Is Bigger better?

[DaveHick]

Just wondering your thoughts.

For live aboard cruising is bigger better?

I have the option to buy either a 40 or a 44 boat, both have pro's and con's.
What I would like to get your opinion of is, size wise, is their any reason to go one over the other?

Cheers

[DDabs]

Simply comparing a 40 ft. to a 44 ft., you're not going to see TOO much difference in interior amenities. It really comes down to which specific models you are looking at. There are certain 40 ft. sailboats I would rather be on than certain 44 ft. sailboats. It all depends.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by DDabs

Simply comparing a 40 ft. to a 44 ft., you're not going to see TOO much difference in interior amenities.

Well that's not correct at all. I moved from a 39' boat to 41' (on deck) and the interior volume and livability improvement was HUGE!

[Sea Dreaming]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Well that's not correct at all. I moved from a 39' boat to 41' (on deck) and the interior volume and livability improvement was HUGE!

Babe, I swear, it's just cold!

[DDabs]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Well that's not correct at all. I moved from a 39' boat to 41' (on deck) and the interior volume and livability improvement was HUGE!

well of course when you move on deck your interior space gets bigger

[sailorboy1]

reading comprehension issues I see, but I'll go with it

"Aren't the stars bright tonight?"

[Kenomac]

BIGGER is better for liveaboard. Anyone who claims otherwise is dillusional. Our Oyster 53 is a small boat. If we had the money, we'd be on an Oyster 66 or a Sunreef 62.

Today we're anchored next to the meg yacht Eclipse at 556ft, our boat is smaller than Abramovich's tender.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Once you hit that size range, if all or most of the boxes are ticked in terms of what you want, feature wise. Then look at a boat's ease of handling/ergonomics, as well as ease of maintenance. And especially what condition her systems are in. Including big ticket items like; engine, standing rigging/rigging, sails, electrical/electronics, etc.
With all of these applying to doing every job onboard. From ease of reefing or anchoring, to changing an oil filter on the engine.

Make up a spread sheet for everything you'd like to have onboard in order for a boat to be cruise ready by your standards. And then plug any candidate boats into it in order to see their true cost/value. Especially including what it will cost to bring them up to an equal standard of readyness.
When you do, include the $ value of time in order to do so, along with the cost of any professional help that you'd need in order to do some of the more complex work/labor. Whether that's for adding/inspecting/fixing say, wiring, or a new suit of sails/inspecting/tuning up the ones which she has.

Also, look at how the boat's set up in terms of storage space. Both for any & all toys you'll want to have onboard, & also for boat spares & equipment, as well as for consumables. Both food & drink, plus anything else that one routinely uses in day to day life, & or when sailing.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

BIGGER is better for liveaboard. Anyone who claims otherwise is dillusional. Our Oyster 53 is a small boat. If we had the money, we'd be on an Oyster 66 or a Sunreef 62.

Today we're anchored next to the meg yacht Eclipse at 556ft, our boat is smaller than Abramovich's tender.

Not necessarily. Such as when you have to re-anchor at 0300 in a driving rain, & the person on the bow can't well communicate with the helm due to the distance between them. Or has to fight with ground tackle that's 1.5x heavier. Ditto on sail handling chores, tasks at sea, cleaning the boat... or, Especially when it's time to pay the bills, & or do a re-fit. As at those times, smaller looks VERY appealing.

And there are definitely times when one's looking for space in a marina, that being 33' long, & drawing 4.5' makes it a LOT easier to find a berth. Often times making it possible to find one at all, when in a bigger boat it wouldn't be possible.

Or that the cost of upkeep & moorage differences between the two sizes can allow the smaller boat's owners to rent a flat somewhere inland for a month or three, & not need to worry about the boat while enjoying Tuscanny in the high season. Or locale X for the Winter, etc.
Basically you get a few more options, on a smaller budget no less. Not everyone has Donald Trump's bank account, nor wants to live as if they do

Those kinds of constants have never changed, & never will.

[sparrowhawk1]

Bigger is certainly nicer but there are several drawbacks. The main one being cost, not just to buy but to maintain,store, replace / upgrade equipment, cost of Marinas( if that's how you roll), ground tackle will be much larger and I guess you could include fuel cost if your motor a lot. although that shouldn't be that much different comparing a 40-footer to 44. I've noticed a lot of people without much experience buy big boats and then they're terrified operate them and it's also too much work to sail them.

[Discovery 15797]

I agree with Uncivilized and Sparrowhawk1. Bigger isn't necessarily better. It depends on many factors. If she is a "marina queen" spending most of your time at dock (or at anchor) and you often sail with capable crew then bigger might be better. If you sail a lot, or cruise often and are short handed, single handing or 2 to 3 crew on long crossings then bigger is definitely not better. I do a lot of single handing here in the PNW on a 42 ft Cooper 416. But the cockpit is small and all running gear runs aft to the cockpit so she is easy to manage off the hook.

As indicated above, expenses increase exponentially as LOA increases. Everything from maintenance to moorage to clearance fees (although 50' seems to be the breaking point here).

Another factor to consider is beam. My boat has a 14' beam which increases livability below decks tremendously. Many people are amazed at how much bigger she seems compared to other furniture 40's.

In the end, choose a boat that fits your lifestyle and pocketbook.

Fair winds

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

BIGGER is better for liveaboard. Anyone who claims otherwise is dillusional. Our Oyster 53 is a small boat. If we had the money, we'd be on an Oyster 66 or a Sunreef 62.

Today we're anchored next to the meg yacht Eclipse at 556ft, our boat is smaller than Abramovich's tender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JSahEDRjvw

[FSMike]

A 40' catamaran usually has lots more living space than a 44' monohull.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by boatman61

"I hate the French and I don't need a bloody reason" (sic)

[RedHerring]

Originally Posted by FSMike

A 40' catamaran usually has lots more living space than a 44' monohull.

Likewise, a 40' monohull from 70s is a MUCH smaller boat than a 40' monohull from 2000s, with a plumb bow and a two bedroom apartment under the cockpit.