Benefits of a bigger boat?

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by donoharm

Hello Everyone,


I have been looking at getting a boat in the 35-45 foot range and something I'm noticing is that a lot of companies like Ericson and Islander will make almost the same design - a V birth, salon, and aft cabin that can sleep 6-7 people for almost all their boats this length. My question is, what does one gain, other than higher maintenance costs and slip fees, for a bigger boat? Won't most time be spent on deck anyways? At the 15k-30k price points I'm looking at, it seems that the boats are actually the same condition, same price, just different lengths...

We had an Ericson 38 in the 80s, only a few years old. Held 60 fuel and 100 water. Great cockpit and great galley, with separate stall shower. Back berth was narrow (think late model boats very wide in stern). We went to look at an almost new Norseman 447 in Marina Del Rey ( the importer for Norseman was Wally). Galley was about the same, main salon a little wider (1 foot), V berth and shower-head close to the same. But the center cockpit Norseman had a queen centerline aft berth, and a generator next to the engine. And it was a cutter. Cockpits again about the same size. So the 80K valued Ericson 38 was not bad at all, compared to the Norseman 447 (about $270K in late 80s). Ericson weighed 15K pounds, Norseman weighed 27K pounds. So it depended on what you wanted to do with the boat, and how long on board. Price can go up with between the square and cube of length increase, all things being otherwise equal.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Speed

Payload

Stability/ability to deal with larger seas better.

These 3 things are almost priceless to have.

Agree. But there is a limit. For a live-aboard ocean cruising boat, I would say that anything much over say 8-10 tons and a 27-30 ft waterline length increasingly makes less sense in terms of cost /benefit in speed/payload/stability.

I would also add that payload and stability/ability (or what I would call seaworthiness and seakindlyness) is also very much a function of design (not just size).

Having owned big and small, I am now of the mind that anything over say 30ft is an utter waste of money if one is not living aboard/ocean cruising full time.

[Waveguide]

Bigger boat: higher slip fees and more Captain Big Boat ego boost. OK, my full bias disclosure: I went from a Westsail 32 to a Pearson Ariel. That's a boat volume and weight reduction of about a factor of 8. What changed?

• The hull speed was lower, but now I could surf better on following seas. Often my passage time was shorter - not longer. And on a reach, I'd get their quicker in light airs.
• I didn't need a crew. They're all flakes. I used to miss out on sailing on beautiful days.
• I no longer had to play Tarzan when alighting on the dock.
• I can now manhandle the boat alone at the dock.
• I no longer had a head - which eliminated 90% of my maintenance. I use a camping toilet (bucket and bag) system instead, which I've come to consider far more hygienic than sailing around with a tank full of feces. I don't want to think about the consequences of a holding tank "containment failure."
• The general sea-kindliness is no worse, and often better since the Pearson will stand up to swells taken abeam instead of rolling, and go up and over swells from ahead - instead of nosing her bow in.
• The smaller boat will become unstuck and start moving in just a breathe of air.
• The Pearson will heel readily to 20 degrees and then stiffen up. At that angle of heel, her waterline length is nearly the same as the Westsail unheeled.
• You're closer to the water and feel more connected with the medium. It's consequently just more fun. Don't like getting wet? Then put on foilies or do something else for fun.
• I can still go sail single-handed during this pandemic.

There's a truism that: "All things being equal - a bigger boat is safer." I counter that with: how safe is that bigger boat when short/single handed? All but the saltiest crews will become useless distractions when things get ruff.

The hull speed only increases by the square root of the waterline length ratio. So, double the length and you only increase the hull speed by 41%. You need a boat with a water line four times longer to double the hull speed. The forces on the bigger boat - and the operating expenses - increase by the cube of the length, so both factors will be eight times greater on a boat twice the size, making the bigger boat a bigger dent on your wallet and either much heavier or much weaker and more vulnerable than a boat half its size. There is a definite point of diminishing returns in both strength and expense.

Sailing the Westsail, I felt more like a systems manager piloting an airliner. I'm a pilot, and part of the whole point of sailing for me is taking a break from managing systems. Sailing my Ariel, I feel more like I'm driving a sports car -- not a bus.

My advice is: go with the smallest boat you find adequately comfortable. You'll save money, sail more often, and have a lot more fun.

[Cadence]

With that budget, smaller is better. Look at the cost of anything needed to keep or maintain a boat,

[TrentePieds]

Donoharm:

Others have touched on all the many things to consider, but here for you to chew on is a bit of quantification that underlies everything that others have said:

In ref to post #5: Yes, you are quite right. We all know that THEORETICAL boat speed is calculated by the formula V = 1.34 x SqRt(LWL). For a "30 footer" that would typically be 1.34 x SqRt(25) = 6.7 knots. For a "45 footer" the calculation would typically be 1.34 x SqRt(38) = 1.34 x 6.164 = 8.25 knots. The difference is obviously 1.55 knots. For a 24-hour run at theoretical hull speed (which you will rarely achieve in "real life"), the additional distance run by a 45 footer over that of a 30 footer is therefore 37NM, or in practical terms, the distance from Dover to Calais or from Vancouver to Nanaimo. Or from Toronto Island along the shore to Hamilton.

The benefit of the bigger boat derives not from addition theoretical speed as from greater burden. A 30-footer typically has a displacement of 5 tons. A 45 footer, 16 tons, although newer designs tend to come in under that. Generally, displacement and therefore maintenance costs, will increase according to (increase in LWL)^3. So increasing the LWL from 25 ft to 38 feet suggests an increase in maintenance costs by a factor of (roughly) 1.5^3 = 3.4. There is a wide variation here, depending on the “modernity” of the rig of the given boat and on the complexity of “toys” such as water makers and gensets. But it's a fair rule a thumb that when you increase the LWL by 50% you increase the maintenance cost by a factor of 3.

Now, increase displacement obviously implies greater burden, i.e. ability to carry people and their clobber. Here is how you get a reasonable idea of the increase on that parameter: LWL x BWL x .65 = Water Plane Area. So for a typical 30 footer: WPA = 25 x 8 x .65 = 130. Seawater weight about 64 lbs/CuFt. Therefore the weight of a volume of water 130 SqFt x 12 INCHES deep = 130 x1 x 64 = 8,320 lbs, and for a volume 130 SqFt by 1 INCH deep, 8,320/12 = 693.333 lbs. In consequence for every, say, 700 lbs of people and clobber you bring aboard, the boat will “immerse” (settle on her lines) 1 inch.

For a 45 footer the numbers will typically look like this: 38 x 9.5 x .65 = 234.65SqFt. (235.65 x64)/12 = 1,251.46. Ergo by increasing LWL by 50% you increase burden by ((1250 – 700)x 100)/700 = 78%, call it 80%

So a cold, sober eye attuned to fiscal prudence will tell you that to increase burden by 80%, i.e. to achive less than a doubling of burden, you must treble the budget. No reason you shouldn't do that if you like lighting your cigars with hundred dollar bills :-) Just be aware that that's what you are doing.

So much for bigger being “beneficial”. Bigger may sometimes by NECESSARY, but that ain't the same as being “beneficial” :-).

TrentePieds

[Junglebike]

More length can get you up to 3 cabins - very hard for to get that with less than 40 or 42’. With 3 kids, that’s my reason for going a bit bigger. That and a bigger cockpit.

But I understand it’s a lot more expensive.

[KimAKnight]

I have a Feeling 39 for sale in Charleston SC , great boat .FYI on this site and https://www.boattrader.com/boat/1999...39-di-7366045/

[WatchingWaves]

Hi, I've been researching the same size range. I wanted to emphasize one point that a couple of others touched on.


The holding tanks for fresh water and fuel change dramatically between 34 and 42 ft boats. That might be a big issue for your lifestyle if you plan on staying out "out" for longer periods.


There are a few models of shorter boats with big tanks ( for example, Island Packet) but they tend to be as pricey as the bigger models of other brands.


And, as everyone has said, it all depends on how you want to use the boat.


Good luck with your search!

[waterman46]

I got a pretty big heavy monohull boat for my current usage, and had this boat for 25 years. I didn't choose it for speed, I chose it for comfort. Never once have I wished I had a smaller boat. Less draft would be nice, and I admit to occasional cat envy, but never wanted a boat with less cargo space.

[fred4936]

When we bought our Pearson 34-2 last year, I learned something. I have been learning a lot of things actually, but one was size. For the sailing we do here, the 34 is actually two big. The 27 is a really good size, maybe on the smaller end of things. We got the 34 to retire and cruise on in a few years, so being too big for now is OK. So if you are doing only local cruising, I would go with a smaller, better boat, than a bigger, less good boat for a given budget. Probably find a very nice older Pearson or Tartan for that.

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Donoharm:

Others have touched on all the many things to consider, but here for you to chew on is a bit of quantification that underlies everything that others have said:

In ref to post #5: Yes, you are quite right. We all know that THEORETICAL boat speed is calculated by the formula V = 1.34 x SqRt(LWL). For a "30 footer" that would typically be 1.34 x SqRt(25) = 6.7 knots. For a "45 footer" the calculation would typically be 1.34 x SqRt(38) = 1.34 x 6.164 = 8.25 knots. The difference is obviously 1.55 knots. For a 24-hour run at theoretical hull speed (which you will rarely achieve in "real life"), the additional distance run by a 45 footer over that of a 30 footer is therefore 37NM, or in practical terms, the distance from Dover to Calais or from Vancouver to Nanaimo. Or from Toronto Island along the shore to Hamilton.

The benefit of the bigger boat derives not from addition theoretical speed as from greater burden. A 30-footer typically has a displacement of 5 tons. A 45 footer, 16 tons, although newer designs tend to come in under that. Generally, displacement and therefore maintenance costs, will increase according to (increase in LWL)^3. So increasing the LWL from 25 ft to 38 feet suggests an increase in maintenance costs by a factor of (roughly) 1.5^3 = 3.4. There is a wide variation here, depending on the “modernity” of the rig of the given boat and on the complexity of “toys” such as water makers and gensets. But it's a fair rule a thumb that when you increase the LWL by 50% you increase the maintenance cost by a factor of 3.

Now, increase displacement obviously implies greater burden, i.e. ability to carry people and their clobber. Here is how you get a reasonable idea of the increase on that parameter: LWL x BWL x .65 = Water Plane Area. So for a typical 30 footer: WPA = 25 x 8 x .65 = 130. Seawater weight about 64 lbs/CuFt. Therefore the weight of a volume of water 130 SqFt x 12 INCHES deep = 130 x1 x 64 = 8,320 lbs, and for a volume 130 SqFt by 1 INCH deep, 8,320/12 = 693.333 lbs. In consequence for every, say, 700 lbs of people and clobber you bring aboard, the boat will “immerse” (settle on her lines) 1 inch.

For a 45 footer the numbers will typically look like this: 38 x 9.5 x .65 = 234.65SqFt. (235.65 x64)/12 = 1,251.46. Ergo by increasing LWL by 50% you increase burden by ((1250 – 700)x 100)/700 = 78%, call it 80%

So a cold, sober eye attuned to fiscal prudence will tell you that to increase burden by 80%, i.e. to achive less than a doubling of burden, you must treble the budget. No reason you shouldn't do that if you like lighting your cigars with hundred dollar bills :-) Just be aware that that's what you are doing.

So much for bigger being “beneficial”. Bigger may sometimes by NECESSARY, but that ain't the same as being “beneficial” :-).

TrentePieds

Nice analysis of weight effect on waterline.

I am sure that at least half of the increase in maintenance is because the larger boat will have many items that many folks find advantageous for an enjoyable cruising lifestyle. You have more water, more batteries, more fuel, longer distance under power, a generator, bigger fridge and freezer, two heads, bigger and better dinghy, and the dozens of other items that are very useful for cruising or add to safety. And they all need at least some maintenance or replacement from time to time. That's a very large part of the increase in maintenance, but there is a benefit associated with having the room to have them on board.

[KP44]

The additional space is luxury. And the longer waterline length gives us comfort and speed.

[Mithril Bham]

As you can see it is all personal preference and bias. I like them all for different purposes and reasons.

[Reefmagnet]

Your bank manager gets to retire sooner and you get to work in your job longer.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by donoharm

I have been looking at getting a boat in the 35-45 foot range and something I'm noticing is that a lot of companies like Ericson and Islander will make almost the same design - a V birth, salon, and aft cabin that can sleep 6-7 people for almost all their boats this length. My question is, what does one gain, other than higher maintenance costs and slip fees, for a bigger boat? Won't most time be spent on deck anyways? At the 15k-30k price points I'm looking at, it seems that the boats are actually the same condition, same price, just different lengths...

Given your budget and location, I'm guessing this boat will primarily be on the Great Lakes, with only a slim chance it will see tidewater? In that case, I would say youshould be looking for something between 30' and 36'. I've crewed on boats in this range and they are plenty big enough for most conditions on Lake Ont. I used to crew for racing on a 30', and I got to do some great sailing in 25kt conditions last May on a friend's 36 ft boat.



A boat bigger than that will be considerably more expensive to own, and not all clubs/marinas will be able to take you.