Up to 40 feet for solo sailing?

[jimbojonesbos]

I believe that for a solo sailor the ideal single hander is in 10-12m range. Big enough to be comfortable for occasional guests and not too slow, small enough that everything can be handled by an able bodied person (plus autohelm) without power winches. Boats of that size will also make docking, mooring, and anchoring easier, and lower entry and maintenance costs.


If this is a retirement plan also consider that your physical strength is going to continuously wane and that the lower costs of a smaller boat will be helpful on a more limited income.



With regard to the critique of the production boats as "blue water" I am willing to bet that there are more total offshore miles under the keels of beneteaus/jeanneaus than any boutique offshore boat. I mean I wouldn't sail a Hunter around the world , but I'd cross the Atlantic on a 10m+ Bene/Jene or take one through the Caribbean or Med for sure.

[KimSails]

I see a lot of posts that seem to refute an upper limit on what can be effectively single-handed bluewater cruising. But what is the range of boat size that is the sweet spot for single-handed bluewater cruising?

There are benefits to choosing a bigger boat -- all else being equal -- like speed, comfort, space. There are benefits to choosing a smaller boat, like purchase/maintenance cost, ease of handling. What size boat is the best balance of the pros and cons?

If you personally were to go boat shopping for such a boat today, with about $100k budget as the OP indicated, where would you set the upper/lower boat length parameters in the search bar at the start of your search?

[Joh.Ghurt]

I'd go for a modern 35' footer, probably where the V-berth is a little wider and opens into the Salon and is separated only by an optional curtain. As I'm sailing alone or with someone sharing my bunk, I don't need that much privacy and this increases the subjective living space.

One head, one guest cabin. If the option presents itself rather tiller than wheel to keep the cockpit uncluttered. Bimini is required and not optional, dodger too, bonus if it's a hard-dodger

This from someone happily sitting as a solo-sailor on a boat about 9' above this.

[SaltyMetals]

Have courage. As long as you are a seasoned sailor i am sure you can go solo. The lower end at 36-38ft in a modern design is not going to be very sea-friendly. 40-46ft will take the waves and any tough weather in a better movement. I chose a 43ft Jeanneau (13 metres) which suits me fine and has impressed some of my sailing friends with her ability to take big sea across the Bay of Biscay in W F 6-7. It is up to you if you wish to pay double for an Oyster, HR, Najad. For solo it is most important to have things set up so EVERYTHING arrives back at the cockpit which is exactly what i have on my Jeanneau 43ds.

As for insurance, i currently insist on a clause for solo but for the time being i accept a limit of max 24 hrs solo. That gives me a passage of 120-150 Nm which is fine for me.

Andrew

[Rigdaddy]

I sail singlehand almost all of the time, and the only time that my boat feels big to me is when I pull into a marina. The last time I was in a marina was for one night, two years ago. When I was young I thought 41feet was huge for a boat. The farther I got offshore, the smaller it seemed. I'm 71 years old now; maybe when I get old it'll seem big again.

[SaltyMetals]

Nowadays a 41-45 ft boat is also going to have a bow-thruster so even going into a marina has become a lot easier. In the 35-38ft range i doubt you will find many fitted with a bow-thruster. So i still think you should aim for 41-45ft (12- 14m) which will have a lot more space and take big seas very easily. Not a problem and even easier to handle in a marina than a 35-38ft if you have a bow-thruster. Plus of course you would have better tankage for diesel & water as well as space for a water-maker. My own personal preference is NOT to have a generator since that is yet another problem for maintenance and servicing. Stick to max solar and possibly also a windgen.
Andrew

PS for Rigdaddy: I am still happy w my 43ft (13m) and i am soon to be 75 so you have a few more years to go!

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No idea about the EU but here in America they don't ask about crew size just about cruising area .

Quite often insurance companies do require certain number of crew for offshore passages or ocean crossings, not that I have had to deal with that since I have not carried hull insurance for many years. For liability insurance they have not made that requirement however we usually do not carry even liability insurance for crossings, preferring to get a new policy when we arrive in a new navigation area.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by SaltyMetals

Nowadays a 41-45 ft boat is also going to have a bow-thruster so even going into a marina has become a lot easier.

By far the majority of cruisers we see, even in the over 40 range, do not have bow thrusters nor are they needed for a boat with a fin keel and a spade rudder.

Maneuverability of a modern boat is such that you can spin a boat, pivoting around its fin keel, easily and by going slow and watching the wind and current you don't need a bow thruster.

Bow thrusters have the following disadvantages:

• Extra weight and space taken by the device
• Extra power requirement which necessitates cabling or battery forward
• Additional maintenance
• AND it is a big drag producing hole in the bow

Anyhow, many if not most used boats don't have thrusters and don't need them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Quite often insurance companies do require certain number of crew for offshore passages or ocean crossings, not that I have had to deal with that since I have not carried hull insurance for many years. For liability insurance they have not made that requirement however we usually do not carry even liability insurance for crossings, preferring to get a new policy when we arrive in a new navigation area.

Agreed however things seem to have changed and not for the good for us . It seems that our "smaller" older boats are endangered . A friend was recently not renewed due to age of vessel and had trouble finding a new carrier that would insure him even just the liability that the marina required .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

By far the majority of cruisers we see, even in the over 40 range, do not have bow thrusters nor are they needed for a boat with a fin keel and a spade rudder.

Maneuverability of a modern boat is such that you can spin a boat, pivoting around its fin keel, easily and by going slow and watching the wind and current you don't need a bow thruster.

Bow thrusters have the following disadvantages:

• Extra weight and space taken by the device
• Extra power requirement which necessitates cabling or battery forward
• Additional maintenance
• AND it is a big drag producing hole in the bow

Anyhow, many if not most used boats don't have thrusters and don't need them.

Only one thing we disagree about and that's is the hole in the bow part .
It's called a retractable bow thruster. They make a couple different styles.

I like this style .
https://side-power.com/kategori/1915/sr-serien/
But personally no I don't have or need one but would have been nice on the spencer.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Quite often insurance companies do require certain number of crew for offshore passages or ocean crossings, not that I have had to deal with that since I have not carried hull insurance for many years. For liability insurance they have not made that requirement however we usually do not carry even liability insurance for crossings, preferring to get a new policy when we arrive in a new navigation area.

One of the few boats I have had hull insurance on was a 2001 5yr old Bene 335..
For that I had full cover up to 400nm offshore so for the St Martin - Azores leg I was uninsured for 1400nm of the trip and the Azores - Portugal mainland leg for just under 100nm.. and that was solo and they knew it.

[Dennis.G]

On range of cruising sailboats I have had a small Dana 24 footer and current Celestial 48 ketch. Of course the 48 footer is faster, more sea kindly and much roomier. That said if my plans were long term solo sailing I would chose the 24 footer over the 48 footer. Being able to handle the smaller sails and rigging in rough weather is much safer and easier. If open to any size I think something like a 29 to 32 footer with a solent type cutter rig would be my ideal, while keeping away from high maintenance features such as thrusters and generators.

[Phyrcooler]

Originally Posted by wingssail

By far the majority of cruisers we see, even in the over 40 range, do not have bow thrusters nor are they needed for a boat with a fin keel and a spade rudder.

Maneuverability of a modern boat is such that you can spin a boat, pivoting around its fin keel, easily and by going slow and watching the wind and current you don't need a bow thruster.

Bow thrusters have the following disadvantages:

• Extra weight and space taken by the device
• Extra power requirement which necessitates cabling or battery forward
• Additional maintenance
• AND it is a big drag producing hole in the bow

Anyhow, many if not most used boats don't have thrusters and don't need them.

I believe a couple of qualifiers are in order here. First - I agree, MOST modern boats do not need a bow thruster. However, as we move into what I would call the “current generation” of modern boats, a bow thruster becomes more important. This is especially true if you regularly dock where cross winds and/or tides are a factor. Many of these modern boats are equipped with 2 features that cause this: sail drives and twin rudders. My boat has both. A sail drive’s output is parallel to the hull, and the previous prop-walk inducing shaft angle is absent. Therefore, I have zero prop walk to help spin in reverse. In forward, because my rudders are so far apart, I have zero effective prop wash moving over the rudder. Therefore, my boat must always be effectively moving either forward or reverse in order to maintain flow over the rudders and control of the boat. Don’t ever get caught not making headway in a fairway or other close quarters. It takes some space and area to get moving and develop enough flow to get the boat turned. Otherwise you immediately become a floating hulk totally at the whim of wind and tide. Being aware of this, I carefully plan my movements. But, if I were ordering new, I would absolutely spec a bow thruster.

In regard to your other point, they are true, but not significant issues. The space where a thruster is located is seldom used for other storage. Maintenance is minimal, other than having your diver keep it clean and any zincs replaced. Lastly, a properly installed and faired thruster tube is a minimal impact on boat drag. Much less than the difference between a fixed and folding prop.

Normally I would agree that a thruster is an unnecessary expense in boats under 40’. That was before I sailed several twin rudder, saildrive boats, and now own one.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

I believe a couple of qualifiers are in order here. First - I agree, MOST modern boats do not need a bow thruster. However, as we move into what I would call the “current generation” of modern boats, a bow thruster becomes more important. This is especially true if you regularly dock where cross winds and/or tides are a factor. Many of these modern boats are equipped with 2 features that cause this: sail drives and twin rudders. My boat has both. A sail drive’s output is parallel to the hull, and the previous prop-walk inducing shaft angle is absent. Therefore, I have zero prop walk to help spin in reverse. In forward, because my rudders are so far apart, I have zero effective prop wash moving over the rudder. Therefore, my boat must always be effectively moving either forward or reverse in order to maintain flow over the rudders and control of the boat. Don’t ever get caught not making headway in a fairway or other close quarters. It takes some space and area to get moving and develop enough flow to get the boat turned. Otherwise you immediately become a floating hulk totally at the whim of wind and tide. Being aware of this, I carefully plan my movements. But, if I were ordering new, I would absolutely spec a bow thruster.

In regard to your other point, they are true, but not significant issues. The space where a thruster is located is seldom used for other storage. Maintenance is minimal, other than having your diver keep it clean and any zincs replaced. Lastly, a properly installed and faired thruster tube is a minimal impact on boat drag. Much less than the difference between a fixed and folding prop.

Normally I would agree that a thruster is an unnecessary expense in boats under 40’. That was before I sailed several twin rudder, saildrive boats, and now own one.

What boat do you sail?

[sail sfbay]

Originally Posted by wingssail

By far the majority of cruisers we see, even in the over 40 range, do not have bow thrusters nor are they needed for a boat with a fin keel and a spade rudder..............Anyhow, many if not most used boats don't have thrusters and don't need them.

I was happy my used Hunter 46 come with one.....makes it really easy to leave my slip and then make a sharp turn to avoid a boat opposite to my berth without stopping and backing up AND stern into my berth without touching the fingers. Only use it for 5-10 seconds during these maneuvers. Very helpful in high cross wind conditions.