GB5508 Rebuild - Soma's Project

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
That advert can be read to suggest the hulls were owned by GB. Ten X shame on them for the way they treated the contracted buyers if so.  But I think the hulls were actually owned by the contracted buyers and they contracted GB to sell.  Shame on GB if they added terms to what the boats could be called on secondary sale further screwing the original purchasers.  Tells me a lot about GYL.  Not cool!!
I get it from GYL’s perspective though - they weren’t doing any of the finish work or load out on these boats.  Essentially they’re each custom boats with spec hulls popped out of the tooling.  Not production boats with a few specified options.  As @soma said above, a couple of the owners spec’d them WAY differently than either GB or GYL would have spec’d a true “Gunboat”.  From that perspective, I understand protecting the brand by not having lower quality and lower performing boats slapping your brand on them when they clearly weren’t built to “brand standard”.  It would be like somebody buying a Ferrari frame, but using Fiero parts and questionable assembly quality, and then trying to sell the resulting car as a true Ferrari.

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
I get it from GYL’s perspective though - they weren’t doing any of the finish work or load out on these boats.  Essentially they’re each custom boats with spec hulls popped out of the tooling.  Not production boats with a few specified options.  As @soma said above, a couple of the owners spec’d them WAY differently than either GB or GYL would have spec’d a true “Gunboat”.  From that perspective, I understand protecting the brand by not having lower quality and lower performing boats slapping your brand on them when they clearly weren’t built to “brand standard”.  It would be like somebody buying a Ferrari frame, but using Fiero parts and questionable assembly quality, and then trying to sell the resulting car as a true Ferrari.
I don't.  GLY bought the name and all the legal liabilities and assets right?.  They made out fine.  PJ made out fine.  Many GB employees (not all) made out fine.  But the buyers of unfinished boats ALL got COMPLETELY screwed inside and out, upside and down. Just my (one) opinion and worth what you paid but if GLY acted as as a sellers broker and then AGAIN screwed (again my opinion) those same already screwed buyers now sellers I hope they get sued and I hope they lose their shirts.  Everyone comes out clean except the contracted buyers?!  Ten cents on a dollar.  F*ck that. Sorry, but no nice way to say it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
I don't.  GLY bought the name and all the legal liabilities and assets right?.  They made out fine.  PJ made out fine.  Many GB employees (not all) made out fine.  But the buyers of unfinished boats ALL got COMPLETELY screwed inside and out, upside and down. Just my (one) opinion and worth what you paid but if GLY acted as as a sellers broker and then AGAIN screwed (again my opinion) those same already screwed buyers now sellers I hope they get sued and I hope they lose their shirts.  Everyone comes out clean except the contracted buyers?!  Ten cents on a dollar.  F*ck that. Sorry, but no nice way to say it. 
I doubt GLY bought the assets (ie tooling, molds, etc) or any liabilities.  In fact, I believe that all they bought was the name and IP.  I would love to hear from some of the current and former GB folks on here what really went down with these hulls.  The complete re-do of the new 68 design by VPLP and all new production tooling in France is a key piece that tells me GLY really only bought the brand/IP in the bankruptcy.  They didn’t buy the actual company, nor did they likely inherit any of the customers or completed hulls. What they probably agreed to do was to use the brokerage side to help find new buyers as part of the liquidation, but it appears GLY wanted nothing to do with finishing out the boats given the inherent design issues and the dismasting incident.

i’m not disagreeing with you that the customers got screwed.  Just about who had the liability and what GLY’s responsibility was toward those customers and hulls. 

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
I doubt GLY bought the assets (ie tooling, molds, etc) or any liabilities.  In fact, I believe that all they bought was the name and IP.  I would love to hear from some of the current and former GB folks on here what really went down with these hulls.  The complete re-do of the new 68 design by VPLP and all new production tooling in France is a key piece that tells me GLY really only bought the brand/IP in the bankruptcy.  They didn’t buy the actual company, nor did they likely inherit any of the customers or completed hulls. What they probably agreed to do was to use the brokerage side to help find new buyers as part of the liquidation, but it appears GLY wanted nothing to do with finishing out the boats given the inherent design issues and the dismasting incident.

i’m not disagreeing with you that the customers got screwed.  Just about who had the liability and what GLY’s responsibility was toward those customers and hulls. 
If GB under GLY ownership represented those hulls on behalf the previous buyers, now sellers, they had a duty to act in the sellers best interest not their (GLY) own, or no?  This smells like SH*T to me.  Doesn't matter what they bought of how anyone tries to deflect it.  Simple question and just my opinion. 

 

eastern motors

Anarchist
724
153
I don't.  GLY bought the name and all the legal liabilities and assets right?.  They made out fine.  PJ made out fine.  Many GB employees (not all) made out fine.  But the buyers of unfinished boats ALL got COMPLETELY screwed inside and out, upside and down. Just my (one) opinion and worth what you paid but if GLY acted as as a sellers broker and then AGAIN screwed (again my opinion) those same already screwed buyers now sellers I hope they get sued and I hope they lose their shirts.  Everyone comes out clean except the contracted buyers?!  Ten cents on a dollar.  F*ck that. Sorry, but no nice way to say it. 
I highly doubt they bought the liabilities.  That's the whole point of bankruptcy.

 

us7070

Super Anarchist
10,229
243
But the buyers of unfinished boats ALL got COMPLETELY screwed inside and out, upside and down. Just my (one) opinion and worth what you paid but if GLY acted as as a sellers broker and then AGAIN screwed (again my opinion) those same already screwed buyers now sellers
GLY bough the name - they don't owe the previous GB customers anything - as was said.., that is the point of bankruptcy 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

longy

Overlord of Anarchy
6,819
1,153
San Diego
soma said:
506 spotted last month for the first time (that I've seen).

View attachment 307745

What kind of magic gets the hull to lift out of the water as weight is added???(OK, joke, I expect the labels are upside down). What is the amount of weight stripped out to get down to "racing" weight?

Look at that stern wake!

 

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
soma said:
Labels are correct i think. Fuel tanks are in the bow, water tanks are amidship. Bow goes down, stern goes up. 

From lightship to race trim is 600kgs. The island (w/ the fridges), salon table, canvas, cushions, and most spares/tools. Then the RIB is another 250kgs all the way aft, accounting for the big stern drop. We go from about .6 degrees stern down (light/half/full) to about .1 degrees stern down (race). Skinny hulls, fair bit of rocker. 
Trying to put it all together, you’ve taken a design that started at about 4 degrees stern down and gotten it to ~.6 degrees stern down?  Just through weight reduction and strategic relocation of systems and furniture?!?!

 

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
soma said:
I'd prefer to think about the race trim which is currently targeted to be .06 degrees stern down. But yeah, the electric hybrid systems really helped with trim. Batteries are inboard of the dboard trunk, we eliminated the aft fuel tanks (original 55's had 4 tanks), and our drive units are amidship (vs the lazarette for the Yanmar's on the 55). We should be about 30% lighter than a standard 55. 
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a complete idiot when it comes to engineering or mechanical things (finance guy by trade), but doesn’t this imply that the major problem wasn’t really with the hull design itself but rather with the choices in systems and their placement in the boat?  Seems like maybe the hull itself was designed for a target overall boat weight close to where you’ll land, but due to other decisions the weight ballooned and caused the balance to change dramatically so it ended up stern down.  Am I thinking about that right?

 

Rasputin22

Rasputin22
13,914
3,470
Yeah Keith, they tend to fill up those ends with all sort of shit that they never intended to bring along anyway. Dick Newick had a great solution to that. He only allowed small inspection ports just big enough to peer down into in the amas and ends of the hulls. Just big enough to see if they had taken on water and stick a hand pump down the hole and pump it out. You never saw any accomodations in the amas on a Newick. 

    Give them any space and the idiots will fill it up with Junk. Never actually heard Dick say that but I know he thought is, as has every multihull designer that ever breathed. Well, maybe not Horstman...

 

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
soma said:
I think in this case it's a combination of failures.

On any boat you'd generally assume there's going to be a big hunk of metal at the back that turns a prop. And that hunk of metal will need go-go juice. And you'd probably need a dinghy. The basic design was SO stern sensitive you can't really do any of those things. We chopped the molded surfaces out of the stern, redid the transom extensions, moved all propulsion equipment forward, etc and we still aren't right. We're close, but we aren't right. 

I saw the first drafts of the spec of the 55. The NID office knew what they were designing for. There was no way this could ever be a 9.5t boat as advertised, yet I've seen early weight estimates that still showed that as plausible. 

This wasn't a case of the builder cutting a corner here and there for a 5% weight overage. This was a fundamental NA failure. The boat was off by over 50% (9.5t to 14+). 

The mitigating steps taken by GB  on the 55's AFTER Rainmaker was launched were comical. They only made a bad situation worse. I reckon they spent 60 kgs on the transom extensions...to add 40kgs of buoyancy (and requiring 6 boats to be repainted). They put fuel tanks in the bows that required extensive structural mods and added lots of weight. They moved the hot water heater to the bow, necessitating 200' of 1" insulated heater hose that was full of water and required adding circulation pumps. 
I think I follow....but let me make sure.  Basically, NID screwed up by designing a hull shape that was going to be stern down with a normal fit out.  That error got compounded when the weight ballooned to 14T+.  And rather than recognizing this somewhere along the final design process, NID and the GB team completely missed it until they splashed and tested Rainmaker.

did I get that right?

 
Designers have a tough time, they design amazing boats, and people tend to fill them up with too much stuff.

I would guess that very experienced multihull sailors would be the opposite and want less stuff, and simpler systems.

The Trimaran "Spirit" is a very good example of experienced multihull sailors cruising in a excellent sailing multihull.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zonker

Super Anarchist
9,725
5,683
Canada
Designers have a tough time, they design amazing boats, and people tend to fill them up with too much stuff.
To be a good designer you really have to account for the tons of crap a cruising boat will get put on. A "optimistic" weight estimate does nobody any favors. Boats NEVER get lighter as the build progresses. I think most yacht designers have a poor understanding of actual (long distance) cruising boat payloads.

But 9.5 -> 14 T sounds like somebody calculated the structure weights of one hull and 1/2 the bridgedeck area... and then forgot to multiply by 2.

 

mad

Super Anarchist
To be a good designer you really have to account for the tons of crap a cruising boat will get put on. A "optimistic" weight estimate does nobody any favors. Boats NEVER get lighter as the build progresses. I think most yacht designers have a poor understanding of actual (long distance) cruising boat payloads.

But 9.5 -> 14 T sounds like somebody calculated the structure weights of one hull and 1/2 the bridgedeck area... and then forgot to multiply by 2.
Lets hope he didn't do the same for labour and materials.  :lol:

 

Rasputin22

Rasputin22
13,914
3,470
To be a good designer you really have to account for the tons of crap a cruising boat will get put on. A "optimistic" weight estimate does nobody any favors. Boats NEVER get lighter as the build progresses. I think most yacht designers have a poor understanding of actual (long distance) cruising boat payloads.

But 9.5 -> 14 T sounds like somebody calculated the structure weights of one hull and 1/2 the bridgedeck area... and then forgot to multiply by 2.
Zonk, I have seen what you describe actually happen. The 'internals' (frames, bulkeads, soles, ect.) of one cat hull were calculated and then forgotten to be multiplied by two for the other hull. Hull skins and bridgedeck were correct but just the internals error put the boat way down on its lines. Heads rolled out in the shop and the laminators got blamed for not squeeging out properly resulting in resin rich layups and the Boss man cussing them out the loudest was the fool who couldn't multiply by two. He also was pointing the finger at my hydro displacement values and didn't trust what the software was giving for immersed volumes. For the next boat he had me 'fill in the corners' of the cross section underwater shapes going from near semi-circular form to more square with a flat bottom with the corners barely rounded off at the turn of the bilges. You should have seen the looks of surprise when that boat was lowered by crane into the water! The math challenged boss kept twirling his finger for the crane operator to keep lowering the boat and was staring anxiously at the painted waterline and boot top to see where the boat would float. The boat still had about 8" to go before it rested at his now corrected spreadsheet design waterlne and he snapped at the crane operator to quit stalling and lower the boat to the painted waterline. Crane operator pointed up to show the slings hanging slack and it was obvious that all the adjustments that had been made since the previous boat were for the wrong reason...

 

HotCarNut

Member
57
16
Denver, CO
soma said:
Labor estimate for the 55 was 8,000 hours (per PJ). Actual? 54,000. Ouch! To make matters worse, that 8,000 hr estimate was for construction in China. The actual was 54,000 in the US. 

[email protected]$6/hr= $50,000

54,[email protected]$40/hr=$2,160,000

You can see why they went bankrupt!
How on earth did he miss that bad, and why didn't the CFO point out to him that he had to either stop production and issue refunds or adjust the price WAY up???  Nevermind....it's in the past and doesn't matter now.  SMH...the finance professional in me is going bananas reading this...

 

Wess

Super Anarchist
@eastern motors and @us7070 - I should have been more clear.  This ain't about what they did or didn't buy in the bankruptcy... unless GLY acquired those hulls in the proceedings and I don't think they did.  Its that GB was apparently acting as a sellers broker or agent in the sale of those hulls - for folks already screwed by past GB - and then screwed them again by apparently placing terms into the the sale about restrictions on naming that protects them (GB/GLY) at the expense of the seller for whom they were an agent.  That seems not cool to me but that's just me and one opinion worth what you paid.  Certainly makes me look cross eyed at GLY and their various brands.  But I don't want to further distract from a good and interesting thread.  EDIT: And based on a PM will edit to add that there may be other aspects of this that would cause me to have a very different view and positive view of GLY, but not my story to tell.  Back to your regularly scheduled Soma project boat...

@soma - Nevermind how the heck did it go from 9 to 14t... but how could the boat be designed in such a way that the lines don't take into account such basic elements of the weight of the engines and fuel?  Forgive my ignorance but I can't imagine either the designers or GB are that incompetent.  How does something so basic get overlooked by everyone at both NID and GB???  Is it normal that a design brief (from GB to NID) would or would not include such things as tankage and engines etc...??

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top