Boat size recommendation. Go large or go home?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

For me (for us) we learned our sweet spot for monohulls was in the 36 to 42 foot range, depending on the actual boat model. We have lived on our 37-footer now for many years (6 months at a time), and have no need to go larger.

There was thread on here perhaps last year were the majority supported the range 37 - 41 feet or so, with a few thinking bigger.

Mike's suggestion of thinking were you want to cruise is sound. If you are anchoring in the Caribbean does length matter? However, squeezing into a space on a Greek harbour wall or paying mooring fees in Lymington tends to focus the mind.

How about this? just under the 12m price bracket jump for Greek taxes and EU marina charges.

https://www.yachtworld.co.uk/boats/1...owse%20listing

Dockhead (on here) and I spent a pleasant afternoon drinking on board a M38 a couple of years ago in Cherbourg. I think the crew were ex dinghy racers and with some sexy sails had no problem achieving some excellent passage speeds.

The return trip from the YBW Rally was planned for Sunday but a forecast F8 later in the afternoon saw us depart early at dawn. The Moody 38 left later and by all accounts had a great fast run across the channel to home in the weather. There is a 36 also with an island bed in the rear cabin, but not much cheaper probably down to the fact its an ideal size for a couple.

https://www.moodyowners.info/threads...dy-38cc.18082/

[Hudson Force]

The only reason we bought a bigger boat was because our children kept growing.

[DawnTreader]

Both smaller and larger boats have their appeal. I often think if I had to do it over again I'd go for something smaller like a contessa 26, but then there are times I find myself dreaming of all the cool modifications I could make to a Rhodes Bounty ll (40ft). The size range for me is a boat big enough to carry all my stuff and small enough to be sailed short handed and engineless in case of a breakdown. Of course the smaller the cheaper and easier to sail, so I generally revert to dreaming of a contessa 26 type boat. Our 30ft Allied Seawind is a nice compromise between stuff carrying capable and engineless sailable.

[LittleWing77]

Well how 'bout that. Seems the Universe might be listening to you! Here's an ad just posted on CF this morning:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ch-223767.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m definitely in the “smallest you can live with” camp. . . .

Why "smallest you can live with"?


To each his own, but that's not the way I would look at it.


As others have said, it's a very subjective and individual question based on how you come out on a massive number of tradeoffs, which no one can answer for anyone else.


As a general rule of thumb, bigger means:


1. Faster (and there is a strong correlation because of waterline length)
2. Better motion comfort
3. Safer, easier to handle, and more comfortable in bad weather

4. Obviously more space
5. Easier to work on systems because they are less jam packed into nooks and crannies
6. Better systems
7. Bigger tanks so more autonomy



Smaller means:
1. Cheaper
2. Cheaper to repair and maintain
3. Cheaper and easier to find berthing for
4. Simpler systems
5. Size of everything is less so easier to handle
6. Much cheaper sails and rigging -- cost of this goes up geometrically with boat size
7. Less work to take care of.



YMMV.


So depending on the particular use case, rather than "smallest you can live with", the maxim may be instead "biggest you can afford to maintain" for some people. This may be more and more the case, the longer distances you sail, and harsher climate.

[Adelie]

I cruised southern California on a 20' boat 2 summers ago with my wife and 2 kids.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why "smallest you can live with"?

Because this approach forces you to think about what you really need.

Unless resources are infinite we all face some sort of limitations. Yes, bigger is faster, and easier motion, but there is no end to bigger. This way of thinking doesn’t really get you anywhere, except to buy the biggest you can afford, which is what most people seem to do.

Just like with houses, cars, etc, most of us buy the most we can. This is the way we’re trained to think in our consumer-capitalist societies. I’m suggesting an alternative.

BTW, implicit in the "smallest you can live with,” is also the notion of being too small. That’s why I said I think it wiser to look at one’s needs/wants first, and then match the boat to them. I’ll quote myself:

Instead of size I’d start by considering where and how you plan to cruise. If you plan to spend long periods off the dock and away from services, then good/large storage and large tankage becomes more important. If you plan to sail in thick and thin, then a good, versatile rig is essential. And if you plan to spend more time at anchor, or at the dock, then good living space is what you need. Finally, money matters. A bigger boat will cost more. Obviously you can only buy what you can afford.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Because this approach forces you to think about what you really need.

Unless resources are infinite we all face some sort of limitations. Yes, bigger is faster, and easier motion, but there is no end to bigger. This way of thinking doesn’t really get you anywhere, except to buy the biggest you can afford, which is what most people seem to do.

Just like with houses, cars, etc, most of us buy the most we can. This is the way we’re trained to think in our consumer-capitalist societies. I’m suggesting an alternative.

BTW, implicit in the "smallest you can live with,” is also the notion of being too small. That’s why I said I think it wiser to look at one’s needs/wants first, and then match the boat to them. I’ll quote myself:

Fair enough, but just keep in mind that it's not like buying a house. A house which is bigger than what you really need is just a waste.


But there is never enough storage space on any boat practically of any size. And there is no such thing as too fast or too stable. So unlike that case with houses, if you buy the smallest boat you can live with, you might well be buying something which is sub-optimal for you.


Speaking of my own case -- when I was in the market for a new boat 11 years ago, I thought I wanted a boat of about 45 to 48 feet -- something like that. Had a contract on an Oyster 485 which I thought was just the perfect size. Ended up with this boat, which is quite a bit larger in terms of volume than the Oyster 485 -- there's a big difference in volume between a 49 foot boat and a 54 foot boat. And I thought, larger than I needed, which I considered a significant drawback when I was buying her.


It did not take me long to figure out that she was not at all larger than I needed, although I had previously thought that 49 feet was optimum and 40 feet probably met your criteria of the "smallest I could live with" (the previous boat was 37'). So for the kind of sailing I do, she has turned out to be a very good size indeed and possibly even a little small, with definitely suboptimal deck storage and technical space.



So of course YMMV, and you are absolutely right to say start with what kind of sailing you will do, but I don't actually know many people who bought some boat and later regretted not buying something smaller -- quite different from the case with houses!!



My next boat will be a little larger -- I'm thinking about 65' -- and the main drawback of getting into that size range is the size of the sails and rigging, which is already borderline on my boat for a single hander or short handed. This can be solved by going to a split rig, which is what I have in mind.


In this regard, I very much admire how Steve Dashew did this with his favorite boat, Beowulf:





Look how short the rig is!! It's actually shorter than the rig on my 54 footer!! And that's a 78 foot boat. My mast is about as tall as Beowulf is long. He gets away with that because Beowulf is very light and very narrow for her length, so needs very little power to move.



Dashew cruised tens of thousands of miles in this boat, with just his wife for crew, and said it was the most docile and easy handling boat he'd ever sailed on. While regularly reeling off 300 mile days.




I sail long distances and in harsh latitudes (above 60N as we speak), and I like to sail with a full crew when I can -- sometimes 5 or 6 people. So naturally a larger boat is indicated for my use case. But one thing which will be counterintuitive to some people -- I also like to sail single handed, and I am afraid single handing offshore in these latitudes on anything smaller than this boat. The stability and ease of moving around on a larger boat with proper side decks is a massive advantage for a single hander.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As a general rule of thumb, bigger means:

1. Faster (and there is a strong correlation because of waterline length)
2. Better motion comfort
3. Safer, easier to handle, and more comfortable in bad weather
4. Obviously more space
5. Easier to work on systems because they are less jam packed into nooks and crannies
6. Better systems
7. Bigger tanks so more autonomy

3. In some situations, yes. In others, no. At some point you become highly dependent on complex systems because simple mechanical advantage is no longer enough.
5. But countered with more systems and those systems tend to be more complex...often pushing people to pay for maintenance and repair rather than being self sufficient. (or worse, they can't afford to do proper maintenance and it doubles down on #3)
6. Again...maybe, maybe not. Nothing says a big boat automatically has better systems.
7. Those who go bigger so they don't have to adjust their shore-side lifestyle...really don't get much more autonomy.

It's a complicated subject as you have to define how much DIY you will do and how you are willing to change your lifestyle (even on an 80fter, there will be limitations).

[Mike OReilly]

DH, I don’t think anything you just wrote contradicts what I said … assuming that was your intention.

Apparently the smallest boat you can live with is 49 feet, or is it 65 feet? Either way, that’s for you to decide, which is the real point. There is no One Right Answer to this, or virtually any other cruiser question.

By approaching it my way, it forces people to think about what they actually need. Since the question here was “Go large or go home?” I’m trying to provide a different way to think about things.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

DH, I don’t think anything you just wrote contradicts what I said … assuming that was your intention.

Apparently the smallest boat you can live with is 49 feet, or is it 65 feet? Either way, that’s for you to decide, which is the real point. There is no One Right Answer to this, or virtually any other cruiser question.

By approaching it my way, it forces people to think about what they actually need. Since the question here was “Go large or go home?” I’m trying to provide a different way to think about things.

Well, I agree in general. And wholeheartedly with the proposition that there is No One Right Answer. There's no simple answer to this, for sure.



In my case -- I could live with 16', I guess. My first boat. I did live with it. But can live with and would like to live with may be very different!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

3. In some situations, yes. In others, no. At some point you become highly dependent on complex systems because simple mechanical advantage is no longer enough.
5. But countered with more systems and those systems tend to be more complex...often pushing people to pay for maintenance and repair rather than being self sufficient. (or worse, they can't afford to do proper maintenance and it doubles down on #3)
6. Again...maybe, maybe not. Nothing says a big boat automatically has better systems.
7. Those who go bigger so they don't have to adjust their shore-side lifestyle...really don't get much more autonomy.

It's a complicated subject as you have to define how much DIY you will do and how you are willing to change your lifestyle (even on an 80fter, there will be limitations).

It's good you brought up "change of lifestyle". The way you live and move around a boat is very different depending on the size. It's sometimes compared to:


<30' -- like living in your car


30' to 40' -- like living in a camper


40' to 50' -- like living in an RV


over 50' -- more like living in an apartment


over 100' -- like living in a house.



I don't think this is an illegitimate thing to think about. How you look at this and choose a boat may be very different, depending on how extended amounts of time you plan to be on board. What's fun and great for weekends may not be so good for months at a time.

[Joli]

We cruise a 61’ boat. We love the room, speed and the security of the boat. That said it is more work and expense than a smaller boat. After 20 years of ownership would we go back to a smaller boat? No, the liabilities of a larger boat don’t offset the advantages of the larger boat. And to dovetail into the slow heavy boat thread, it weighs 65,000#’s and easily sails upwind at 9 knots in 18 apparent. Upwind VMG in racing trim is 7.5 knots.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...In my case -- I could live with 16', I guess. My first boat. I did live with it. But can live with and would like to live with may be very different!!

I kinda doubt it DH — not given the kind of rather adventurous and off-the-beaten-path kind of cruising you do

Well, I suppose you could do it..., but my suggestion is not to have people act super-human (or crazy), or take on some sort of severe ascetic approach to life.

People sail across the Atlantic in bathtubs … that’s not what I’m suggesting. It’s just that if you approach the question from the other side of “go large,” then it forces us to really examine what we really need, and perhaps even question what they want.

[jmh2002]

Even when trying to take a more minimal approach as suggested by Mike, some extra length can still often be helpful.

So, a 37 foot boat in a 45ft hull for example, but not filled up with 45ft worth of stuff.

So, longer than the 37, so faster, but lighter than the 45, so also faster than that too. And in both cases a better motion because of the longer lighter ends.

Yes you do pay a bit extra when painting the bottom or going to a marina.

Dashew also made use of this simple concept. His boats tended to have less accommodation than their length suggested.