edge of the board stub that was then bent aft in a quarter circle and screwed to the top of the board forming a fiberglass 'leaf spring' that would keep the board in the proper alignment but would get squished and yield if you ran aground. That let him reduce the size of the foam crash box at the lower aft corner and between the two resilient features usually kept any damage to either the board edges or the case. The FG batten could soak up a lot of abuse and it fractured or broken (I never saw it happen) a light easily stowed spare could be replaced in very little time. Same with the lower aft insert. What was really cool about Dick's clients was that they were usually very innovative guys (or gals in BJ's case) and lots of evolution such as the crashboxes came from Newick tri owners. Mike Connelly and his architect partner Les Moore and their beautiful Newick 40 QUICKSILVER are a great example.

image.png.c2dbc635b3db645e441ce1586645381d.png

 

image.png.9e045bc51ef2c6f2a1b72154c4ee9a6a.png

She had a centerboard which was the front of a bench seat and made no intrusion to the interior but I'm sure that the long slot was a detriment to her already lively performance. Mike Connelly and his BLACK ROCK BEACH BOATS shop in Nahant was sort of a Newick Skunk Works and I spent a couple of great summers with him and Les doing crazy things to that boat. Some Dick didn't approve of...

PS

I almost forgot, the cboard trunk had a gasketed lid at the aft end that came off easily. I remember on a cold foggy morning down at Buzzards Bay Regatta while brewing up some hot coffee and egg sandwiches in the tiny galley. Mike flipped the eggs and stepped a couple of feet forward and lifted the lid to that trunk and then I heard water running and thought the boat had sprung a leak! I was studying the race course at the nav station (equally tiny) and jumped up to see that it was just Mike casually peeing in the centerboard trunk! I must have had a disgusting look on my face and I said something like, 'You take a dump in there too?'

     Mike just shrugged and said, 'No, the turds get stuck in the gaskets on the slot but the pee flushes out pretty easily...'

    Still, that was better that the milk jug we used to pass up from down below to the guy on watch to dump over the side on TRANSIENT. 

Edited by Rasputin22
More disgusting details added!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My background in pumps with unique, massive, elastomeric piston/valves always leads me to the various “rubber” materials available for shock absorption.

Last time I checked Du Pont still had some original neoprene samples still serviceable in age testing.

My “spring “ is eight layers of one inch thick four by three inch pieces each drilled with one inch holes before laminating to resemble a Swiss cheese (neoprene is incompressible so it deforms into the air pockets).

Makes for a pretty rigid “spring” but dissipating the impact energy of a 6,000 pound boat progressing at thirty feet per second without the hammer blow is serious.

I installed that spring over twenty five years ago, when I inspected it last fall I saw no reason to replace it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the GB 68, has anybody seen/heard anything about the performance yet?  @soma - I know you said it was fast, but i’m Curious what that means for a 68 ft catamaran that has to be somewhere in the 16-20T range....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm curious about polars.

-Are they all done in the computer before the boat even gets wet? Or are they modified during sea trials? What's that process like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are VPP based polars that are theoretical and computer based. Then there are actual performance polars, which are based on observed performance. We did multiple VPP runs during the design phase testing several options we considered. 

No word on how's she's doing compared to the VPP. I always say that a VPP is a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This vid talks about the quiet advantages of a mixed glass / carbon boat. *I'm not a fan, btw, particularly of the 'frybridge.'

So I'm just curious from the people who've been inside at cruise speed / race speed, how annoying is the sound in a superlight, all carbon boat? Not at all an issue? Sometimes?

I imagine this can and is most easily addressed in one's options for lining the inside of the hulls / bridgedeck.

McConaghy MC60 Performance Catamaran

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dcnblues said:

I imagine this can and is most easily addressed in one's options for lining the inside of the hulls / bridgedeck.

 

Correct. Carbon is louder than fibreglass, but think of why? Carbon doesn't give or move so the energy is transferred more efficiently from the slam through the composite because of the stiffness. But consider how much a eglass boat will flex and move, each panel warping under the load. This is a loss of energy being absorbed by the structure. I'm not going to argue about how much this matters because I am not sure to be honest. But to me if it really didn't matter they would just build raceboats out of eglass. Stiffness always matters for performance. The MCB decision to do eglass hulls with Vinylester resin is 100% a cost decision and I think they made the right balanced decision there to match the product need, nothing wrong with that. 

On sound - cored panels are obviously quieter than monolithic panels, so we have that, then as an unexpected bonus, when we made the decision to not fair and paint the inside of the boat we went down the interior liner road. We now have a cored hull panel, an air gap and then a cored liner panel often wrapped in foam+fabric. This creates incredibly good sound and thermal insulation. 

We wrote about it in more detail in this article: https://www.gunboat.com/paintandfinishing/

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foam ear plugs. Any boat is loud at 10-12knots, especially if it's creaking!!!!

I'll take stiff all day long.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what she said, right after crunching the numbers on the modulus of elasticity.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Back to practical matters, I'm under the impression that the science of preventing lightning strikes is not well understood. That if you ask ten different electricians / electrical engineers, you'll get ten different answers. So this topic might bounce all over the place, but I'd like to see if I learn anything new either practically or conceptually. One buys a five million dollar boat made of conductive material, and sails out into a lightning storm:

  • What's been done to mitigate the odds of a lightning strike?
  • Does the paint insulate the hull from being conductive?
  • What's the typical insulator between carbon and deck / mast hardware? Engine mounts? Glass?
  • Are there any Gunboat stories where the electricals needed different techniques than conventional cats?

Any info most welcome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dcnblues said:

-Back to practical matters, I'm under the impression that the science of preventing lightning strikes is not well understood. That if you ask ten different electricians / electrical engineers, you'll get ten different answers. So this topic might bounce all over the place, but I'd like to see if I learn anything new either practically or conceptually. One buys a five million dollar boat made of conductive material, and sails out into a lightning storm:

  • What's been done to mitigate the odds of a lightning strike?
  • Does the paint insulate the hull from being conductive?
  • What's the typical insulator between carbon and deck / mast hardware? Engine mounts? Glass?
  • Are there any Gunboat stories where the electricals needed different techniques than conventional cats?

Any info most welcome.

As an electrical engineer, and someone who’s been on a boat that’s been smoked by lightning, this is easy to answer. Just don’t get hit. The paint doesn’t matter. I’ve never seen anything beyond grounding straps done that really helps. Assuming everything was done right, which probably was in a Gunboat, you’re at the mercy of the path the lightning takes. 

All you can do is ground everything the best you can. There is no magical trick to assure no damage. In our case, it blew the six foot carbon wand off the top of the rig, and then the rig failed shortly after. Hull was fine though. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 yes, and why would you sail into an electrical storm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anchor or dock near a boat with a much bigger mast.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had lightning strike the water about 100' aft of us in the middle of the ocean. It fried the depth and speedo (permanently) and knocked out the whole instrument package for about an hour. The wind wand was on the fritz but recovered. Why it didn't strike us I can't imagine. We DID have a bottle brush style Forespar lightning dissipater on the masthead. https://www.forespar.com/products/boat-lightning-static-dissipater.shtml

 

i think the best defense is a good insurance policy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 9:14 PM, Keith said:

 yes, and why would you sail into an electrical storm....

No need to be pedantic, I assume you're well aware it's a figure of speech due to weather moving faster than most marine traffic.

The dissipaters look sensible to me, but rather than a small permanent one I'd almost rather have a larger one you could haul up to the top of the mast when the situation called for it.

And wait a second: Going from an insulating construction material (fiberglass) to a conducting one (carbon fiber) is actually better. The hull becomes a rather large ground, which is better. (I do imagine the carbon wheel [and carbon tiller(s)] would be insulated from the hull and mast, right?)

 

On 5/22/2019 at 12:45 AM, Greenflash said:

We now have a cored hull panel, an air gap and then a cored liner panel often wrapped in foam+fabric. This creates incredibly good sound and thermal insulation.

+ electrical (insulation) from your conductive hull.

So it's probably going too far to call the bridgedeck a faraday cage, but it might share a lot of the protective properties. Be nice to not worry about the wheel, but I'm guessing that's an easy fix. So actually, now I'm guessing a carbon boat would do better statistically than those built from non-conductive materials...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, with the lightening choosing a path through the carbon, locally all epoxy is evaporized. So, there's nothing holding the carbon together anymore. Composite aircraft that are allowed to fly IMC have a metal mesh laminated at the outside of the laminate to guide the lightning ( and also static electricity ) away to the static dischargers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the misfortune to be at the helm of a 62' catamaran when it hit overhead high tension powerlines in the dark entering a harbor in Mexico. I had contacted the harbormaster about an earlier(just before dark) when I got into VHF range requesting clearance into the "Puerto Abrigo" (open port) and asked when the fuel dock would be closed. He told me the fuel dock was already closed so I told him I would just dock at the empty fuel dock overnight as I was running on fumes as it was and would be fueling up first thing in the morning. He insisted I proceed further into the harbor all the way to the third dock 'C' and asked all sorts of questions about my vessels beam, length, draft and so on but never asked about the overhead rig clearance height. I had recent charts that showed no overhead obstructions and I had worked out of that port a couple of decades earlier and there were no overhead obstructions back then and I was pretty comfortable to just make the straightforward entry down a channel with breakwater to the fuel dock on the windward side of the channel where it met the beach. No way I was going to go looking for Dock C and was going to use the ploy that one fuel starved motor was already cutting out and I had no choice but to tie up at the fuel dock. Could well be the case anyway and I wouldn't be stretching the truth much!

     I made a slow approach in the lee of the channel windward breakwater and saw the fuel dock with nice floating docks with fendered edges only about 50 yards down the side channel. Piece of cake but after eyeballing the situation I wanted to go just past and turn downwind into a 270° turn (WIlliamson turn for the Navy types used for man overboard drills) that would have be approach the side channel head on and into the wind. I timed the start of my turn to make a nice wide turn that would take me out to about the middle of the main channel and just as I put the helm down I saw a big sign oriented towards boats entering the harbor that said something like 'Welcome to the Puerto Abrigo from Gov So and So and Commodore of the Navy So and So' and I turned my attention back to driving the boat. After turning almost 90° I heard what sounded like a cannon shot and a bright flash directly overhead and burning shrapnel came raining down on deck which simultaneously was erupting with spouts of smoke and fire like little volcanoes! I took a vicious electrical shock that ran from my hands on the SS wheel down through my body an the soles of my bare feet into the damp salty deck. I think I hit myself in the face with the back of one of my hands from the involuntary contraction of my arm muscles but my whole nervous system was going off like a 10 alarm fire and it felt like my heart had stopped. The first mate was looking at the wheel wondering if he dare touch it but I knew the damage was done and over unless we keep turing and go back under the invisible wire over head. The whole town on once side had gone dark from our inadvertent actions so we probably could have contacted a second time with no harm since the breakers to the cable had tripped. Besides, the wind instruments, windex, antennae and anything else on the mast head was now just slag cooling on our decks. I headed on down the channel a bit dazed and wish I had paid more attention to how to find Dock C.

    I saw the only lighted building on shore and headed to it where I could dock the boat with some visibility and somehow made a decent approach and docking on a long well lit stretch of top quality dock. As I shut the motors down and tried to calm my still palpitating heart, I hear music and the sounds of frivolity coming from the big building with the refractions of swimming pool lights making it stand out like the beacon it was to me. My mate had the binocs on the event and said that there was a big fancy party going on. Just then a couple of guys came running up to the boat brandishing M-16's locked and loaded and aimed at us.  I recognised the uniforms as the Mexican Marines from all the cartel raids I had seen on TV which are their specialty. A senior officer soon arrived with another 6 guys with guns drawn and informed us that we had just docked at the Naval Detachment Commandant's private dock at his residence in the middle of the biggest social event of the year. I offered to leave immediately but it was far to late for that. I told him that we were confused and shaken by having just hit the powerlines and that dock was the only thing I could see with my blinded eyes which indeed were still showing mostly purple and pink orbs everywhere. 

    That pretty much sealed the deal that we were now under 'boat arrest' until a full examination and search of the vessel could be made the next day. They asked if I would come with them for medical treatment but I had already found a bottle of Tequila which I held up and said that 'Jose' was already helping me in that respect. That got a chuckle from the Jefe and he told two men to 'guard' us through the night and then told me the the Commandante was not very happy when the lights went out but the base had emergency generators that nearly instantly kicked in. 

     The relevance of this story is the little volcanoes spitting fire and smoke in the foredeck of the boat were apparently the ends of uni carbon tows that had been used to bond the mostly carbon fiber fore beam onto the bows of the boat. The tows had been obviously laid out in a carefully load mapped orientation to transfer the load well out onto the decks and when the 40,000 volt  'Alta Tensionar' current ran down the forestay to the tang bedded deeply in the CF forebeam it ran out all along those tows until reaching the ends where the current flashed the resign, fairing and paint into little spouts of flame! 

    A good portion of the current ran down the mast, especially the cabling to the instrumentation and actually blew the whole switch and breaker board in the main cabin out of its cabinet across the salon. A pretty good jolt found its way up the compass binnacle light on the wheel and into myself. As that traveled down my body my heart was right in the path which could well have killed me. The odd thing was that the thick sailors callouses on my feet provided some insulation from the ground to deck but actually blew holes in the edges of the calluses similar to the burnt places on the deck. We were forgiven for out 'terroristic' attack on the Commandant's party and had newpapers coming down to interview the owner and the Gringo capitan with holes blown in his heels! In a way the week and a half that we were forced to wait until the next monthly low tide was pretty interesting and I sort of like the third world celebrity status. I gave the Commandant a tour of the boat and he would have loved to take a sail but the owner of the boat was so paranoid of being fined for our damages to the utility system that never happened. 

    I never really trusted that forward crossbeam on the boat after that though.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see progress on hull #2. She's gotta be just a couple of months away from launch. I was blown away by 6801 when I saw her in St. Barths.

I can't help but wonder though...how long can Gunboat survive like this? Last I heard there's still no buyer for hull 3 (or hull 4 or hull 5). They haven't sold a new boat in nearly 2 1/2 years, they haven't sold a used boat in over a year. Once 6802 launches there's zero money coming in...just warranty liabilities, a workforce on the floor (building a boat without a buyer), admin (management, accounting, sales, and marketing), and a pile of debt to service.

They've owned the company for over 3 years now. If I was an investor I'd be more than a little worried that the business hasn't really caught on yet. I think I'd be tempted to cut my losses and walk. Not only is there no path to profitability, but there also isn't any income at all. The economy is on fire, yet no one is buying.

How long would you keep going?

I reckon that there are some tough decisions to come in the next couple of months...it's a shame, too. The new design looks awesome.

 

image.png.8a7d7cbd569dd9fe68bc6de3276a72e0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, soma said:

Great to see progress on hull #2. She's gotta be just a couple of months away from launch. I was blown away by 6801 when I saw her in St. Barths.

I can't help but wonder though...how long can Gunboat survive like this? Last I heard there's still no buyer for hull 3 (or hull 4 or hull 5). They haven't sold a new boat in nearly 2 1/2 years, they haven't sold a used boat in over a year. Once 6802 launches there's zero money coming in...just warranty liabilities, a workforce on the floor (building a boat without a buyer), admin (management, accounting, sales, and marketing), and a pile of debt to service.

They've owned the company for over 3 years now. If I was an investor I'd be more than a little worried that the business hasn't really caught on yet. I think I'd be tempted to cut my losses and walk. Not only is there no path to profitability, but there also isn't any income at all. The economy is on fire, yet no one is buying.

How long would you keep going?

I reckon that there are some tough decisions to come in the next couple of months...it's a shame, too. The new design looks awesome.

 

image.png.8a7d7cbd569dd9fe68bc6de3276a72e0.png

As a business guy, I think the proof is going to be sales now that the new line is on the water.  Given the issues with the 55/57 and the bankruptcy, I don't blame people for being hesitant.  If 6801 & 6802 both blow people away at shows and regattas, then checkbooks will open.  Otherwise, there might be some great deals on assets including hulls 3-5....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for speculation, doom and gloom. 

Hull 3 sold a month ago, she is in structural fitout and her deck is being demolded. 

GB6804 has officially started with the inside skin almost complete. Several prospects have done seatrials on Condor and have or are still to come to France for visits. Turns out if you actually sell these boats at the right price the market is a little smaller (ha!). 

More than enough interest to keep building, most important is to maintain quality and streamline production. Yep it's official, with 3 boats in the yard we actually have a "production line". 

Building one boat is tough but staying efficient with 3 boats a year is the next big focus. 

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Greenflash said:

Turns out if you actually sell these boats at the right price the market is a little smaller (ha!).

6

Ha! True dat!

 

Sounds good. I hope (for your sake) that you find some traction. It's a great boat. Hopefully we see dozens of 68's eventually.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greenflash said:

No need for speculation, doom and gloom. 

Hull 3 sold a month ago, she is in structural fitout and her deck is being demolded. 

GB6804 has officially started with the inside skin almost complete. Several prospects have done seatrials on Condor and have or are still to come to France for visits. Turns out if you actually sell these boats at the right price the market is a little smaller (ha!). 

More than enough interest to keep building, most important is to maintain quality and streamline production. Yep it's official, with 3 boats in the yard we actually have a "production line". 

Building one boat is tough but staying efficient with 3 boats a year is the next big focus. 

 

 

That's awesome. Being able to put the past behind speaks volumes to what the GB brand stands for. Most people purchased their boats on that premise. I'm a fan of the French w/regards to multihulls and am also happy to have the brand and for the market it speaks to being represented by the them...….

3 boats a year is still no easy feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HotCarNut said:

As a business guy, I think the proof is going to be sales now that the new line is on the water.  Given the issues with the 55/57 and the bankruptcy, I don't blame people for being hesitant.  If 6801 & 6802 both blow people away at shows and regattas, then checkbooks will open.  Otherwise, there might be some great deals on assets including hulls 3-5....

anybody thinking of buying one of these knows that the problems with 55/57.., and the bankruptcy.., tell us _nothing_ about the present situation...

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Greenflash said:

No need for speculation, doom and gloom. 

Hull 3 sold a month ago, she is in structural fitout and her deck is being demolded. 

GB6804 has officially started with the inside skin almost complete. Several prospects have done seatrials on Condor and have or are still to come to France for visits. Turns out if you actually sell these boats at the right price the market is a little smaller (ha!). 

More than enough interest to keep building, most important is to maintain quality and streamline production. Yep it's official, with 3 boats in the yard we actually have a "production line". 

Building one boat is tough but staying efficient with 3 boats a year is the next big focus. 

 

 

Thanks for the info.

By the way, in below interview (at the end), Benoît Lebizay mentions that a smaller one, around 50 feet, could be the next model, is there already a project going in that direction ?

http://www.actunautique.com/2019/01/videos-boot-2019-mis-a-l-eau-du-tout-premier-gunboat-68.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, yl75 said:

Thanks for the info.

By the way, in below interview (at the end), Benoît Lebizay mentions that a smaller one, around 50 feet, could be the next model, is there already a project going in that direction ?

http://www.actunautique.com/2019/01/videos-boot-2019-mis-a-l-eau-du-tout-premier-gunboat-68.html

Yep, the unwashed masses demand the return of GB 48... Make it 3-5’ longer, but keep it pure and simple... perhaps call it “Very Simple”, but in French (to sound cool)....

 

oh wait!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he says that there is clearly a market for top quality "owner operatable" boats, and that for this around 50' is the good size, so that would be a carbon epoxy TS (or Outremer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EarthBM said:

Yep, the unwashed masses demand the return of GB 48... Make it 3-5’ longer, but keep it pure and simple... perhaps call it “Very Simple”, but in French (to sound cool)....

 

oh wait!

Le Gunboat très simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EarthBM said:

Yep, the unwashed masses demand the return of GB 48... Make it 3-5’ longer, but keep it pure and simple... perhaps call it “Very Simple”, but in French (to sound cool)....

 

oh wait!

agreed, add the 5 feet to the aft deck. That was the primary issue with the 48's, the aft deck was tight, relatively speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 6:13 PM, us7070 said:

anybody thinking of buying one of these knows that the problems with 55/57.., and the bankruptcy.., tell us _nothing_ about the present situation...

 

Which is why I said they’d wait to see 6801 & 6802 on the water.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw GB68 Condor on the dock at Newport Shipyard last night. Looks big. Plenty of freeboard. Not too beamy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 8:15 AM, Lat 18 said:

Saw GB68 Condor on the dock at Newport Shipyard last night. Looks big. Plenty of freeboard. Not too beamy. 

Getting repaired already!!!   :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mpenman said:

Getting repaired already!!!   :D

Yep, a brand new boat that left France in rather a rush to hit some weather windows for the crossing. They have some prep to do before summer cruises and we're supporting them with a very short warranty list considering it is the first boat of a series. Touch wood she's going really well and I was told the boat looks good as new - the crew are doing a fantastic job taking care of her. She'll be sailing again in a week or so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Greenflash, good to hear sales are doing well. Great actually. Quick question: Got a dedicated solution for cleaning caught fish at the bottom of the sugarscoop? Or have your buyers not requested that? (I'm thinking hose outlet, mounts for a cutting board...)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dcnblues said:

Thanks Greenflash, good to hear sales are doing well. Great actually. Quick question: Got a dedicated solution for cleaning caught fish at the bottom of the sugarscoop? Or have your buyers not requested that? (I'm thinking hose outlet, mounts for a cutting board...)

I've seen people just had a big cutting board they put down on the teak on the swim platform, also seen some people use the fishing rod holders to slot in an off the shelf plastic prep table. Just use the deck wash (fresh or salt). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dcnblues said:

...good to hear sales are doing well. Great actually. 

Selling one boat in 2.5 years isn't really great. In fact, it's not even good...but It IS better than none though. 

The 68 is hauled out right next to my office actually. It looks great from where I'm sitting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soma, I should have called and stopped by but we would have been caught for hours and needed to get back to race practicing.

Ended up checking out the GB68 in the sling Friday, really nice boat with some features most don't think of in an initial design phase, like an orange nonskid coating on the underside of the bridgedeck if worst came to worst. The jobs list I saw seemed relatively minor for a new boat. Mast rake is impressive in person as is the entire rig and overall look of the boat, just super neat!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant 'great to hear.'

I was wondering about that orange pad!

As well, can someone explain the portholes behind the stairs between the hulls and the bridgedeck? I don't think they're large enough for a person to crawl out of in case of a flip, and while they're cool, I can't think of an obvious reason for them. Access to fouled prop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dcnblues said:

I meant 'great to hear.'

I was wondering about that orange pad!

As well, can someone explain the portholes behind the stairs between the hulls and the bridgedeck? I don't think they're large enough for a person to crawl out of in case of a flip, and while they're cool, I can't think of an obvious reason for them. Access to fouled prop?

Standard escape hatch I'd imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zero Gravitas said:

Standard escape hatch I'd imagine.

You would be amazed at how small a hole one can squeeze out of when the boat capsizes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dcnblues said:

I meant 'great to hear.'

I was wondering about that orange pad!

As well, can someone explain the portholes behind the stairs between the hulls and the bridgedeck? I don't think they're large enough for a person to crawl out of in case of a flip, and while they're cool, I can't think of an obvious reason for them. Access to fouled prop?

French size people.  Not 'merican.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, samc99us said:

Soma, I should have called and stopped by but we would have been caught for hours and needed to get back to race practicing.

Ended up checking out the GB68 in the sling Friday, really nice boat with some features most don't think of in an initial design phase, like an orange nonskid coating on the underside of the bridgedeck if worst came to worst. The jobs list I saw seemed relatively minor for a new boat. Mast rake is impressive in person as is the entire rig and overall look of the boat, just super neat!

pictures!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only snapped 1 or 2 from a distance. If Gunboat wanted them public they would get a pro photographer out. A neat touch is the bow thrusters which go up into sealed recessed hatches. The only issue there is the PVC housing on the thrusters doesn't bond all that well to a carbon fairing/hatch, and its a sort of large hatch to be moving sideways through the water. They were removed for a re-bond; personally long term I would go for a carbon housing on the impeller that is a far easier/stronger bond to the hatch. Make the impeller itself removable for the inevitable fouling/motor/prop failure but buy a ton of strength in a tough application. Anyway, that is a minor detail and the rest of the boat is full of touches like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone educate me. I'm certainly under the impression that catamarans (with engines in both hulls) smaller than 60 feet are so maneuverable that ordering one with bow thruster(s) would be a mark of shame to a skilled boater. Is there some correlation with size where, as size increases, it becomes more and more acceptable? Is the 68 there? Or are there simply situations with enough current and / or lack of space that it does, in fact, become a necessity?

I can't imagine buying one of these light boats and not driving it out to an isolated buoy in a current to practice with centerboard variables, and learning how to spin and back the boat on a dime. And even if my own piloting experience is limited, those docking demos you see at boat shows make clear that there's pretty much no situation that can't be fairly easily solved with strategy and understanding. Am I dumb to look down on putting bow thrusters on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dcnblues said:

Someone educate me. I'm certainly under the impression that catamarans (with engines in both hulls) smaller than 60 feet are so maneuverable that ordering one with bow thruster(s) would be a mark of shame to a skilled boater. Is there some correlation with size where, as size increases, it becomes more and more acceptable? Is the 68 there? Or are there simply situations with enough current and / or lack of space that it does, in fact, become a necessity?

I can't imagine buying one of these light boats and not driving it out to an isolated buoy in a current to practice with centerboard variables, and learning how to spin and back the boat on a dime. And even if my own piloting experience is limited, those docking demos you see at boat shows make clear that there's pretty much no situation that can't be fairly easily solved with strategy and understanding. Am I dumb to look down on putting bow thrusters on it?

I've got about 100,000 miles sailed on Gunboats. In that time I've spent more time with bow thrusters than without, but I do have plenty of time without. Even after all that time, I think I'd choose a thruster. The old 62/66's had tall bows with forefoots that were out of the water, meaning the bows could be blown around quite easily. Also, with such a light, large boat, your windage to displacement is pretty high. You're like a leaf on the water. The 68 has much shorter bows, with a wet forefoot, but it's still a lot of boat. When the owner wants to get on or off the dock your job is to make it happen. I didn't like saying "but I don't wanna..." to an owner. We pulled off the dock in Santorini one time when it was gusting to 70 knots.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response SOMA but I'd still like to know more. I don't mean to be a PITA and enjoy learning all about these boats...

-I don't see them in the launch image. Were they installed after? Or is the retraction really smooth?

-How much do they weigh? How big a thru-hull do you need to glass in? Anybody got a link to the actual units used on the 68? Price, (roughly)?

-I assume they're electric. Do they thrust only athwartship (left and right through a horizontal tube), or are they 360 degree rotatable? If they're electric, and they rotate, you might be able to use them for quiet dock departures all the way out of the harbor. What would their speed range be on something like the 68?

-I assume that a talented skipper, if being blown sideways 'like a leaf on the water,' could compensate to a certain extent with centerboards (I mean, how often are boats really in less than 8-10 feet of water). Yeah, I get the boat would now pivot around the centerboard, but I'm still not clear on why thrusters (while making things easier, for sure) wouldn't be more a requirement for the untalented. *And if one was using thrusters, I assume you'd generally want your boards all the way up at that point, right?

 

GMR_GB68_7051-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with Soma, if you are in and around the docks a fair bit, thrusters are nice to have especially with limited or no deck hands. Even our 57 gets blown around like a cork in docking situations where there is a current and a bit of wind. The bows are difficult to control. Having the equivalent of two people pushing off a bow is a requirement in the larger boats. Saves on dings!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dcnblues said:

I don't see them in the launch image. Were they installed after? Or is the retraction really smooth?

-How much do they weigh? How big a thru-hull do you need to glass in? Anybody got a link to the actual units used on the 68? Price, (roughly)?

-I assume they're electric. Do they thrust only athwartship (left and right through a horizontal tube), or are they 360 degree rotatable? If they're electric, and they rotate, you might be able to use them for quiet dock departures all the way out of the harbor. What would their speed range be on something like the 68?

13KW up and down electric Maxpower thruster in port sail locker. Adds around 200Kg of weight to the boat - partly because there are 2 x 180Ah 12V batteries up there in series to run it. We looked at taking power off the hydraulic power pack, but it would have tripled the size and ended up heavier. We don't have a PTO available on the engine (Alternators coming from this), so electric with local batteries was most efficient. I was a skeptic, but that thing really works incredibly well, such a huge comfort factor when docking. If weight was the first consideration on every decision, then yes - of course you can live without it. 

The plate is faired perfectly to the hull when it is up. Some pics attached. 

image.thumb.png.fb6cf3d9dbcef6ea897acbaf9beb8833.png

8a101b60-e283-4c9c-b65d-7c8446b4fe5e.JPG

IMG_8405.JPG

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa. Nice install - but at 13 kW wouldn't the best route be AC powered (I assume the boat has AC generator but forget?)

AC wires got to be smaller than big DC cables and batteries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Whoa. Nice install - but at 13 kW wouldn't the best route be AC powered (I assume the boat has AC generator but forget?)

AC wires got to be smaller than big DC cables and batteries?

Smoke em if you got em...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Greenflash, great info. Yeah, over 400lbs, north of six grand plus install in the yard, and a whole dedicated through hull compartment, I think I'd pass.

Quote

The fixed roof will support an array of solar panels and the aim is to equip the new Gunboat 68 with sufficient green power to do without a generator.

Which explains why they need the dedicated battery. Too bad it can't rotate 90% and reverse current as a hydro-charger (but probably if forward enough to usefull, would be impractical under sail)...

It's also hard to imagine a situation where all that work, cost, and weight couldn't be avoided by just a little forward thrust from one screw, with a little reverse from the other, and if needed, a big round buoy fender on the boat's stern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dcnblues said:

Thank you, Greenflash, great info. Yeah, over 400lbs, north of six grand plus install in the yard, and a whole dedicated through hull compartment, I think I'd pass.

Which explains why they need the dedicated battery. Too bad it can't rotate 90% and reverse current as a hydro-charger...

 

That would just be absurd. Look at all the drag from the plug that fairs it into the hull. Turn that 90 ° and you would be putting the speed brakes on! A case of overthinking something.

    I have an animated model of a bow thruster I did for MOUSETRAP ages ago that I should dig out of the archives to show here. It was pretty complicated in how it hinged out but on that boat it didn't really matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, no kidding, but you bring up an interesting topic. What is the hull speed for this boat? I'm sure it's been calculated, but I don't think anyone has brought it up. Were it a slower boat that could sail up to hull speed, the extra drag wouldn't matter. I mean, if you're reaching / cruising at 16 knots, who cares if a (better designed, smoother, possibly a litte further back) system took you down a knot?

It's not, of course. Hull speed has to be - north of 30 knots? I don't know. I'm not even sure it's not a semi-planing hull (don't know much about it). I do think the 68 has enough speed to generate the juice from hydro for me to crank Led Zep on decent sized (marine grade) speakers though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to brush up on hull speed and hull beam/length ratios work on narrow catamarans. A ratio of over around 1:14 sort of gives it a free pass on the usual hull speed restrictions. 

Get your calculator out

Hull Speed = 1.34 * sq rt of the DWL

11 knots hull speed. 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that 'free pass' extend indefinitely to a GB68 (let's say flying one hull), or do you have a guess as to what speed it won't go over? *I realize these calculations are complex, but there's got to be a lot of established conventional wisdom with multihull racers. At some speed would a 68 hull convert to fully planing? I'm just curious. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinny hulls don't have the best aspect ratio to really plane. Not enough surface area  with very little leading edge which is where the planing lift is generated, the water is mostly thrown to the sides (slightly) which kills the planing lift. Some multihull shapes like Farriers do have a wide enough flat aft for limited planing but the rocker shape of the run aft is hard to make that contribute much. There is a lot of established conventional wisdom but you just need to read up, plenty available for searching on Google. Then maybe bring your questions here after you have done some homework.

Here is a good place to start

http://www.shuttleworthdesign.com/NESTalk.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. they don't plane. To plane is to have some % of the hull weight supported by dynamic lift. Rounded hull shapes don't really do that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Greenflash said:

13KW up and down electric Maxpower thruster in port sail locker. Adds around 200Kg of weight to the boat - partly because there are 2 x 180Ah 12V batteries up there in series to run it. We looked at taking power off the hydraulic power pack, but it would have tripled the size and ended up heavier. We don't have a PTO available on the engine (Alternators coming from this), so electric with local batteries was most efficient. I was a skeptic, but that thing really works incredibly well, such a huge comfort factor when docking. If weight was the first consideration on every decision, then yes - of course you can live without it. 

The plate is faired perfectly to the hull when it is up. Some pics attached. 

image.thumb.png.fb6cf3d9dbcef6ea897acbaf9beb8833.png

8a101b60-e283-4c9c-b65d-7c8446b4fe5e.JPG

IMG_8405.JPG

Nice installation Greenflash, quite a lot of added weight though, does the 200kg include the extra water carried in the cavity? Has anyone out there ever tried designing and making a thruster that swings down from where the catwalk meets the fore beam and stores under the catwalk ? Might try something like this for my boat one day as I try to avoid marinas and docks like the plague! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dcnblues said:

...

It's also hard to imagine a situation where all that work, cost, and weight couldn't be avoided by just a little forward thrust from one screw, with a little reverse from the other, and if needed, a big round buoy fender on the boat's stern.

DCN – you may lack the imagination to see the utility of the thruster...

But I’m willing to go with the experience of MPenman and in particular Soma’s 100k miles of experience in boats of this type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see the utility just fine. What I'd need to see is a situation where I couldn't manage without one, and I just think that would be far and few between.

I would, however, more than compensate for the 400+ pounds I'd save with other junk that you would no doubt shake your head at. Horses for courses...

*I will confess a certain bias. It's just the kind of inelegant gizmo that's more for the powerboat world, seems antithetical to the whole carbon, lightweight GB68 racing cruiser concept, and to the image of a capable skipper who can compensate for environment, wind, and current.

**Put it this way: I'd take the potential inconvenience and trade it for an air compressor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dcnblues said:

Oh, I see the utility just fine. What I'd need to see is a situation where I couldn't manage without one, and I just think that would be far and few between.

 

You can most certainly manage without one. Skylark the CW72 has no bow thruster. They spend the majority of the time on the hook or a mooring. Spahira (the CW70) as a bow thruster which is dang useful to have around the docks.  I can walk our boat sideways in less than 6/7 knots, but after that all you are doing is using thrust on either side to move the bows, whilst worrying about the stern.

If it's just you and another hand and it's blowing a little and you are in a strong current, it's get awfully sporty. Docking is normally not the most difficult thing with a boat of this size, it's getting off the dock that provides enjoyment for everyone else but the skipper and deckcrew...…….you've got 140 Rebecca three feet behind you and maybe a nice swan 70 in front of you...….the old spring line tricks they show you on the youtube videos all work great until there is a nicely sized crowd, the wind has piped up to 20knots blowing you strongly on the dock...…….it's at that point you either sit tight and wait it out, get someone on the dinghy, or use the thruster...…...and even that can be tricky. As Soma notes, when it's time to go, you'd be willing to sell your Porsche/Tesla, Maseratti, hell anything if you could just have a little nudge on the front of the hull. 

Remember the longer you get, the longer the fulcrum from stern to bow.

Greenflash, that's a fantastic fit on that thruster, got some serious thrust there too...…….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 9:05 AM, he b gb said:

Nice installation Greenflash, quite a lot of added weight though, does the 200kg include the extra water carried in the cavity? Has anyone out there ever tried designing and making a thruster that swings down from where the catwalk meets the fore beam and stores under the catwalk ? Might try something like this for my boat one day as I try to avoid marinas and docks like the plague! 

I was thinking much the same .

Does the whole cavity work as a wet box , or is there some way of sealing the system ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Justaquickone said:

I was thinking much the same .

Does the whole cavity work as a wet box , or is there some way of sealing the system ?

Wet box, i'd say an extra 30lbs of water in the hull. It's not a large cavity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice contrast between the new VPLP and 1st gen M&M Slim 66 (bit longer now with extended transom steps)

00E94D10-65D7-477F-81D9-0A620D89C622.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crashjibe said:

Nice contrast between the new VPLP and 1st gen M&M Slim 66 (bit longer now with extended transom steps)

00E94D10-65D7-477F-81D9-0A620D89C622.jpeg

Amazing how similar and yet different they are.  A bit surprised that Slim appears to have a bit more rake to the rig than Condor.  Could just be the angle the photo is at though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, HotCarNut said:

Amazing how similar and yet different they are.  A bit surprised that Slim appears to have a bit more rake to the rig than Condor.  Could just be the angle the photo is at though....

The GB66 was based on the GB62 hulls, with 4' added to the middle of the hull. That means that the mast is quite far forward relative to the platform. That means more rake to balance the platform. 

VPLP were insistent that mast aft is better in every way, and they wanted it as far aft as possible on the 68. We (briefly) played with the idea of a mast on top of the coachroof (ala the new Sodebo) but I vetoed that. This had to be a Gunboat in look and intent, and I felt a complete reinvention of the platform was too much, too soon. 

We did end up with a mast much further than the MM boats (GB62/GB66/LM62/MM65/HH55/HH66), but not as far aft as VPLP wanted it. The result is a quite short bridgedeck. The bridgedeck is closer in length to the GB62 than the GB66. The 68 bridgedeck is much shorter than the HH66, as well as being much shorter than what you'd expect from a "normal" 68'. Because the bows are long and the mast bulkhead is aft the whole platform was compressed. It IS wider than any of her predecessors, though, so she has that going for her  

That should mean a fast boat. It's wider, longer, deeper, and taller than its brethren. But it also had full CFD, FEA, a mast more centered on the platform, with all of the advantages of modern construction and design. It's a helluva boat for $7m. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about their respective weight ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, yl75 said:

What about their respective weight ?

Below are the ranges for the various models (lightship). Numbers are actual scale weights, except for the 68. They haven't been publicly weighed AFAIK.

Gunboat 55: 13.5t-14t

Gunboat 57: 12.2t

Gunboat 60: 15.4t-21t

Gunboat 62: 13.5t-16.5t

Gunboat 66: 16.5t-22t

HH66: 18t-22t

GB68: 17.8t+ (self-reported) 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the order of build, the 62 seems to have set mark for weight and then the  plot was lost

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 8:50 AM, mpenman said:

If it's just you and another hand and it's blowing a little and you are in a strong current, it's get awfully sporty. Docking is normally not the most difficult thing with a boat of this size, it's getting off the dock that provides enjoyment for everyone else but the skipper and deckcrew...…

On the other hand, it's a Gunboat, so you'd almost never have a shortage of volunteers to help push...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:35 PM, he b gb said:

...Has anyone out there ever tried designing and making a thruster that swings down from where the catwalk meets the fore beam and stores under the catwalk ? Might try something like this for my boat one day as I try to avoid marinas and docks like the plague! 

Or, someone designs a convertible hydro charger. Hard mounts and electrical connection next to the davits, attach a portable motor / generator, then connect a swinging high aspect prop down in to the water (even with the dinghy up) to generate juice while sailing / underway. Then, when needed, you could pop loose the prop and shaft from the motor, change the blade to a lower aspect torque prop, disconnect and pull the motor from the mounts, and move the two parts up to the underside of the forebeam and hard mounts above the waterline on the hull. Plug it back in, and you've got a thruster. 2 for 1. Win Win. Not sure about the motor speed having enough range, but imagine a system could be designed which would work. Lighter, cleaner. Might even be easy if using the dinghy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HotCarNut said:

Amazing how similar and yet different they are.  A bit surprised that Slim appears to have a bit more rake to the rig than Condor.  Could just be the angle the photo is at though....

Damm, as I didn't care about light air performance for the additional weight penalty, I had no desire for that regatta rig. But aesthetically, the higher aspect ratio is SO much more pleasing... What a looker is Condor...

*How much heavier is the regatta mast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soma said:

...That should mean a fast boat. It's wider, longer, deeper, and taller than its brethren. But it also had full CFD, FEA, a mast more centered on the platform, with all of the advantages of modern construction and design. It's a helluva boat for $7m. 

-Well, that's a price bump I hadn't heard before. It used to be 5 and change. Are you saying it's now 6 and change, and you're rounding up, or is now over 7 mill?

-I'm also curious about the 'deep' part. Conventional wisdom, AFAIK, is that when clawing to windward, the leeward board is all the way down, and the windward board is all the way up. Can anyone say whether they've experimented with both boards half down in the same conditions? Or played with other combinations? Just curious. As always, very grateful for all the great information for what I'm switching over to calling, in my head, 'The best sailboat ever made.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dcnblues said:

-Well, that's a price bump I hadn't heard before. It used to be 5 and change. Are you saying it's now 6 and change, and you're rounding up, or is now over 7 mill?

They've gotten cagey about publishing the price. Price had gone up to €5m+ excluding sails ($300k), basic solar, basic rig, no gen, basic electronics, etc. Add $750k+ for extras. Add some project management. Then they'll renegotiate the price along the way. Add some VO's. I'd expect you'd get to $7m by the time it's launched. Introductory price was <$4m, so it woulda been nice to be an early adopter!

Quote

-I'm also curious about the 'deep' part. Conventional wisdom, AFAIK, is that when clawing to windward, the leeward board is all the way down, and the windward board is all the way up. Can anyone say whether they've experimented with both boards half down in the same conditions? Or played with other combinations? Just curious. As always, very grateful for all the great information for what I'm switching over to calling, in my head, 'The best sailboat ever made.'

Generally, two symmetrical boards are both down upwind on GBs. One asymmetric is down (obviously). You almost can't get enough lift from one symmetric board with such high loads because the board can't be long enough (structurally). On a light, D35 style boat you can have a single deep symmetric board give enough lift. 

Every combination has been tried. "Opinions are cheap, everyone has one." VPP's say one thing, on the water experience says otherwise. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soma said:

Every combination has been tried. "Opinions are cheap, everyone has one." VPP's say one thing, on the water experience says otherwise. 

Very true words, very true. Open ocean is also different than flat water.

I still like the early 62's. Phil did a great job on the first one...….

Soma, why did you leave GB? Seems like you invested a ton of time, heart, soul into the brand?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 6:43 PM, soma said:

They've gotten cagey about publishing the price. Price had gone up to €5m+ excluding sails ($300k), basic solar, basic rig, no gen, basic electronics, etc. Add $750k+ for extras. Add some project management. Then they'll renegotiate the price along the way. Add some VO's. I'd expect you'd get to $7m by the time it's launched. Introductory price was <$4m, so it woulda been nice to be an early adopter!

Generally, two symmetrical boards are both down upwind on GBs. One asymmetric is down (obviously). You almost can't get enough lift from one symmetric board with such high loads because the board can't be long enough (structurally). On a light, D35 style boat you can have a single deep symmetric board give enough lift. 

Every combination has been tried. "Opinions are cheap, everyone has one." VPP's say one thing, on the water experience says otherwise. 

Certainly agreed. On a smaller, lighter boat we have often have too much board in. Its the result of a very long board (max length per box rule) that is also quite wide. The boards are strong enough to be left full down almost all the time, the trunks not quite IME. My other bit of experience is the boards need to be tacked as there is simply too much board in the water. On a bigger, more cruisey boat with large rig, I doubt that is the case. Condor's rig looked right to my eye, maybe a touch short but I'm used to more full on race boats, and sails weren't up. The rake also looked closer to the 66 next to her in real life, but that also could have been an optical allusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 5:09 PM, soma said:

Nope. US of A. Jamaica is a popular flag state for boats nowadays (along with BVI, Marshall Islands, St. Vincent, etc).

If traveling with my Jamaican passport is any guide, it’s likely that there is an extra level of scrutiny from people in uniforms.   Or much worse. 

In 1988 I finally got an American passport after the Jamaican Vice Consul told me that he had one for ease of travel. At the time I was traveling internationally 30 weeks a year hitting a dozen counties.  There was only one country in the world where I beat my wife through immigration control (Turkey.).  Most of the time it was an inconvenience or a major hassle being Jamaican. 

I can only imagine that there’s a tax advantage but still,   it is hard to imagine that the benefits outweigh the benefits. Not knocking Jamaica. Love it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:52 PM, Greenflash said:

13KW up and down electric Maxpower thruster in port sail locker. Adds around 200Kg of weight to the boat - partly because there are 2 x 180Ah 12V batteries up there in series to run it. We looked at taking power off the hydraulic power pack, but it would have tripled the size and ended up heavier. We don't have a PTO available on the engine (Alternators coming from this), so electric with local batteries was most efficient. I was a skeptic, but that thing really works incredibly well, such a huge comfort factor when docking. If weight was the first consideration on every decision, then yes - of course you can live without it. 

The plate is faired perfectly to the hull when it is up. Some pics attached. 

image.thumb.png.fb6cf3d9dbcef6ea897acbaf9beb8833.png

8a101b60-e283-4c9c-b65d-7c8446b4fe5e.JPG

IMG_8405.JPG

On one hand i get it. Plenty of inexperienced owners out there wanting that maneuverability but on the other side I would have thought Gunboat owners would be inexperienced sailors... no

With motors that far apart .....   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

On one hand i get it. Plenty of inexperienced owners out there wanting that maneuverability but on the other side I would have thought Gunboat owners would be inexperienced sailors... no

With motors that far apart .....   

I think Soma and a few others mentioned this before;  the Gunboats are relatively light displacement with a high topside to wetted forefoot ratio at the bows - very little in the water, a lot above to catch the wind.... 

Also - most Gunboats will be required to be on/off the dock a lot of the time either from owner demands or because of the ongoing maintenance that is typically part of the crewed/superyacht programme.

For the above reasons it beneficial to have bow-thrusters. I worked on a GB 66 that did not have bowthrusters and whilst we never actually had any incidents entering/exiting marina berths it did mean we had to be a lot more careful and prepared with extra fenders etc. Also - we ran with 3 crew most of the time so that gave the advantage of an extra pair of hands in tight spots.... (e.g. when one of your main engine props ejects itself off the shaft during the delivery to St Maarten and you have to enter into the lagoon and dock with just one engine....)

Unless the programme is very much focused on racing then I would say the bowthruster is a distinct advantage....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taught boat and ship handling.  Driven twin screw, single screw, power and sail from 16' to 900', with and without bow thrusters.  While idiots mis-use bow thrusters all the time, (i.e. for steering instead of engines/helm), bow thrusters can certainly come in handy.  I've got twin engines and a bow thruster on my 38', 12000# cat.  It's real handy sometimes coming into my conventional marina slip (not a side tie).  It's not a sign of weakness to have and use one (properly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skippered a Gunboat for 7 years and have also sailed on board 6801 a number of times.

On the Gunboat 62 we had a thruster but it could never be relied upon so we removed it. It takes a little while to get used to driving without one but a number of boats have proven that this is possible over the years with no majors!

The thruster on the 68 works great, has been reliable to date and proves beneficial to parking or mooring. Gunboats are cruising boats with the ability to go fast not a Mod70 so if it was me I would always have one if I had the option. Why make life more difficult than it has to be?

Sailed the 68 last week: Biased but the boat is fantastic!IMG_2824.thumb.JPG.362098834a95210422190f813ffc071e.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muff said:

I skippered a Gunboat for 7 years and have also sailed on board 6801 a number of times.

On the Gunboat 62 we had a thruster but it could never be relied upon so we removed it. It takes a little while to get used to driving without one but a number of boats have proven that this is possible over the years with no majors!

The thruster on the 68 works great, has been reliable to date and proves beneficial to parking or mooring. Gunboats are cruising boats with the ability to go fast not a Mod70 so if it was me I would always have one if I had the option. Why make life more difficult than it has to be?

Sailed the 68 last week: Biased but the boat is fantastic!IMG_2824.thumb.JPG.362098834a95210422190f813ffc071e.JPG

Am I seeing this correctly; 12 in 12 on the beam? So basically wind speed on a beam reach? I gotta believe there is more in the tank. Please tell me there is more in the tank...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Am I seeing this correctly; 12 in 12 on the beam? So basically wind speed on a beam reach? I gotta believe there is more in the tank. Please tell me there is more in the tank...

There would be more in the tank..... That's with bow thruster left down, a reef in the dacron delivery main, small heady, inverted mast rotation, full tanks, dragging tender and a full load of washing on the line.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites