Changing upper bound of boat size considered suitable for couples

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

Sorry Bud, but you're simply wrong on your figuring.

The cost to replace the Bimini on our 45ft Hunter, Oyster 53 and 62 are all within $200 or so. The cost to replace a toilet pump is the same on all three boats. The cost to replace a failed water pump... the same on all three boats. The cost to replace refrigeration compressors, again.... the same on all three boats.

Throttle linkage.... the same.
Anchor snubber.... the same.
Electronics..... the same.
Dinghy cost.... the same.
LifeSling..... the same.
Life jackets..... the same.
bilge pump..... the same.
Cost of one quart of varnish.... the same (doesn't matter what boat you put it on)
Washing machine... the same.
Watermaker.... the same.
Air Con water pump..... the same.
Engine oil..... the same.
Generator oil..... the same.
Engine impeller.... the same
Generator impeller.... the same.
Sails..... Only needed to replace on the 53 otherwise they were new on the other two boats.

I can go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

You are really trying to stretch here.
Maintaining a 60 ft yacht is gonna cost more than a 40 ft by a long shot. They have a bigger dinghy, larger motors, more electronics, more expensive running rigging, more expensive standing rigging, more expensive anchoring gear, more canvas, large battery banks, the list goes on forever.

[sailorboy1]

For a cruising boat the better measurement of the cost of sails and rigging etc shouldn't be just the "price", but the cost/mile. I bet sails wear mostly due to sun and for the same distance a later boat is faster and the sails see less sun and total time up. Si it all just works out to be pretty much the same.

But, this is just a waste of time. If people want to use the "a 40' just cost too much more to operate than a 36," go ahead. But, so what if it might be true? The person buying the bigger boat can probably afford the small increase it's THEIR MONEY so just get over it people and go about whatever on your boat and stop worrying about other people's boats.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

Sorry Bud, but you're simply wrong on your figuring.

The cost to replace the Bimini on our 45ft Hunter, Oyster 53 and 62 are all within $200 or so. The cost to replace a toilet pump is the same on all three boats. The cost to replace a failed water pump... the same on all three boats. The cost to replace refrigeration compressors, again.... the same on all three boats.

Throttle linkage.... the same. Nope - Will be most likely longer
Anchor snubber.... the same. Nope - Will be thicker with heavier hardware attached
Electronics..... the same. Nope - Will be bigger screened and likely more stations
Dinghy cost.... the same. Nope - Will be most likely be bigger with a more powerful engine and require specialist hauling and storage hardware
LifeSling..... the same. Agreed
Life jackets..... the same. Nope - More people capacity, more jackets
bilge pump..... the same. Nope - More and larger capacity required
Cost of one quart of varnish.... the same (doesn't matter what boat you put it on) Yes, but more varnish and time required to apply
Washing machine... the same. Nope - Usually not installed on a smaller boat
Watermaker.... the same. Nope - As for washing machine and if installed will be smaller capacity
Air Con water pump..... the same. Air Con? On a boat? Buy a Condo!
Engine oil..... the same. Nope - Will use a higher quantity for a larger engine
Generator oil..... the same. Nope - generator will be proportionally larger and many small boats don't have a genset.
Engine impeller.... the same Possibly
Generator impeller.... the same. As for generator
Sails..... Only needed to replace on the 53 otherwise they were new on the other two boats. Will wear out eventually

I can go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

+Anodes
+Antifoul
+Anchor winch
+Ground tackle
+Mooring lines
+Lighting
+Battery capacity
+Battery charging
+Refrigeration
...etc

Basically that's like trying to say that a micro car costs the same as an SUV because sparkplugs, radiator hoses, wheelnuts and fuel costs the same. Just nonsensical. If you can afford it, that's fantastic. Problem is that some people get sucked in and don't factor ongoing expenses into the equation. I know of two owners of boats 50ft+ in length that struggle to cope with the ongoing expenses. Eventually this starts to compromise the safety of the vessel.



And it's not just a matter of the cost factor either; it's the extra time factor for maintenance because even the most chequebook skipper is going to need to fix stuff on their boat whilst out there.

[Paul L]

SB
Sun is a factor but chafe and flogging is the killer.

[Mike OReilly]

It’s clear that some costs rise linearly, and some might even decrease for a large boat. But it’s NOT false to state many (most?) costs increase exponentially with increasing LOA.

There are plenty of excellent reasons to go with a bigger boat. But cost is not going to be one of them (this seems like a blinding flash of the obvious).

I still don’t care what people sail. If you’re out there, you’re good by me . But it’s still an interesting question to try and understand what types of boats are being selected for cruising.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But it’s NOT false to state many (most?) costs increase exponentially with increasing LOA.

It's only false as to how people are using the term "exponentially". Of course the "price" of things increases "exponentially". But I find that a useless statement because if the price when up any at all it went up "exponentially"

BTW - I haven't bought any boat item the past 5 years than was more expense for my 41' boat than would have been for a 36' boat. The closest would be than I guess I could have stored 1/2 of bottom paint for "later" and I guess wax/boat soap.

[Tayana42]

I think I want several boats. A 19-24 foot daysailer for...well daysailing, a 42’ cruising sailboat for the coastal and short passage cruising I do most of the time, a 55’ for longer passages to accommodate extra crew for divided watches and a diesel trawler for days I’d rather not bother with anything more than just turning the key. Now is there one anchor I can use with them all so I can save money on ground tackle? I am on a limited budget after all.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It's only false as to how people are using the term "exponentially". Of course the "price" of things increases "exponentially". But I find that a useless statement because if the price when up any at all it went up "exponentially"

I don’t follow… costs can certainly rise linearly. It is the multi-dimensional natural of boats (areas, volumes) which drive costs exponentially.

I don’t know why this appears contentious for some of you. The benefits of increasing LOA can also be said to increase exponentially. Boat volume, sail area, tankage volume, living space, deck area … all these things increase exponentially.

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

BTW - I haven't bought any boat item the past 5 years than was more expense for my 41' boat than would have been for a 36' boat. The closest would be than I guess I could have stored 1/2 of bottom paint for "later" and I guess wax/boat soap.

You’re missing the point… single items may cost the same (although there are plenty of examples where this is not true). But larger areas/bigger volumes, mean you have to purchase an exponentially greater number of these items (or units).

Take your bottom paint example. Hull surface area increases to the square (assuming all else remains constant). So it’s not going to take you X-times as much paint to cover the hull. It’s going to require X-square.

[mglonnro]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It's only false as to how people are using the term "exponentially". Of course the "price" of things increases "exponentially". But I find that a useless statement because if the price when up any at all it went up "exponentially"

BTW - I haven't bought any boat item the past 5 years than was more expense for my 41' boat than would have been for a 36' boat. The closest would be than I guess I could have stored 1/2 of bottom paint for "later" and I guess wax/boat soap.

I guess it's misleading because the exponent is unknown. If it isn't very big then the resulting value isn't either.

Over here slip fees and winter storage fees are commonly based on area and as beam usually increases with LOA ...

[mglonnro]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You’re missing the point… single items may cost the same (although there are plenty of examples where this is not true). But larger areas/bigger volumes, mean you have to purchase an exponentially greater number of these items (or units).

Take your bottom paint example. Hull surface area increases to the square (assuming all else remains constant). So it’s not going to take you X-times as much paint to cover the hull. It’s going to require X-square.

Mathematically, yes, but the pricing exponent doesn't have to correlate exactly with the size exponent obviously. Referring to my example where sail area increased but price/area decreased. Right? I'm no mathematician so I might be wrong, of course

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by mglonnro

Mathematically, yes, but the pricing exponent doesn't have to correlate exactly with the size exponent obviously. Referring to my example where sail area increased but price/area decreased. Right? I'm no mathematician so I might be wrong, of course

But who really cares about the price per unit sail area? We care about how much the bloody thing costs to replace. And looking at your data (and at many years of buying sails myself) the cost of replacement goes up at a greater rate than the length.

It is foolish to say that bigger boats cost less to run and maintain than smaller ones. Arguing about the amount of difference is OK by me, but despite some specious claims, bigger ain't cheaper when one looks at the overall costs over time.

Jim

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by mglonnro

Mathematically, yes, but the pricing exponent doesn't have to correlate exactly with the size exponent obviously. Referring to my example where sail area increased but price/area decreased. Right? I'm no mathematician so I might be wrong, of course

Yes … and I thank you for that analysis. To really answer the question we’d need to include a lot more data, but I for one appreciate the effort.

Pricing doesn’t have to follow physics. And sometimes unit costs can decrease with greater purchased numbers. Economics is a pretty fuzzy science after all. As I said, it’s certainly true than not all costs are going to increase exponentially. But it’s also not true to say none do.

Perhaps the most accurate generalization to make is that larger boats will cost more money to operate and maintain.

ADD: I see Jim beat me to it .

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

It is foolish to say that bigger boats cost less to run and maintain than smaller ones. Arguing about the amount of difference is OK by me, but despite some specious claims, bigger ain't cheaper when one looks at the overall costs over time.

Jim

If you only look at the boat you are most likely correct.

But using us as an example, if we had a smaller boat we wouldn't be living aboard
That means we would have to find extra monies to pay for ........
A house and associated expenses (or kick tenants out)
A car and associated expenses
A marina berth and most likely yearly membership to a club

Those extra expenses could possibly have us going back to work.
So for us, the bigger boat is cheaper and a whole lot more enjoyable.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

It is foolish to say that bigger boats cost less to run and maintain than smaller ones. Arguing about the amount of difference is OK by me, but despite some specious claims, bigger ain't cheaper when one looks at the overall costs over time.

Jim

Dang it! And I was really hoping I could sell that one to my wife too!

[hpeer]

Mike,

I think the problem is folks get locked into the “per foot” mentality. Per foot is really a very poor way to compare boats. The MUCH better comparison is to look at is “per ton”, or as they say on the Morgan’s Cloud, “How big is your hole in the water.”

This was brought home to me one year at the Annapolis boat show. There were two boats of the same size sitting next to one another. One was a Hunter/Benataue or some such, the other a Gozzard. Superficially the two boats were near identical; length, width, depth, Bertha, heads, etc. The Gozzard was about twice the cost of the production boat, and dam near twice the displacement. The $$/ton were not far off.

One only had to stand there and look at the ground tackle set up to see the difference. One had a cheap sheet metal bow roller, clearly undersized for any serious use. The Gozzard has a substantial bow roller, much bigger and much more stoutly attached. That held true throughout the two boats. In many ways they weren’t even similar.

Some things, such as marina fees, run by the foot. Sail costs run closer to “by the pound”. Heavier boat needs bigger sails to develop thrust to drive it. Bigger sails, more strain, bigger gear.

Because newer boats tend to be lighter than older boats it would be interesting to consider the origional questiondifferently; is the upper bound of TONAGE increasing? Maybe tonage is staying the same but folks are getting more interior volume out of that same tonage.

2¢.