Size is important ....or is it?

[Mystic38]

I have money. The ability to spend it does neither make me a better sailor, nor endow me with the ability to make better decisions, nor will that money save me in an emergency.

My ability to sail, and my experiences in adversity in vessels from 38-78ft have granted me some wisdom in making better decisions about sailing and vessel purchase.

My experiences as crew & mate on other vessels, and with crew and captains both paid and unpaid on other vessels, and with ad hoc crew on my own vessel have taught me a lot about the challenges & realities of both paid and unpaid captains and crew.

So, while I still have money, I KNOW it will not be spent on a boat that 2 people cannot easily, reliably and confidently handle...

Your money, your decision for sure, but my opinion after reading this thread is that your mind is already made up but that does not prevent my opinion being that you are going for a far larger vessel than is needed for ANY sailing adventure and the risk of this being an unpleasant experience for you has risen as a result.

[No boat yet]

Originally Posted by Mystic38

I have money. The ability to spend it does neither make me a better sailor, nor endow me with the ability to make better decisions, nor will that money save me in an emergency.

My ability to sail, and my experiences in adversity in vessels from 38-78ft have granted me some wisdom in making better decisions about sailing and vessel purchase.

My experiences as crew & mate on other vessels, and with crew and captains both paid and unpaid on other vessels, and with ad hoc crew on my own vessel have taught me a lot about the challenges & realities of both paid and unpaid captains and crew.

So, while I still have money, I KNOW it will not be spent on a boat that 2 people cannot easily, reliably and confidently handle...

Your money, your decision for sure, but my opinion after reading this thread is that your mind is already made up but that does not prevent my opinion being that you are going for a far larger vessel than is needed for ANY sailing adventure and the risk of this being an unpleasant experience for you has risen as a result.

Congrats - it is the internet, anyone can be wealthy here......the thread was never about money......merely that cost was not the driving factor.....size was/is.....the clue is in the thread title......my sailing abilities not the subject either, see the opening statement, I have no sailing ego to pander to.....the question was, "is there any reason not to get a 65ft boat from a regulatory compliance perspective or a practical perspective in Marinas/moorings in various parts of the world......yes, I will be buying a 60-65 ft boat......thank you for your suggestion that it will be an unpleasant experience.......sigh......shall be staying away from all the negativity exhibited on this forum and plan to enjoy myself.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by No boat yet

yes, I will be buying a 60-65 ft boat......thank you for your suggestion that it will be an unpleasant experience.......sigh......shall be staying away from all the negativity exhibited on this forum and plan to enjoy myself.

I dunno, despite some of the pushback from smartasses like myself - with my wacko suggestion that you may wish to actually do some offshore sailing prior to making such a critical decision - seems to me you've still been offered some pretty sage and well intentioned input, from some very experienced/knowledgeable sailors, here...

At any rate, happy shopping in Southhampton... One thing is for certain, you'll hear nothing but POSITIVITY being exhibited, there... One doesn't get to be a top flight sales rep for outfits like Oyster or Discovery, after all, without being extremely skilled at telling a potential buyer precisely what they want to hear...

;-)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by No boat yet

Congrats - it is the internet, anyone can be wealthy here......the thread was never about money......merely that cost was not the driving factor.....size was/is.....the clue is in the thread title......my sailing abilities not the subject either, see the opening statement, I have no sailing ego to pander to.....the question was, "is there any reason not to get a 65ft boat from a regulatory compliance perspective or a practical perspective in Marinas/moorings in various parts of the world......yes, I will be buying a 60-65 ft boat......thank you for your suggestion that it will be an unpleasant experience.......sigh......shall be staying away from all the negativity exhibited on this forum and plan to enjoy myself.

With respect NBY, you may want to take a look at the amount of negativity you yourself may be responsible for. And now that you mention it, your first set of posts were focused -- at least how I interpreted them -- on the physical limitations of larger boats being accepted at marinas as opposed to regulatory requirements. It was only later that you seemed to raise issues over regulations, and then later still about crew requirements. But if I or others got this wrong, it's pretty easy to refocus people w/o the insults & negativity, and usually far more effective too.

No big deal, really. Often times with more open-ended thread topics like this the responses induce the OP to alter his queries, and of course there is the inevitable drift on the part of the participants. As Dockhead explained, this is often the inevitable result of a public forum. Often times it's people sincerely wanting to help a fellow sailor out with a specific logistical, safety, navigation, or mechanical issue, but people are also motivated because they also believe the thread topic may also have relevance to them. In other words, it's not all about the OP in these sorts of online forum settings. Like I said, it's really no biggie, is it?

If you don't like or want all the chatter, maybe try PM'ing some of these big boat guys who have responded will be less of a time waster for you. The ones you haven't yet alienated, that is. But hey, whether intended or not you did instigate some valuable discussion which led to some useful information, so I thank you for that. Good luck with your search & future adventures.

[Mystic38]

wow, just wow..

Originally Posted by No boat yet

Congrats - it is the internet, anyone can be wealthy here......the thread was never about money......merely that cost was not the driving factor.....size was/is.....the clue is in the thread title......my sailing abilities not the subject either, see the opening statement, I have no sailing ego to pander to.....the question was, "is there any reason not to get a 65ft boat from a regulatory compliance perspective or a practical perspective in Marinas/moorings in various parts of the world......yes, I will be buying a 60-65 ft boat......thank you for your suggestion that it will be an unpleasant experience.......sigh......shall be staying away from all the negativity exhibited on this forum and plan to enjoy myself.

[MYTraveler]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

LThis is probably well outside the OP's price range but I post it because it was one (smart) man's idea of the proper vessel for the job outlined.

I guess you missed the OP's comment that money is no object, backed up by the gratuitous point that he already owns a 29 tonne aereoplane, as well as multiple cars and motorcycles.

For what it is worth, I although I known/have known some truly wealthy people, I can't imagine one ever thinking, let alone saying, "money is no object". Money is always an object.

[FamilyVan]

No Boat Yet,


I have done some research into British regs. It seems the primary regulatory concern over 13.7 meters (about 40 feet or so) is the requirement that you carry a bell, with a 12" mouth. I would guess boats sold in the Uk would come equipped with the bell. If not, you could purchase one for less than $1000, dollars (maybe 500 british pounds?). You will need appropriate flares and lighting as well, which, your purchase should already be equipped with.


Aside from that your 60-65 foot vessel, used for pleasure, should be seen as a small pleasure craft. From an aviation perspective, if that helps, she would be equivalent to an ultralight aircraft, minimal over sight. The smallest threshold that I can find for serious regulatory requirements would be pollution regs in the 300+ ton range (a 65 foot sailboat might be 15-30 tons?).


Some of your country men might be able to correct me, but basically, I don't see any significant regulatory concerns in the size rang you are interested in.


Pleasure Craft Regulations & Equipment | Pleasure Craft Regulations | Regulations | Information & Advice | RYA


Regards,
FV


Correction, 13.7 meters is about 45'

[mrohr]

Dear No Boat Ever…. Are you any relation to Donald Trump?………..

[estarzinger]

^^ family, it is unfortunately not that simple/easy . . . . Just for example the states of Washington and Alaska require either an on board pilot or a posted bond for foreign flagged (eg not us) vessels over 65'. Steve Dashew was prosecuted for this (caman islands flag).

[El Pinguino]

I believe Skip Novak's larger boat , 'Pelagic Australis' , has to take a pilot every time she goes to Ushuaia... she is about 73 foot... but I think the rule there is 'over 50 GRT'.

[estarzinger]

^^ yes Harbour pilot AND shipping agent required over 50 tones. Billy Budd should have been over and been required, but "for some reason" (lol) the ships papers that were shown to the Harbour authorities listed her as 49 tones.

Note: this is the ships papers gross tones - not the actual displacement. They usually are quite different.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ yes Harbour pilot AND shipping agent required over 50 tones. Billy Budd should have been over and been required, but "for some reason" (lol) the ships papers that were shown to the Harbour authorities listed her as 49 tones.

Note: this is the ships papers gross tones - not the actual displacement. They usually are quite different.

Ed zackery.... displacement is weight.... gross and registered tons are volume....

Used to be that one gross ton was 100 cu ft... dunno about these days.
Frinstance.. my boat has a light displacement of about 8 tons.... but her gross and registered are both 16 tons.

[Pelagic]

Tonnage Defined

Deadweight Tonnage : expresses the number of tons of 2,240 pounds that a vessel can transport of cargo, stores, and bunker fuel. It is the difference between the number of tons of water a vessel displaces "light" and the number of tons it displaces when submerged to the "load line." Deadweight tonnage is used interchangeably with deadweight carrying capacity. A vessel's capacity for weight cargo is less than its total deadweight tonnage.
Cargo Tonnage : is either "weight" or "measurement." The weight ton in the United States and in British countries is the English long or gross ton of 2,240 pounds. In France and other countries having the metric system a weight ton is 2,204.6 pounds. A "measurement" ton is usually 40 cubic feet, but in some instances a larger number of cubic feet is taken for a ton. Most ocean package freight is taken at weight or measurement (W/M) ship's option.
Gross Tonnage : applies to vessels, not to cargo. It is determined by dividing by 100 the contents, in cubic feet, of the vessel's closed-in spaces. A vessel ton is 100 cubic feet. The register of a vessel states both gross and net tonnage.
Net Tonnage : is a vessel's gross tonnage minus deductions of space occupied by accommodations for crew, by machinery, for navigation, by the engine room and fuel. A vessel's net tonnage expresses the space available for the accommodation of passengers and the stowage of cargo. A ton of cargo in most instances occupies less than 100 cubic feet; hence the vessel's cargo tonnage may exceed its net tonnage, and, indeed, the tonnage of cargo carried is usually greater than the gross tonnage.
Displacement : of a vessel is the weight, in tons of 2,240 pounds, of the vessel and its contents. Displacement "light" is the weight of the vessel without stores, bunker fuel, or cargo. Displacement "loaded" is the weight of the vessel plus cargo, fuel, and stores.
For a modern freight steamer the following relative tonnage figures would ordinarily be approximately correct:
Net tonnage4,000
Gross tonnage 6,000
Deadweight carrying capacity 10,000
Displacement, loaded, about13,350
Registered Tonnage

A vessel's registered tonnage, whether gross or net, is practically the same under the American rules and the British rules. When measured according to the Panama or Suez tonnage rules most vessels have larger gross and net tonnages than when measured by British or American national rules.
Source: Article appearing in the American Export Lines , Passenger List from June 28, 1932.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

No Boat Yet,

I have done some research into British regs. It seems the primary regulatory concern over 13.7 meters (about 40 feet or so) is the requirement that you carry a bell, with a 12" mouth. I would guess boats sold in the Uk would come equipped with the bell. If not, you could purchase one for less than $1000, dollars (maybe 500 british pounds?). You will need appropriate flares and lighting as well, which, your purchase should already be equipped with.

Aside from that your 60-65 foot vessel, used for pleasure, should be seen as a small pleasure craft. From an aviation perspective, if that helps, she would be equivalent to an ultralight aircraft, minimal over sight. The smallest threshold that I can find for serious regulatory requirements would be pollution regs in the 300+ ton range (a 65 foot sailboat might be 15-30 tons?).

Some of your country men might be able to correct me, but basically, I don't see any significant regulatory concerns in the size rang you are interested in.

Pleasure Craft Regulations & Equipment | Pleasure Craft Regulations | Regulations | Information & Advice | RYA

Regards,
FV

Correction, 13.7 meters is about 45'

Out of curiosity I boned up a little on this question with a bit of internet searching. In brief:

If you operate as a commercial vessel, for example by chartering (as is commonly done with larger yachts) and you are no more than 24m load line length (a complicated measurement based on 96% of their definition of water line length. I work it out to be in the region of 94 ft loa) then you need to be coded and comply with the MCA rules linked to here:
https://www.gov.uk/operational-stand...ssels/overview

Those rules govern safety requirements and a lot of other things for example that boat operation requires a minimum of 2 appropriately qualified crew for normal practical use. The rules look a lot like the much heavy duty rules such as as would govern the operation of large vessels.

The link to rules governing all commercial ships is:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vessel-c...-certification

Operated just for the owner's pleasure use then the rules governing 13.7m to 24m Load Line Length are replaced with these, which are much less onerous:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...re-vessels.pdf

I just noticed an interesting section of this document, it says on page 13:

13. Foreign pleasure vessels operating in the UK
13.1 Foreign pleasure vessels operating from UK ports in UK waters will be given no more
favourable treatment than UK pleasure vessels. Foreign pleasure vessels may be subject to inspection by the MCA under UK legislation.

I thought there were international agreements to respect the rules under which the boat is flagged. This seems to contradict that.

[Steadman Uhlich]

To Pelagic: Thanks for adding that description of the various tonnage terms. I had always wondered about the various terms and that article made it clear. Another example of what one can learn reading threads on CF!