# Largest boat 2 people can hande?



## warren5421 (Jan 9, 2014)

Realistically what is the largest sail boat two people can handle in most weather conditions. I figure I have about 10 years before I have to stop. Thinking of saleing the condo and dock space and buying a larger sail boat and doing the pacific. Will hire a young couple to help the first year while learning the likes and dislikes of the boat. It will also give me time to deside what I can't live with and need to change. Have not done much real bad weather sailing using my Chris-Craf ketch.


----------



## GlanRock (Feb 26, 2013)

That is sort of a loaded question. Two people of what skill level? Of what age? What is their mobility (regardless of age)?
My wife and I handle our boat well, its 47 ft, and while I've taken it out solo (well I had crew but they didn't know how to sail but helped me dock) I've been doing it for a long time.


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

Probably you could set up any boat to sail short handed. It is just a matter of adding motorized machinery. The downside is having more equipment that can fail. Personally, my limit is when the boat is big enough that I would need motorized winches, and when the sails are so bit that I could not haul a sail bag around the deck. That would be in the mid 40' range.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Yeas, whats your age, Warren? And while Im asking rude questions, wifes age, flexibitly, fitness etc?

The modern 60 footers are pretty easy for a couple to run for couples in their 60s. 
50 footers are even easier. they give great living space, wonderful deck space.
A 45 foot catamaran would be huge, and easy for 2 to sail. 
My next boat, given some cash (or a stock market that actually goes up 😰) would be a 42 or 45 foot catamaran. The best currently for me at Leopards due to their innovative front door an extra living area on top of the hard top next to the helm.

Its really a money thing more than a size thing.

So, to realllllly be rude: 

US$1 million then go a great, new, fully optioned 45 foot catamaran or 50 foot sloop
Less than US$1m get what you can afford.
Over $2 million youre getting into silly money. A floating jacuzzi with crew to rub in the sunscreen..


Mark


----------



## OntarioTheLake (4 mo ago)

It's all in the person(s). I know delivery skippers who single hand up to 65'. I know couples who shouldn't be allowed on a Catalina 22.


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

37 feet


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

My sense is that in benign conditions sailing a large sailboat with motorized winches etc. and a good AP is not much of a problem. maneuvering in close quarters... docking in and out a slip may be a challenge with a large boat.

You need to determine how large a boat you need. Note that the interior plans of sloops to the low 40s are all the same.

My decades of experience is with the Contest36s which has a large interior, lots of storage and a very large cockpit... plus a rather flush deck. I can recommend this boat for coastal and offshore, single handed, sailed by two or with up to 6 for passages. The only reason for me to have a larger boat would be a longer waterline and faster passages. Aside from that this 36s is more than enough boat. And more boat is more maintenance... usually more expensive parts, sails and so on.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hello,

Just some comments from me. These are all IMO. 

I think you're going about this the wrong way. Who cares how big a boat 2 people can handle? How big a boat do you (and your +1) WANT? Personally I can't imagine two people NEEDING anything over 50' but some need more than others'.

For me PERSONALLY, if I can't manage the sails (bending on, removing, carrying on / off the boat) then the boat is too big. I can carry the main, genoa, and big code 0 on my 40' Jeanneau. I was not able to carry the heavy #1 on the J44 I sailed on. I could probably manage most 42' boats, so I would guess that is my limit.. Some background on me; 58 years old, been sailing for about 20 years. I believe I am fit, strong, coordinated and athletic. I supposed I may change my mind regarding sail management in 10 years.

My Jeanneau has powered winches for the main halyard and main sheets. I also have a bow thruster, and a sail drive with little to no prop walk and good performance in reverse. So I can get into and out slips or docks in most weather conditions. Personally, without the bow thruster it would be a LOT harder to dock the boat. I know a number of people who have good sized boats (36-42') who won't leave the slip if there is 15 kts of wind on the beam. It makes getting back into the slip too difficult. 

Lastly - you asked about 2 people handling the boat. Does that mean only 2 people aboard, or could there be 6 people aboard, but only two who can sail? For just two people you don't need THAT large a boat. If you plan on having 6 people aboard for an extended time then I understand why you might want a 50' boat.

Good luck.

Barry


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

When I began sailing we had a rule of thumb; a single person expecting to take crew or a couple shouldn't buy a boat bigger than one could sail comfortably alone. In those days that was a boat around 40 feet long.
These days, with all the roller furling sails available, that can be greatly increased to at least 55'. I sailed our 53' Pearson for a year alone, until I met my wife to be. I have captained boats that were in the 80 to 85 foot range with one crew (experienced), most often my lady, with no stress at all.
Not counting the financial aspect of size, I think it greatly depends on the skill of the sailors and their ability to handle things should something disable a key bit of gear on the boat. Count on having to sail to anchor numerous times in the West Indies, and to a dock several times, if you are sailing quite a bit.


----------



## warren5421 (Jan 9, 2014)

Looking at 65 good health right now. No wife, just a female friend who got me into sailing. Money should not be a problem as condo and deeded dock are free and clear. I like my Chris-Craf ketch but thought that a larger boat would be easier on the body. The first year would have a couple that knows really how to sail so I can learn. Right now I am pressing 210 lb 3 days a week in the gym.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

warren5421 said:


> Looking at 65 good health right now. No wife, just a female friend who got me into sailing. Money should not be a problem as condo and deeded dock are free and clear. I like my Chris-Craf ketch but thought that a larger boat would be easier on the body. The first year would have a couple that knows really how to sail so I can learn. Right now I am pressing 210 lb 3 days a week in the gym.


You don't need strength to sail. You need smarts. You don't have to lug heavy sails around... use a cart (and halyard). You want to learn how to (single) hand(le) your boat. If you need crew... you are a prisoner to the crew.
You don't need a slip. Get a mooring and use a dink or a launch svs. Learn to anchor. Use all chain and an electric windlass w/ foot switches. Absolutely mission critical is a good autopilot that you can "steer with". Comfort is very important. Additional people on board are useful for watch keeping.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

warren5421 said:


> Looking at 65 good health right now. ... Right now I am pressing 210 lb 3 days a week in the gym.


SanderO might say you don't need strength to sail, but I say you need strength to live! So pressing 210 pounds 3 times per week you'll live far longer than people who dont go to the gym. As we age we need the gym more than the young junkies.

I would suggest a fit 65 year old who goes to the gym can easily learn any attribute of sailing on any size boat - unless your brain is putty.
I'd go find a boat show and have a look. If, im not mistaken, the Annapolis boat show is in a week or so with the greatest number of new sailboats in the USA.
Flights are cheap, book accommodation right now as it gets tight.

Mark


----------



## sburke (4 mo ago)

warren5421 said:


> Realistically what is the largest sail boat two people can handle in most weather conditions. I figure I have about 10 years before I have to stop. Thinking of saleing the condo and dock space and buying a larger sail boat and doing the pacific. Will hire a young couple to help the first year while learning the likes and dislikes of the boat. It will also give me time to deside what I can't live with and need to change. Have not done much real bad weather sailing using my Chris-Craf ketch.


I have lived on boats from 58'-75'-103'-and now a Nordhavn N80. The N80 is a major crossing boat with a 4000 range but it is also a great live abord with upper and lower saloons, main floor master and an elevator which is a God send in high seas (10'-15' ft). We handle the boat easily with 2 people, If we go for 5 days non-stop (Like Ocean Reef to Nantucket) we will talk a third crew to help with overnight watches
Scott Burke M/Y JessConn


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

What BarryL said.

Instead of asking "what is the largest boat we can handle?" you should be asking "what is the smallest boat that will serve all of our needs?"


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

As others have suggested, the question probably should be "What is the smallest boat that suits our needs?" The question is "what is the largest boat that two people can handle? " is somewhat of a "how long is a piece of string?" question. After all, Alain Colas single-handed the 236 foot _CLUB MEDITERRANEE_ across the Atlantic in the 1976 Ostar Trans-Atlantic race in the days before boat automation was as advanced is it is today. Recently, Jean Le Cam, a 62 year old French sailor raced a 60 foot boat non-stop around the world and came in fourth in an older design to boot. 

But also when it comes to how big a boat a couple can handle. the size of the boat should be measured in displacement and not length, for while length does play a bit of a role, displacement more than anything else controls the forces involved in handling a boat, the interior volume of the boat, and the carrying excess capacity of the boat., When I started sailing there was a rule of thumb that suggest that a cruising boat should have a displacement of 2 1/2 to 5 long tons per person (5600 to 11,000 lbs per person) Of course, that was before modern multi-speed winches, high modulus sail cloth and lines, low friction block and many of the other niceties we have gotten used to in the 60 years since I started sailing. That rule of thumb also does not account for the modern sailor's desire to have all of the comforts of home. 

These days, I would probably suggest that a more reasonable range is closer to 10,000 to 15,000 lbs. per person, but with come caveats. This is where personal preference, physical fitness, and experience level comes in. As boats start to approach the upper limits of that range, it becomes increasing difficult to manage the boat without more complex a systems. Up to about 25,000 lbs displacement, the boat can be managed with conventional geared winches, but even as that limit is approached, it requires someone in really good condition to grind in a genoa or haul up a mainsail on a boat that size with conventional winches. If you don't want to add stored powered winches and sail handling gear, then the next move is to add 'coffee grinder' type winches which allows a tremendously more effective means of handling the line loads. 

With size everything gets more expensive and complex and more dangerous to operate. For most cruising couples, once a boat gets above 24,000 lbs the tendency is add powered winches, and then hydraulic vangs, and backstays. These come with a big price tag and a major drop in reliability. Some folks also switch to in-mast furling systems as well, which again is a big ticket item that comes with a drop in reliability. Each of these make it easier to manage a bigger boat with less physical strength. 

Similarly, over perhaps 15,000 lbs, a boat is too big to easily manhandle when docking. As displacement increases over that t requires more skill to come into a dock or leave a dock short-handed and without injuring the crew members or the boat, Bow thrusters, and rotating sail drives, or a multi-hull's twin engines help enormously in close proximity maneuvers. But again at the price of complexity. (That said the dual engines on a multi-hull do provide redundancy that a single engine boat lacks) . 

If this was me, in my mind, I would never want to handle anything bigger than perhaps 45 feet, and that assumes that both members of the couple are extremely physically fit. I bought my 10,500 lb. 38 foot planning to single- or double hand her to Europe At the time, that seemed like an ideal size for a couple. I was concerned that as a boat got bigger it would get deeper and that would begin restrict my cruising options and require stored energy. I was friends with couple who sailed a 63 footer around the world, and, yes there were times and places where that length became a problem, but they dis it. 

.But in the end, as at the beginning, it comes down to your capabilities and preferences If you are willing to put in the hard work to get into good physical condition and learn to be a really good sailor, and have a lot of money to throw at this, then the sky is almost the limit, But otherwise, as others have said, look at a bunch of boats and mentally try them on for size., You might find that you don't need or want that XXL and might do much better with a medium. 

We are here to listen as you go through that process and kick in more ideas. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. We look forward to hearing about your journey. 

Jeff


----------



## warren5421 (Jan 9, 2014)

It sounds more like I should stay with my Chris-Craf ketch as it is in the length range that is being given for two people. I can keep the condo and lease it for a year to see if living on the ketch will work full time. My 3 kids think I have gone off the deep end. My lady has her life and money and is up for this also. Will see if the boat and condo makes it through the next few hours/days.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> As others have suggested, the question probably should be "What is the smallest boat that suits our needs?" The question is "what is the largest boat that two people can handle? " is somewhat of a "how long is a piece of string?" question. After all, Alain Colas single-handed the 236 foot _CLUB MEDITERRANEE_ across the Atlantic in the 1976 Ostar Trans-Atlantic race in the days before boat automation was as advanced is it is today. Recently, Jean Le Cam, a 62 year old French sailor raced a 60 foot boat non-stop around the world and came in fourth in an older design to boot.
> 
> But also when it comes to how big a boat a couple can handle. the size of the boat should be measured in displacement and not length, for while length does play a bit of a role, displacement more than anything else controls the forces involved in handling a boat, the interior volume of the boat, and the carrying excess capacity of the boat., When I started sailing there was a rule of thumb that suggest that a cruising boat should have a displacement of 2 1/2 to 5 long tons per person (5600 to 11,000 lbs per person) Of course, that was before modern multi-speed winches, high modulus sail cloth and lines, low friction block and many of the other niceties we have gotten used to in the 60 years since I started sailing. That rule of thumb also does not account for the modern sailor's desire to have all of the comforts of home.
> 
> ...


Good summary... If you are looking for a "cruising boat" you want comfort.. accommodations and stowage. You want a design that lends itself to single handing and sailing by a couple. Boats get crowded so less on board is usually desirable. The design needs to be one you could spend a lot of time in and not feel "limited"... good galley, comfortable head, excellent ventilation, comfy berths, good head room. These days you don't need a chart table... but a comfortable place to work with your plotter... maybe a below decks one as well as one above decks. Most important is a great AP which is like a crew who can steer straight as an arrow and does not have to be fed. I no longer have the strength to haul up the heavy main. I use a Milwaukee drill with a winch bit. Same for anchoring... all chain with electric windlass. And of course a large cockpit where you can stretch out... with comfy cockpit cushions.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Hi folks,

This is a general post, not advising the OP in one way or another, nor being disrespectful to others points or ideas, just discussing things raised so far in the thread:

"What is the smallest boat that suits our needs?"

No one NEEDS a sailing boat.
Its a luxury item.
If you NEED accommodation stay on shore and live on shore.

A boat, sailing or otherwise, is a leisure item and your use of it is not a need.
If you are sailing on flat waters in a confined bay, then yes a small boat may be better, a dinghy maybe best. However if your leisure takes you across oceans then a small boat maybe well able to cross but you would be a crazy idiot to do so in it. A Flika 18 footer is meant to be a world cruising boat but you'd be a nutter to think you'd be at sea in any weather above 20 knots and not be scared. Whereas the same weather in a 60 footer is a mere gentle sail.

My most scary moments on the boat have not been with weather per se but with the enormity of the ocean. On the passage from Panama to Marquesas a boat is the furthest from land than its likely to be anywhere on earth. I think it was 3,000 nms from any mainland. Me in my 39 foot boat felt extremely small. I was extremely careful about where I put any foot incase of injury as that passage is also far from any shipping route if you want to be rescued. If one really wants the leisure activity of ocean crossings enjoyably then the largest possible boat is, by far, still too small. And the only way to operate a large boat is to use the good engineering of the last few decades have allowed us to have electric winches and other gadgets to enable us to do so safely. (Yes, redundancy)
You do not ever have to lug the full weight of a sail to be a sailor. Its never required. Use brains and engineering to solve any issue.

So if one is going on a sub-60 footer one must really understand its a small boat. A 55 footer is small. A 39 footer is far too small, etc.
Buy the biggest possible boat you can afford and use money to make it sailable.
Nowadays, even a motorboat can do it if specialised as @sburke mentions. (I think his boat has a swimming pool... something that is going up my priority list for the next trans-pac I do)

If someone doesnt have the money to buy a substantial size boat for their leisure activity then they should either stay on land or think the idea though very, very carefully.




Mark


----------



## PGandW (4 mo ago)

My advice. Step into this slowly. Sailing the oceans is a world of difference from coastal sailing or bay/lake sailing. Fortunately, I found out a long time ago that I have no burning desire to be sailing the open ocean. Been there, done that. I very much prefer and enjoy the interface between the land and water. As a result, my voyaging is very happily limited to an overnight passage from Miami to the Bahamas, or inter-island group Bahamas, or Key West to Dry Tortugas. A trailerable pocket cruiser accommodates my desire to see new places much better than the capacity for ocean voyaging.

Two of us cruised and enjoyed the northern Bahamas for a month in an ODay 25. Adequate for the purpose, although we were typically the smallest boat seen. Also, from Key West to Dry Tortugas, and the Northwest Passage in Lake Huron for 2 weeks. But I was so much younger and stronger (and poorer) then.

Now I single hand (all day sailing so far) in a Stuart Mariner 19 on Albemarle Sound. I have a tiller clutch and a jib down haul to keep everything manageable from the mast and/or cockpit. The Mariner heaves to very nicely while raising or dropping sail. I can scull with the rudder pretty reasonably for short distances if the motor acts up. The displacement is just enough that my weight placement is not critical, yet light enough to fit on my boat lift or easily trailer to other waters. If there were 2 of us camping aboard for a month at a time, I would probably want a bigger trailerable boat.

Total investment in a 2500 sq ft water front house on 1.5 acres, 2 boat lifts, new 19ft center console, and the Mariner was less than $700K (2021 prices). I'll take this lifestyle any day over living aboard.

Fred W


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> "What is the smallest boat that suits our needs?"
> No one NEEDS a sailing boat.


Absolutely true, but I think this is mostly a difference of semantics.

Once you have decided that you want a boat for some reason, there will be certain criteria that it must meet in order to fulfill that reason. Those criteria are the "needs" that I am talking about.

As an example, if your intention is weekending along the coast around your home then you have a completely different set of "needs" than someone who intends to sail around the world. Likewise, if you intend to sail around the world solo, your "needs" will be quite different than someone who intends to sail around the world with a full complement of experienced crew.

In this case, "needs" really refers to the criteria you apply to decide if your boat will serve the purposes that you have in mind for it. Given that definition of "needs," I stand by my statement that it is better to look for the smallest boat that will fulfill all of your needs, rather than the largest boat the you can handle, or the largest boat that you can afford.


----------



## Keefy (10 mo ago)

warren5421 said:


> Realistically what is the largest sail boat two people can handle in most weather conditions. I figure I have about 10 years before I have to stop. Thinking of saleing the condo and dock space and buying a larger sail boat and doing the pacific. Will hire a young couple to help the first year while learning the likes and dislikes of the boat. It will also give me time to deside what I can't live with and need to change. Have not done much real bad weather sailing using my Chris-Craf ketch.


As a 45 year old couple we had a Nautical 56 we lived on for 4 years and which 2 of us would sail south from FL to the Caribbean always heading out ahead of a storm so we would get blown south for at least 4 days. After that we had a Irwin 65 foot ketch with all Hood furling sails and two of us sailed that from Miami each year to and from Antigua with ease. In fact because of its setup this was easier for us to sail than the 56 footer with all in mast electric Hood furling, bow thruster etc. So the set up of the boat greatly affects how many hands you need. But that was 30 years ago. After a 30 year break, now when I’m 77 we’ve just bought our 6th boat, a Beneteau 50. I took it on its first sail for me with a friend from St Martin to Trinidad where it’s currently hauled for the hurricane season. This boat has a furling headsail and lazy jacks on the main with all the lines run back to the cockpit, so more manual than our previous boats but everything controlled from the safety of the cockpit. We had a great sail south in 18-30 knots winds and she was beautiful. So again it’s how the boat is set up which determines how large you can go. Hope that helps. You can email me if you have any further specific questions ([email protected]). Cheers. Keith English
Here’s our new baby creaming it across the Caribbean in 20-33 knot winds doing 8-10 knots and our 20 tons plus just slicing through the seas.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

denverd0n said:


> Absolutely true, but I think this is mostly a difference of semantics.
> 
> Once you have decided that you want a boat for some reason, there will be certain criteria that it must meet in order to fulfill that reason. Those criteria are the "needs" that I am talking about.
> 
> ...


Sensible.... but don't forget that waterline determines speed... and if you want to make decent time a longer waterline is essential. If your living on your boat.. even for weekends or short cruises... you want as many "creature comforts" as you can have. Not all 36' boats have the same accommodations... So the decision is a matrix not limited to waterline or headroom.


----------



## Keefy (10 mo ago)

As a 45 year old couple we had a Nautical 56 (our 4th boat) which we lived on for 4 years sailing thousands of miles each year and which 2 of us would sail south from FL to the Caribbean each year for the winters, always heading out ahead of a storm so we would get blown south for at least 4 days. After that we had an Irwin 65 foot ketch with all Hood furling sails and two of us sailed that from Miami each year to and from Antigua with ease. In fact because of its setup this 65 was far easier to handle than our 56, having all in mast Hood electric furling, massive Lewmar electric winches, bow thruster etc., So the set up of the boat greatly affects how many hands you need. But that was 30 years ago. Now when I’m 77 we’ve just bought our 6th boat, a Beneteau 50. I took it on its first sail with a friend from St Martin to Trinidad (approx 480nm) where it’s currently hauled for the hurricane season. This boat has a furling headsail and lazy jacks on the main with all the lines run back to the cockpit and an electric winch, so more manual than our previous boats but everything controlled from the safety of the cockpit and with ease. We had a great sail south in 18-30 knots winds and she was beautiful to handle and sail, making 8-10 knots for the whole journey. So again it’s how the boat is set up which determines how large you can go. And for the naysayers regarding electric winches, even if any electric winch fail, *which they never did*, you can still use the winches manually. I think electric winches are a massive boon for any larger boat. Hope that helps. You can email me if you have any further specific questions ([email protected]). Cheers and fair winds. Keith English




  








C2E4AA0A-038A-4973-823C-196166B607DC.jpeg




__
Keefy


__
4 mo ago


__
1



Mamma Mia, our new boat in the Caribbean. A Beneteau 50


----------



## Keefy (10 mo ago)

Creaming it on our run South from St Martin to Trinidad, some 15nm east of St Kitts …


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> This is a general post, not advising the OP in one way or another, nor being disrespectful to others points or ideas, just discussing things raised so far in the thread:
> 
> ...


Mark,

I think that you raise an important point about the reality of offshore passage making. While historically many distance passage makers chose to do so in comparatively small boats. they also had a tendency to be lost at sea on a regular basis, When you look at these older designs they seem incredibly cramped. In fact, all of the studies that have looked at factors impacting seaworthiness in heavy weather conditions, only waterline length (assuming adequate structural capabilities) seems to be the one defining characteristic that within reason proportionately correlates with safety. 

I would suggest that when I quoted the question "What is the smallest boat that suits our needs?", I was not intending to imply that the 'need' was for a boat. What I was intended by the word 'needs' in this was the size of the size boat needs to be adequate to carry the crew size, consumables, operational gear, and spares that are required to reasonably safely and comfortably make the passages being contemplated. And while reasonable safety and comfort are somewhat subjective, I would suggest that there are practical in both directions limits to each. To me its a balancing act. Too small, and the passage times become so long that the boat cannot accommodate the necessary consumables and equipment to safely make a longer passage, plus its length alone makes the choice of the boat a substantially more dangerous choice for a passage beyond the range of reasonably accurate weather forecasting.

By the same time, as a boat becomes bigger, the complexity of equipment and operating systems eventually increases dramatically, and the ability to facilitate repairs to the operating systems while short-handed in deteriorating conditions can in itself endanger the crew and craft.

I think for each individual crew and each passage type and location, there is a 'Goldilocks Zone", where the boat is not so small to make the passage more difficult and dangerous, or too big to be manageable if something breaks.

The 'reasonable comfort' side of the equation is more complex and way more subjective. In my lifespan I have watched the expectations for what is a minimal level of comfort grow exponentially. There was a time when a boat the 38-39 foot length of your boat or mine, would have been considered a big boat, and a very comfortable size for a family to take distance cruising. At some point, boats this size became too small for a family, but okay for a couple. Now it seems like couples consider 45 footer to be a practical minimum. I suppose that if you have enough money and enough sailing skills to push around a boat that size, and you feel like you need that much space for the stuff you want to bring along. that would make sense to that person. And I suppose for that couple, they might feel that they 'need' that much boat to feel safe and comfortable.

But that was not what I was intending in my comment.

Jeff


----------



## Keefy (10 mo ago)

Jeff_H said:


> Mark,
> 
> I think that you raise an important point about the reality of offshore passage making. While historically many distance passage makers chose to do so in comparatively small boats. they also had a tendency to be lost at sea on a regular basis, When you look at these older designs they seem incredibly cramped. In fact, all of the studies that have looked at factors impacting seaworthiness in heavy weather conditions, only waterline length (assuming adequate structural capabilities) seems to be the one defining characteristic that within reason proportionately correlates with safety.
> 
> ...


Our boats historically became larger, more comfortable and in my mind much safer. We went from a 15’ dingy to 27’ cabin cruiser to 34, then 56, then 65 and have now settled back down to 50’. We sail thousands of offshore miles each year and as in this video we are heading south in our Beneteau 50 across the Caribbean from St Martin to Trinidad in 22-32 knot winds, about 25 miles offshore St Kitts at this point and creaming it at 8-10 knots constantly, pushing 20+ tons through these seas and loving every minute of it in relative comfort. I’d certainly not want to be dragging along in a smaller slower boat. And at 77 years old I enjoy my comforts.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

warren5421 said:


> It sounds more like I should stay with my Chris-Craf ketch as it is in the length range that is being given for two people. I can keep the condo and lease it for a year to see if living on the ketch will work full time. My 3 kids think I have gone off the deep end. My lady has her life and money and is up for this also. Will see if the boat and condo makes it through the next few hours/days.


By "Chris Craft Ketch", I assume that you are referring to the Chris Craft Caribbean.35, which was the second generation version of the Chris Craft 'Sail Yacht 35" and the only Ketch that I remember Chris Craft building., I would respectfully suggest that would make a very poor choice for a trans Pacific passage, These were old school motor sailors that would either require some mix of extremely long passage times or a whole lot of motoring. They lack the storage capacity and tankage for those kinds of passages. 

While the displacement is generally may fall within an accepted range for a couple to make distance passages, the specifics of the design are not suitable. The minimal ballast ratio carried in a shallow keel, represents a compromised stability. The high drag means that the boat needs to carry more sail area than the low ballast ratio, narrow waterline, and high top hamper will safely permit. Having delivered one of these in not all that bad conditions, the motion comfort, especially in the high raised cockpit, is also ill-suited for offshore passage making, where large roll angles drain crew strength, and diminish the crew's reserve energy to deal with crises.

I would suggest that you consider boats that are better suited for longer passage making., You will be way safer and more comfortable in the longt run. 

Jeff


----------



## wrwakefield (Nov 18, 2015)

Larger boats are not necessarily more difficult to handle. In fact, sometimes easier than smaller vessels. 

As a case in point, some dear friends- now in their 80s- continue to double-hand their 94ft steel ketch as they have for decades here in Alaska. [Our 43ft ketch seems like a tender in comparison...] 

They even wrote a book entitled _Cruising a BIG sailboat - shorthanded_. It is a worthwhile read given your inquiry...

This year they decided to put their boat on the market so they could begin searching for a vessel requiring a bit less upkeep when they reach their 90s... 

In case this is of interest...

Cheers! Bill


----------



## Keefy (10 mo ago)

wrwakefield said:


> Larger boats are not necessarily more difficult to handle. In fact, sometimes easier than smaller vessels.
> 
> As a case in point, some dear friends- now in their 80s- continue to double-hand their 94ft steel ketch as they have for decades here in Alaska. [Our 43ft ketch seems like a tender in comparison...]
> 
> ...


I’m 100% with you Bill. I’m 77 and in May we bought our 6th boat, a Beneteau 50 (previously 15 to 27 to 34 to 56 to 65). The 50’ is easy to handle with all controls run back to the cockpit and an electric winch, has tons of space to relax in and is a dream in a blow. Here we are on a run from St Martin to Trinidad about 25 miles offshore of St Kitts in a 20-32 knot blow creaming it at 8-10 knots in relative comfort as our 20+ tons pushes effortlessly through the seas.
So faster, more comfortably and with a lot more space. Two of us in our 70s have no problems sailing her.


----------



## LaPoodella (Oct 5, 2018)

warren5421 said:


> Realistically what is the largest sail boat two people can handle in most weather conditions. I figure I have about 10 years before I have to stop. Thinking of saleing the condo and dock space and buying a larger sail boat and doing the pacific. Will hire a young couple to help the first year while learning the likes and dislikes of the boat. It will also give me time to deside what I can't live with and need to change. Have not done much real bad weather sailing using my Chris-Craf ketch.


We’ve had racers up to 65 feet. It is harder to dock the larger they get. And it depends on how you rig. But we decided 45 feet isn’t too hard for us to dock without help with lines. It’s very shallow draft with a centerboard so we also have a bow thruster which is important since, without the keel down, maneuvering at a dock gets tricky.


----------



## kallettla57 (6 mo ago)

My husband and I have a 38 foot and a 20 foot. We are in our 60's The 38 foot is actually easier to sail. We could go bigger. The only issue is when the engine has crapped out and we had to sail it down a river a couple of times. Then we need an additional two people for strength. Once we were going down wind and he and I were fine. We must have been a sight the first time because people were jumping up in awe and clapping! I wish we had a photo. My daughter said well our ancestors used to sail here, so we can too. True enough. It was a little nerve wracking because people swim in the narrow channel and some boaters can be fairly clueless, but we made it both times with no calamities. In an emergency more than 2 people are welcome, but the majority of time we are good and could sail a much larger boat.


----------



## Pegu club (Jun 10, 2012)

Depends on the “two people “ you know, knowledge, age/strength, as we age we get physically weaker, then unable to use the knowledge at times, and one won’t always have a younger stronger crew member to compensate…, imo, a boat between 35 and 40 feet, bigger if you have a budget that includes a crew, 

Fair winds,


----------



## Sailcrazy (Dec 11, 2013)

FWIW...I'm 77, the Admiral 75. We've sailed our 43'monohull thru Asia, spent 5 seasons sailing the Medd, and are now about to start our 7th season here in the Caribb. We do, occasionally, have guests onboard, but mostly it's just the 2 of us. Except for haul-out and resplash we seldom spend time in a marina. And we've had NO problems! Sure, we've hit some dicey wx, had some equipment malfunctions, etc. And there have been times when we've been the..."entertainment for the day" as we try to back our monohull (w/o bow thruster) into a med moor! But with the MS on a in-mast roller furler, the HS on a roller refer, the a SS (seldom used, but avail) on a roller refer, and a Milwaukee right-angle drill with winchbit to assist on the winches-we've had no problems. Age is a relative thing-if it feels good, ...do it; someday we'll quit...but not anytime soon! We've had no problems with our 43 footer.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

As Jeff noted, bigger, modern, and new boats are more complex.
All Oysters now have an ice-maker as standard. Only a few years ago (OK my childhood!) we never had refrigeration but for a block of ice.

in the 1970s after school I would pull off alternators at the local Auto Electricians for their people to fix. But when was your last car's alternator breakdown? Years? Decades? Same with its tires. I just drover 17,000kms/10,000 miles through Australia's Outback and never got a puncture!
Boats are the same. Yes, SailNets pages are full of equipment failing but given the number of boats on the water, their increasing age, toxic salt water environment etc, equipment is much better than that bought just a decade ago. My dometic portable freezer lasted 8 years in the tropics. Fantastic! My friends with electric winches don't complain, and when was the last broken electric winch thread (not windlass!). Materiels that really do last a lifetime.

More than ever before boats are being launched with 2,000 watts of solar, 2,000 amps of Lithium batteries and airconditioning that are all more-or-less failsafe. (ask @colemj )

No matter what the use of a boat someone desires, theres a boat thats available new now that with drain the pocket but still be far better that normal people could expect. 

I feel its, now, not an age problem as much as it is a money problem. You can pay a few $million for a 100 foot boat you can sail from your condo in NYC remotely. Its just not that hard.  


Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I agree with Mark that equipment has gotten progressively more reliable. His alternator anecdote is a perfect example of that phenomena.

But, I personally do not agree on the power driven winches are perfectly reliable. They certainly are labor saving and make handling bigger boats much easier and safer. But having personally been aboard three separate boats where power winches from several different manufacturers failed, I do not consider them bullet proof. Granted in the one case it was not the winch itself that failed but a failure of the solenoid for the winch. That was only a 10 year old boat that had mostly only been coastally cruised. In the other cases, it was a failure of the motors, in one case a total failure, and in the other a situation where the prolonged run time of a tack caused a condition that would throw the breaker mid tack causing someone needing to dive below and reconnect it. It was later diagnosed as a problem with the motor and was corrected by replacing the motor. Having hauled up a mainsail and having pulled in a reef on 47 footer without an electric winch, its not something that I would want to do in foul conditions. And while you can hand crank a powered winch, at least on the ones I tried to hand crank, there is a mechanism in the socket that makes it hard to keep the handle in the socket.

But I respectfully suggest that this thread illustrates the point I was trying to make when I said. "I think for each individual crew and each passage type and location, there is a 'Goldilocks Zone", where the boat is not so small to make the passage more difficult and dangerous, or too big to be manageable if something breaks." In this discussion, we have SanderO, who cruised his boat extensively, posting pictures of his 36 footer to demonstrate what he considered a comfortable cockpit and interior for distance cruising, we have Mark who has sailed around the world in a 39 footer, we have one member posting essentially the same post three times showing that he felt so strongly in advocating that a 50 foot boat as his absolute minimum, and of course the examples extended all the way up to a couple in their 80's who cruised on a 94 foot ketch.

Even if their individual decision on the right size boat might not work for someone else, none of these folks are wrong. They each of made their own best decision, and their decision worked out for each of them, . In other words, the answer to the question that is the title of this thread comes down to somewhere between 'how long is a piece of string?" and " what size boat works for you personally.?" In the end, there is no universally right answer to this question that truly suits everyone equally. In my mind, at best these discussions provide illumination on the various ways that individuals approach answering a question like this one.

Jeff


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I've been ignoring this thread because the question is of little interest to me. There's almost no limit these days to the size 2 people can handle -- until the SHTF of course. 

But I just read through and see the discussion has evolved. I'm strongly in the "go with the smallest boat that suits your needs." This forces you to really think about what you need, and want, in a cruising boat. Just maximizing boat size based on budget seems like a foolish, and wasteful, approach.

Note that "the smallest boat that suits your needs" approach does not mean going with the smallest boat. It's certainly possible to go too small. You want to find the right size boat. More importantly, you want to find the right boat, of which LOA is only one factor, and not necessarily the most important.

I like Jeff's "Goldilocks Zone" description. This is what I mean by saying, "go with the smallest boat that suits your needs."


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

As a slight aside, re winch motors, but really general redundancy... My pumps were each a different unit designed exactly for their purpose. As my water pumps have failed slowly over the 15 years of ownership I have replaced them all with the exact same model. Its doesnt matter if you are showering, emptying the shower, clearing the bilge or getting a drink, you are using one of 5 or 6 Jabsco Parmax 3.4 (OK Im not on the boat atm so it might be a different one).
So with an electric sheet winch maybe ensure its the same setup, exactly, as the halyard winch, furler winch etc. If one blows up you can move in a replacement.

@Jeff_H said "In my mind, at best these discussions provide illumination on the various ways that individuals approach answering a question like this one.". Exactly. Its up to the reader to decide which is right for him. We can only give our honest opinions. (Except my opinions are more righter! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣)

Mark


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> This is a general post, not advising the OP in one way or another, nor being disrespectful to others points or ideas, just discussing things raised so far in the thread:
> 
> ...


I’m not sure I agree. Ironically aren’t you the living breathing contradiction of your own post? 😛

At the extremes yes of course I agree. Going to sea in a 20ft boat is for the young and very brave. As the size of the boat increases of course yes there are some safety gains. Going across the Pacific on the Queen Mary 2 well then sure we would be by the pool on our 4th Mojito and couldn’t care less about the sea state.

But is a 60ft inherently safer than a 45ft? I’m unsure about that. Seems arbitrary. To my mind halfway between Panama and Marquesas the risks aren’t that different. If you lose the mast…..if you are badly holed by one of those much publicised shipping containers……or have a medical emergency you are in the same situation. Given this is a tradewind route where you might reset the Genoa twice in two weeks for a squall basically _anything_ could safely sail it I reckon given you have enough rice and beer to make Nuku Hiva. It’s just well long…and boring. Very long and you are more likely to die of boredom than your boat being 10 feet too short. Sure halfway across you will feel your own mortality acutely, that’s why you do it, yeah? 

Call me old fashioned but I think the skill of the sailor and the manner and quality of the human matters at that point more than the size of the boat.

in terms of facing big seas we are 42ft LOA but have a trysail, storm jib, JSD and sea anchor, can access and close every seacock on her in 2 minutes and I know my boat and how she sails and know how to use all the above. Happier on my boat than a new 65ft with none of the above and a skipper who thinks he has ‘bought a substantial boat for his leisure activity’ but who doesn’t know how to hove to. Anyway I wouldn’t be expecting to use any of that on a typical tradewind crossing.

I reject the idea that you can ‘buy’ safety. I know it’s in vogue, Perhaps you can buy the illusion of safety but that’s something different.

The salesmen at Annapolis will disagree with me and agree wholehearted with you and I’m sure they will convince many a well heeled couple into a ‘owners version’ 65 footer or 45 foot multihull ‘to safely cross oceans’. “It’s easy you have a substantial expensive boat you will be fine. You can fit the watermaker here next to the ice maker ”  

Now if we are taking about comfort……well that’s another story 😬


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I, and a few others, did an analysis of average LOA of circumnavigators a couple of years ago. Using data that went back to the 1970s, and even a few earlier, the average LOA has remained consistent through the decades: 41 feet.

It's pretty clear the average LOA for coastal cruisers has increased over the years (at least here in North America), but if you're looking at circumnavigators, it has remained stubbornly consistent.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I disagree with most of your post, but having had a container hit us dead amidships in a gale, without any damage (except to our nerves), I'm glad Skipping Stone was a well built boat of 53'. Had we been holed we had the room to carry the tools and damage control materials aboard to most likely keep the boat afloat.
But, in heavy weather, the larger the boat the less the motion and maneuvering on deck is easier, if necessary. I've found not having to sleep on the floor to keep from being thrown out of my bunk more restful as well.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

capta said:


> I disagree with most of your post, but having had a container hit us dead amidships in a gale, without any damage (except to our nerves), I'm glad Skipping Stone was a well built boat of 53'. Had we been holed we had the room to carry the tools and damage control materials aboard to most likely keep the boat afloat.
> But, in heavy weather, the larger the boat the less the motion and maneuvering on deck is easier, if necessary. I've found not having to sleep on the floor to keep from being thrown out of my bunk more restful as well.


Which post do you disagree with ?

At the risk of turning the thread into a ‘my boat is better than yours’ I’m pretty happy with the tools I carry on my 42ft and would suggest ‘Well Built’ has nothing to do with LOA.

I do think though your 53ft is for me the ‘goldilocks zone’ Jeff speaks of. If I was in the market for a new boat I would be looking around 53/54ft. No doubt size matters in heavy weather. It is however certainly not all that matters. To define the safety of a vessel based on its LOA I think would be a simplification.

Playing devils advocate further, I think the maintenance aspect of larger and more complicated vessels needs consideration as well. If Pacific voyaging is the goal, sitting in remote ports for weeks waiting for parts to fly
In can be frustrating.


----------



## Michael Bailey (Sep 10, 2021)

I agree with many here that about 40 - 45 ft LOD is about the sweet spot in size. At least that has been our experience. But there us so much more to a boat than length overall, displacement or the size of the winches, etc. The question is almost unanswerable in a forum like this. Still I know the boat that is in my "minds eye" and it would be, as I said, around 40 - 45 ft LOD and of moderate displacement. Perhaps most importantly, it would be designed and built as a real "sea boat".


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

[QUOTE
Playing devils advocate further, I think the maintenance aspect of larger and more complicated vessels needs consideration as well. If Pacific voyaging is the goal, sitting in remote ports for weeks waiting for parts to fly
In can be frustrating.[/QUOTE]
The parts problem can also be partially solved with the increased storage on a larger vessel. Don't get me wrong, I've sailed boats as small as 36' across oceans and many a boat with no mod coms at all, including autopilot/vane gear, electric lighting (except on the chart table) and electronic navigation aids. I still have my taffrail log and hand bearing compass, so I do speak from experience, not supposition.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

capta said:


> The parts problem can also be partially solved with the increased storage on a larger vessel. Don't get me wrong, I've sailed boats as small as 36' across oceans and many a boat with no mod coms at all, including autopilot/vane gear, electric lighting (except on the chart table) and electronic navigation aids. I still have my taffrail log and hand bearing compass, so I do speak from experience, not supposition.


As someone who has substantial more sea miles than me I always value your point of view 😊

I would never describe myself as experienced but as someone preparing to cross the Atlantic with my family in my 42ft boat I do have skin in the game.

In terms of the parts problem, while a larger boat may carry more spares I guess I personally don’t wish for the headache and responsibility involved with more systems onboard or a more complicated boat overall to maintain. I get that is obviously my personal choice and not an emphatic truth. I also appreciate that a larger boat doesn’t necessarily need to be complicated. 

In terms of the general ‘bigger is safer’ discussion, I do think it is nonsensical to have it in isolation without consideration of all the other factors that go into safety offshore.

I lose more sleep worrying about my rudder or whether my propane stove will kill me thsn whether I should of bought another 4ft.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

2 people can handle a boat that is way bigger than practical usefulness of the space 2 people need in a boat. If you get a boat that has the room you want for 2 people you will be able to handle it


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

chall03 said:


> As someone who has substantial more sea miles than me I always value your point of view 😊
> 
> I would never describe myself as experienced but as someone preparing to cross the Atlantic with my family in my 42ft boat I do have skin in the game.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if my posts sounded as though I was suggesting that you needed a bigger boat. I was speaking only about the advantages I've experienced on larger boats. I was hoping they might answer some of the questions someone looking for a boat might have.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

capta said:


> I'm sorry if my posts sounded as though I was suggesting that you needed a bigger boat. I was speaking only about the advantages I've experienced on larger boats. I was hoping they might answer some of the questions someone looking for a boat might have.


No need to apologise at all. I didn’t take it that way and l think it’s a great discussion to have. Just pointing out in my case it isn’t academic(nor is it for you either I know). I have tried to nail the budget/size sweet spot best I can and well now I get to find out how I’ve gone I guess! 😬


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chall03 said:


> reparing to cross the Atlantic with my family in my 42ft boat I do have skin in the game.


When? Where from? To where? Spill the beanz, please 🙂😀🙂

Mark


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> When? Where from? To where? Spill the beanz, please 🙂😀🙂
> 
> Mark


January…….easy to west! A year later than we had planned ……but well Covid. Also I’ve enjoyed the Med more than I thought and it seemed silly to rush.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chall03 said:


> January…….easy to west! A year later than we had planned ……but well Covid. Also I’ve enjoyed the Med more than I thought and it seemed silly to rush.


We will be between Sint Maarten and Antigua Jan/Feb so we might spot you. 
Don't know where we're headed after, either to the Bahamas/USA or Grenada for hurricane season. 

Mark


----------



## jeremiahblatz (Sep 23, 2013)

In 2017, François Gabart single-handed a 100 foot trimaran around the world non-stop. (It took him 43 days.) So, if you're François Gabart, 100 feet or larger (and with sail area that would dwarf that of most 100 foot yachts).

On the other hand, I could see two people being unable to handle a 28 footer in only slightly challenging conditions.

For me, personally, I think I could manage a 40ish footer confidently.

It depends on how ergonomic and assistive (e.g. power winches) the boat is, how aggressive/twitchy the boat is, and the skill and physical abilities of each crew member. In many parts of the Pacific, the nearest help is very far away, so if something befalls one person on the boat, the other one may have to get to civilization without help. Also, there may be gear failure (e.g. electrical problems), are you prepared to sail the boat to a qualified mechanic without the boat's full capabilities (e.g. electric winches, autopilot, etc.)?


----------



## Bill Berner (Mar 16, 2012)

chall03 said:


> Which post do you disagree with ?
> 
> At the risk of turning the thread into a ‘my boat is better than yours’ I’m pretty happy with the tools I carry on my 42ft and would suggest ‘Well Built’ has nothing to do with LOA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Berner (Mar 16, 2012)

Previous post was an oops.
My 2 cents.
I think what has been missing so far is a discussion of the Goldilocks Zone of non-dimensional specs.
D/LWL, MCR, B/D, SA/D are all tremendously important and need to correlate to the owners experience and type of cruising preferences.
For my part, I don’t want a low displacement really fast fat boat that sits on top of the water, heaving up and down, rolling, and pounding, like a lot of current designs. Don’t feel like getting pooped in one of those huge cockpits, either.
I’m happy with my 235 or so D/LWL, and hi MCR number. My Passport 470 points pretty nicely, sails pretty fast, moves well in pretty light air AND BOY is she a comfortable ride when it’s blowing hard and wind and seas are in opposition.
I’m sure I could find a similarly or even better appointed cruiser (though I love my freezer and washer/dryer) that is faster and points higher, but I wouldn’t trade off any of the comfort of the ride and strength of the build, especially when conditions are snotty.
Totally subjective call to be sure, but the boats performance characteristics have to match the owners preferences and expectations, or all the length, beam, and expresso makers in the world won’t make the be a good fit.
One man’s opinion

Bill Berner


----------



## alanr77 (Jul 24, 2009)

We’re now at the four year point of cruising/living aboard full time. We do it in an old Tartan 34C. For us, one thing that has stood out time and time again is that in a boat this size, I can afford to maintain her to a high standard. If something looks worn, is damaged etc., it can be immediately repaired or replaced with the best parts and materials available based on retirement income. A larger boat would inherently require more expensive/larger parts and we’d have to beg, barter or save money for them more often. We also went as simple as possible. I don’t even have electric pressure water, we use hand/foot pumps….electronics are at a minimum- mostly safety and navigation (I.E Class B+ AIS) with little used for comfort/convenience. We wanted the classic “cramped” sailboat interior. Instead of wanting more storage room, we modified our lifestyle to only have what can be stowed. I want my decks to be clear of everything when on a passage so if it can’t be put in a locker, it’s not onboard. Due to limited diesel capacity (46 gallons total) we sail more. When people come aboard Apparition, a comment is usually made along the lines of “wow, I can’t believe you guys live here as everything is always secured down, stowed away or out of sight”. As the old saying goes, everything has a place and is in its place. We’ve found that by keeping our life as simple as possible, and also keeping costs down, our life is rich with friends and experiences rather than months of waiting on parts and maintenance schedules. As many have said there really isn’t a wrong way. For us 34-36 was and still is perfect. Then again I’m only pushing 50 and the miss is pushing 40 so perhaps our perception and wants will change twenty years from now.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Bill Berner said:


> Previous post was an oops.
> My 2 cents.
> I think what has been missing so far is a discussion of the Goldilocks Zone of non-dimensional specs.
> D/LWL, MCR, B/D, SA/D are all tremendously important and need to correlate to the owners experience and type of cruising preferences.
> ...


There is a reason that its hard to compare non-dimensional data on boats of different periods because the designs have evolved so dramatically. I will point out that your assumptions (modern equals low displacement, really fast fat boat that sits on top of the water, heaving up and down, rolling, and pounding, like a lot of current designs.) are not all that accurate. I will explain more about the why's below.

I will start with the D/LWL. When comparing an older design to a more modern design, modern appear to be much lighter than they really are. If we compare your Passport 470 to an X49, both boats have a similar length on deck (the 49 foot LOA) includes the sprit). But the X49 has nearly four and half foot longer water line. So while the X49 is only roughly 2,000 lbs. lighter (6%), the D/LWL for the Passport 470 is 228 while the X49 has a D/LWL is 155. That would seem like a huge difference until the role of the water line length is considered. In fact, as these boats are sailed, the actual displacements would probably be near identical since, per the modern trend, the published displacement for the X49 is dead empty, while historically cruising boat displacements are more typically calculated with some percentage of loading, In other words, while the assumption is that that modern boats are much lighter, that is not really the case. What has changed is that they have much longer waterlines which greatly reduces pitch and and increases boat speed and seaworthiness.

Similarly with Ballast to Displacement ratios, modern boats tend to have equal or greater B/D ratios. Again comparing the same two boats, the Passport 470 has a B/D around 36 while the X49 has a B/D around 42% with the X49 carrying roughly 1,000 lbs more ballast. The difference in those B/D numbers are not as great as they might appear if you correct for the fact that the displacements are probably calculated similarly. The bigger difference is that the X49 carries a large percentage of that ballast in a bulb resulting in a enormous amount more stability and a much higher righting moment and angle of positive stability as compared to the Passport,

That increased stability allows the X49 to carry a much more efficient and seemingly much larger sail plan than the Passport. with the X49 having an SA/D of 22 as compared to a SA/D around 18 for the Passport. Even if the SA/D is adjusted for the different methods of calculating displacement, that is a huge difference. The question then becomes whether the X49 can carry that sail area into higher breezes without needing to be reefed. The answer is that the X49 has a huge stability advantage over the Passport that would allow it it carry full sail much longer. That is helped by the fractional rig which can be easily depowered. And when its time to reef, the full area of the headsail can still be carried.

So also in reality, as the boats are sailed in the same wind conditions, it will require approximately the same SA/D to keep the boats moving at the same percentage of hull speed, In other words, the Passport would need to use larger overlapping headsails (genoas) in those conditions while the X49 would get by with its standing sail plan. But the Passport's larger overlapping headsails are less efficient, much harder to depower, and much harder to tack or trim. Those larger overlap sails need bigger winches and/or more stored power to tack. And because they are less efficient, the reality is this rig geometry requires more sail area that than of the X49.

Looking at Beam to Length, its easy to think of modern boats as being much beamier, but in fact the Passport has a beam of 14.18 feet while the X49 is slightly wider at 14.73 feet. What is different is how that beam is carried. the newer boats have finer entries and wider sterns and carry more of that beam over a larger % of their length, which really helps with motion comfort by damping both roll and pitch. That beam is a little misleading as well since modern designs have approximately the same water line beam as older designs when upright and actually much narrower waterline beams than older designs when heeled. Since heave is mainly a product of the size of the water plane, and these newer boats trend to sail with a smaller water plane than older designs, the do not heave as much as older designs further adding to their motion comfort.

The other part of the motion comfort discussion is that older designs tended have rounder midship hull sections than the designs that followed them. As a result they tended to roll through a wider angle at a slower speed, which was generally seen into the 1980's and 90's as a more comfortable motion. At the end of that roll, as their topsides entered the water they would quickly pick up stability, and that stability tends to stop the roll, albeit quickly. The price of that slower roll was considerably wider roll angles and that slight jerk at the end of the roll as the topsides buoyancy suddenly stopped the roll. . In contrast, modern designs are purposefully designed to progressively increase stability with heel. That and the keel plan forms and taller rigs greatly dampen roll, so that the roll angles are smaller and slower than the older style cruising boats.

An while many of the racing designs of the 1970's through 1990's tended to pound more than cruising designs, that is not really the case with the more recent designs (at least those without 'scow bows'). The newer cruising oriented designs tend to have finer entries that tend to pound less than the fuller ends on older designs.

Which brings us to those old chestnuts, Comfort Ratio and Capsize Screen Formula. For that, since lunch is almost over and I need to get back to work, I am going to cut and paste an article I had written for a different purpose but which explains why neither formula provides any useful information.

"Capsize screen Formula and Motion Comfort Index:

Several posts refer to the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. Within the yacht science and yacht design community, these formulas have largely been deemed to provide no useful information. By and large these surrogate formulas do not include most of the critical factors that impact motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize (such as damping, horizontal and vertical buoyancy and weight distribution, waterline plane, the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and roll and pitch moments of inertia) and in the case of the impact of beam, both have beam as a negative while the current science suggests that beam is helpful in resisting capsize and that waterline beam is more critical for motion comfort. The net result is that these formulas tell almost nothing about the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.

It is imp0rtant to understand that both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today, in a time before the vast amount of rese4arch that has occurred yacht design science, in the days before modern computers and sensors could measure provide real time accurate information, and allow designers to more accurately model the behavior of their designs. At best these formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than older designs which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. 

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth.

I get why this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal. But in reality, this does occur but in different ways. To explain by example, the 500 lb weight at the top of the mast can be seen as not all that far from reality if two very different boats are compared . 

The first one is a very traditional cruiser that has a heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks and toerails, a heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, maybe a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top. and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And that is compared to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point on the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better damping and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.

There are some better indicators of a vessel’s likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the ‘AVS’, ‘limit of positive stability’, ‘LPS’, or ‘Latent Stability Angle’ ):

_Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )

Where; 
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )
HD: Hull Draft 
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula: 
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168
The Beam and Hull Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation.
Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )_

It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return.

Anyway, I need to get ack to work. I hope this helps explain why some of the items in your post are outdated. By the way, the Passport 470 is a lovely boat. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> We will be between Sint Maarten and Antigua Jan/Feb so we might spot you.
> Don't know where we're headed after, either to the Bahamas/USA or Grenada for hurricane season.
> 
> Mark


Awesome. We are thinking on heading to Bahamas/USA…..but plans still fluid.


----------



## Bill Berner (Mar 16, 2012)

Jeff-
Some fascinating reading, thank you.
I am probably outdated myself!
One of the things that prompted me to write was an experience I had around 5 years ago with a bare boat in St. Maarten. It was a very new Dufour something or other, around 40' LOA. Pretty wide and flat bottom. The conditions on the trip were pretty benign. Waves were under 4' the entire time. Yet the boat pounded like crazy to weather even on those little waves. It cemented my opinion, maybe way too much, of lightweight, wide, surface skimming cruisers.
On the other hand, my calcified reasoning is what eventually put me in the Passport (& thank you for the comment, though it's Bob Perry and Thom Wagner that deserve the credit), which is a very happy outcome.
Best.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

An interesting discussion might be... what informed your decision to by the boat you now sail?

Did you go through a process of "moving up" to a bigger boat?

Did you sail on other's boat a lot before you decided to buy your own?

Did you do "research" online, reading, asking other sailors?

Was "crew requirement" considered? ...or did you look for a boat you could single hand?

Did you consider summer storage options - slip, mooring, trailer?

Did you consider club membership? Why?

Do you intend to get another boat? larger, smaller... different design/rig?


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

We have 2 boats. Both steel so heavy for their LOD. 71 and 70. 

The 44’ cutter has a 5’ sprit so more like a 50’ sail plan, 40,000# displacement. We have recently dine a 13 day passage. She is your “home” 5-6 months per year. Pretty comfortable in bad wx. I would NOT go bigger.

the 33’ cutter,+ 3’ sprit, 16,000# displacement. We have lived and cruised on this for 5 months. A bit tight, not all the amenities. But doable. Much more comfortable to sail. Less comfortable in bad wx. I would NOT go smaller.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Did the OP ever come back and say why / what use he wanted of the boat? 

If it's long offshore there's many who wouldn't go less than an Open 60 (particularly the French! 😅). 

Also if one wanted a new boat (I think this is still allowed?) then there are few diminutive ocean boats now being made. 
Simply, people want the comfort of a larger boat both at sea and to live upon. The average size is constantly increasing and one would wonder why someone would think they can intelligently see what the whole market cannot. 

As for a boat to be kept close to land based home, in a marina, and used occasionally for a week away in summer and often on Saturday afternoons then the whole equation is absolutely dramatically different. A smaller boat is an intelligent idea to balance the high cost of moorage compared to the minor discomfort of the one week per year sleeping in a pilot berth. 

After 15 years living 24/7 365 days per year I can assure you 39 feet is farrrrr to short! Non-congical relations of getting out of bed without disturbing Miss Hotty in the middle of the night for a pee is better in a 50 footer. 

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

The median size for circumnavigators has not increased much over the decades. It has remained around 42 feet for decades. Data is hard to come by, of course, but from what is available, it shows LOA has not increased over time. 

In fact, we had a whole thread dedicated to this question not long ago: 








I was told that for safety offshore you need 45


I was told that for safety purposes you need at the least 45 feed of sailboat. How many of you agree with this statement? :cut_out_animated_em




www.sailnet.com





I have no doubt that LOA is increasing for coastal cruisers, but unless this decades-long reality has suddenly changed in the last couple of years, this does not appear to be the case for long-distance/long-duration sailors.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I strongly and emphatically disagree with you, Mike. 

Even more so when it comes to long range cruisers who might not necessarily be circumnavigating. Atlantic circuit type people going between the Med, Caribbean, USA. Plus the 'Snow birders' going between NE USA and the Caribbean yearly. 
Yes, when one buys a boat at retirement they don't tend to trade that boat often but if the do they _invariably_ go bigger not smaller unless they have gone home, swallowed the anchor and getting a boat for their dotage. 

The simplest way to determain this is to go to a cruising area where people have had to do at least a 1,000nm passage to get to. Check the boats length Vs their age. 
The older the boat the smaller it is (sample size over 10 boats). 

I just don't want to be in a position where my acquiescence to an incorrectly based thought may be thought as some tacit approval of 34 foot boats compared to 45 or 50 foot boats, and more modern being better than older. 
Bigger = safer & more comfortable. 
Newer = more modern systems, engineering, electrical, comfort, liveability. 

No one is regressing to smaller/older when they're "out there". 
I commend folks who are planning to go long range to get the biggest, newest boat they can afford. 

Mark 😊


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

As you know (being a researcher), personal anecdote is the worst kind of data. Go through that not-so-old thread. We discussed it at length. I too was surprised to see the results, because I believed that LOA was increasing. The hard data does not show this -- not unless there has been a dramatic change in the last few years.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Indeed of the 150 entries for this years Trans Atlantic ARC there are just 11 boats smaller than my 39 footer (11.62 meters) . And those smaller ones include some small oceanic race boats (Pogo 36's and Bene Firsts)

World Cruising Club 

11 out of 150.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Mike and Mark's post got me thinking about a data analysis of the length of the boats in the ARC. While I don't think that the ARC necessarily is a fair analysis of all of the boats that are out there doing serious voyaging, I do think it does provide some useful data. The reason that I say that the ARC may not be a fair data source is that its pretty expensive to enter the ARC in terms of entry fees and minimum equipage. In that regard, the ARC might represent a wealthier cohort of the distance cruising community. Therefore, I suspect that the length of the entries is perhaps skewed to one degree or another towards larger boats than may otherwise be out there cruising. To crunch the numbers, I cut and pasted the chart from the ARC page that Mark referenced onto an Excel spreadsheet and let Excel do the work.

The simple findings is that average length of the boats in the ARC was 15.43 meters or 50.63 feet.

That seems to coincide with the perception that preferred size for cruising boats is getting bigger. Of course that does not answer the question poised by the original poster. To really answer the question poised by this thread about boat size with a crew of 'two people', we would need to filter out those boats with larger and smaller crews, which I don't have the time to do. But my sense is that an analysis of two person boats would show that the average size of the boats would get smaller than the overall fleet would suggest, but that is only a guess.

I thought that it might be interesting to use the graphing function in Excel to see the spread of sizes. The vertical scale is length in feet. The smallest boat making the trip was a 28 footer and the largest was 104 feet. There seems to be a pretty linear spread in the range between 39 feet and 65 feet with perhaps a 6 boat spread of the outliers on the smaller end and 5 boat spread of the outliers on the bigger end. I expected to see a dramatic bulge or flattening in the line at some sweet zone, that did not occur. But there are small bulges around 44-45 feet and 52-56 feet. I will also note that for what its worth, 56% of the boats were under 50 feet, 34% under 42 feet, and 18% under 42 feet. 










In my mind, I am not sure that this really does prove anything, but it is interesting,

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suspect most cruiser types would want a larger (LWL) boat for the obvious reasons... speed, comfort, stowage, sea kindliness... but are using smaller boats because of the economics.
What I do notice is that until LOA is large enough to give a stand up/ walk around berth in the aft cabin there is not much difference in a foot or two in length and few will move up a foot or two. Perhaps I am wrong.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Thanks Jeff, all very interesting. I agree with you that the ARC participants are likely going to skew larger and richer. 

Can you also pull out the median number from your analysis? Comparing that to the average will tell the skewing tale. It's why I quoted median, not average, in my previous analysis.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

MikeOReilly said:


> Thanks Jeff, all very interesting. I agree with you that the ARC participants are likely going to skew larger and richer.
> 
> Can you also pull out the median number from your analysis? Comparing that to the average will tell the skewing tale. It's why I quoted median, not average, in my previous analysis.


The median was 14.96 meters (49.1 feet) while the average was was 15.43 meters or 50.63 feet. Dropping the outliers the average drops to 49.9 feet.

I also ran the numbers for the early entries for the 2023 Rally and came up with an average length of 48 feet. 

Jeff


----------



## OntarioTheLake (4 mo ago)

MikeOReilly said:


> Thanks Jeff, all very interesting. I agree with you that the ARC participants are likely going to skew larger and richer.



And, more experienced. 

Reflecting on the OP, the answer really has nothing to do with ARC since most ARC boats have crews of more than two. 

Now, if the discussion got off topic, that's something else. So I'll ask: what's the largest ARC boat with a crew of two?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Not sure length tells the story regarding boats getting bigger or not. For example, we moved from an old 40' CCA design monohull (very similar design to a Bermuda 40) to a 40' modern catamaran. While nominally the same length, the sizes of the boats were dramatically different by probably an order of magnitude. Heck even if we had moved to a 40' Bene or Hunter, the size difference would be 3x.

Tayana 37 vs IP38 - same thing.

So even if the length of boat for circumnavigation hasn't changed over the past many years, I bet the actual sizes of the boats have.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> Not sure length tells the story regarding boats getting bigger or not. For example, we moved from an old 40' CCA design monohull (very similar design to a Bermuda 40) to a 40' modern catamaran. While nominally the same length, the sizes of the boats were dramatically different by probably an order of magnitude. Heck even if we had moved to a 40' Bene or Hunter, the size difference would be 3x.
> 
> Tayana 37 vs IP38 - same thing.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think this could be a very real change.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Sorry I am bit late back to this party (been working to pay for the bigger boat 😛)

I think Jeff's graph is an interesting one but analysing boat size in the ARC and drawing conclusions is a bit like analysing house sizes in the Hamptons to determine the size of the average American house. 

We are cruising in the Med and I know several 40ft boats ourselves included going across, none of which are prepared to pay the entry fee for the ARC. 3K buys you a lot of Rum Punch. So I would suggest that the ARC is naturally swayed towards larger, modern boats skippered by a particular type fo sailor. 

My anecdotal thoughts would be that the average length of long term cruising boats has increased but not by as much as you would think. 

What I personally see happening more, is the move from say a mid 40 something monohull to a multihull. i think the current boating market also supports this. Here in the Med multihulls are selling like hot cakes, but you can pick up an Amel 54 for relatively reasonable money. As a 40 something boater our next move will indeed probably be to a Cat, and among those who I speak to that seems to be a theme. 

Circumnavigators is an interesting group to ponder perhaps, over the last decade most have had to go by way of South Africa rather than the Gulf of Aden. That's a bit of water where I would be glad for the longer LWL and I wonder if that has mean't only the larger braver boats are going all the way around. There is for me, a large difference in the boat I am happy to do a textbook East to West Atlantic crossing in vs taking on the Agulhas Bank. Which is also why I have always found the 'Bluewater' moniker and rhetoric nonsensical.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

When I did my analysis, I mostly used the Latitude 38 list of circumnavigators. It specifically lists people who started from the west coast, and is skewed to small crews (mostly couples). But it includes data for vessels dating back to the 1960s. 

When I did my analysis, I found that the median boat LOA had not changed very much at all over the last 50 years of cruising. It started, and remained, in the 41-foot range. 

My analysis was done a few years ago, so it is possible the size has increased, but a quick scan of the latest additions lists:

• Bristol 35
• Ketch 52'
• Westsail 32
• And an unknown sized boat


----------



## TADIAS (Dec 6, 2003)

Despite all of the great theoretical and personal anecdotal answers, you absolutely can not ignore the rudimentary practical answer which is if the boat is meant for two it will have to be sailed by one. That one being weakest and most inexperienced one that will sail it. There’s really no one that will be able to answer that question for you. 
It was mentioned early in the string that when the SHTF (and it will at some point and at varying levels) that’s when size and systems matter and whether or not they are working in your favor. Will the boat still be safe and be able to remain fully functional even if the strongest most experienced sailor is incapacitated or worse, dead? That may seem morbid but if either sailor isn’t capable of sailing the boat alone it could mean really bad juju for both.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Easiest boat I ever sailed I did a 1,000 NMs Portugal to Canaries where to tack you stood at the wheel and twiddled a few buttons. 

Hell of a lot safer going in the deep ocean in a 54 footer than a 28 footer, 32 footer or even my 39 footer. 

_Safer_ _Easier_ _More comfortable_


Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Easiest boat I ever sailed I did a 1,000 NMs Portugal to Canaries where to tack you stood at the wheel and twiddled a few buttons.
> 
> Hell of a lot safer going in the deep ocean in a 54 footer than a 28 footer, 32 footer or even my 39 footer.
> 
> ...


I agree. We are two on a 46' catamaran, which is a big boat. However, all control lines lead to the cockpit with no reason to go on deck to raise a sail or reef a sail - a cockpit which is dry, secure, and pretty much impossible to fall out of (coamings are waist high) - and any reason to go on deck finds one on a wide, flat, non-heeling platform, where one does not reach the side of the deck when clipped into a harness/jackline. Two engines gives redundant options if something goes so wrong that it is easier to just drop sails and motor around slowly to figure stuff out.

So it isn't just size that determines safety and functionality.

Mark


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Easiest boat I ever sailed I did a 1,000 NMs Portugal to Canaries where to tack you stood at the wheel and twiddled a few buttons.
> 
> Hell of a lot safer going in the deep ocean in a 54 footer than a 28 footer, 32 footer or even my 39 footer.
> 
> ...


Don't you think that's a bit of simplification still? 

I don't buy that doing a tradewind passage, in season, say across the Atlantic that it is a 'hell of a lot safer' in 54ft over say your 39. I mean twiddly buttons are nice though 😛 

It might be more comfortable on the bigger boat yeah, and as per Jeff's posts in bad conditions the extra LWL can be an advantage, but most issues 'out there' say mid Atlantic are chafe, gear failure, rudders, rigs and humans doing dumb things and i'm not sure how the extra feet stops your rudder falling off. 

If you are in the right ocean at the right time, you should not be facing the perfect storm. If we are however talking north Atlantic out of season, or the southern Indian as I mentioned then heck sure. More waterline thanks. 

The multihull argument, I do however buy more. As I said in my post above, our likely next boat would be a Catamaran rather than a larger Mono for all the reasons Colemj listed.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

chall03 said:


> Don't you think that's a bit of simplification still?
> 
> I don't buy that doing a tradewind passage, in season, say across the Atlantic that it is a 'hell of a lot safer' in 54ft over say your 39. I mean twiddly buttons are nice though 😛
> 
> It might be more comfortable on the bigger boat yeah, and as per Jeff's posts in bad conditions the extra LWL can be an advantage, but most issues 'out there' say mid Atlantic are chafe, gear failure, rudders, rigs and humans doing dumb things and i'm not sure how the extra feet stops your rudder falling off.












Fill that form out giving each a score out of 10.

Then add a score for equipment failure.
Then add a score for ultimate survivability.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

All things being equal, bigger is always going to be safer and more comfortable when out at sea. But this is stating the obvious, and it's a progression without an end. If this is the motivator, then a cruise liner is safer, and far more comfortable, than a 54-footer. Surely, if safety and comfort were the primary drivers, none of us would leave land.

This is why I suggest people look at this question from the other end. What's the _smallest_ boat that will fulfill your needs? It might be a 54-footer. Heck, it might be a 60+ foot boat. For the average circumnavigating couple (at least from the west coast) it has been about 42-feet. Some find 30ish feet to be all they need. Heck, some find a floating bathtub enough.

As for the twiddle buttons, they're great... till they're not. This is true of _all_ pieces of equipment on board, so the question is: when they stop twiddling, can you and your crew manage? Can they be fixed? Is there a real alternative, not just some theoretical plan.

As I said, there's no doubt that technology and engineering have made it possible for small crews to manage larger and larger boats. But if safety is truly a primary concern, then the real test comes when the SHTF. In this light, a smaller, simpler boat might be safer.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

MikeOReilly said:


> This is why I suggest people look at this question from the other end. What's the _smallest_ boat that will fulfill your needs?


Thats just some socialist construct. Ohhhh your house is bigger than you NEED.

Just the same as my spreadsheet is, of course, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs so is the rebuttal of your needs philosophy










Look up the pointy end because my last post was about the base of the pyramid.

Does Obama _Need_ this house? Would we prefer him to live under a bridge where he would still be safe and out of the weather?















Mark


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Cute spreadsheet but I don’t do excel unless I’m getting payed 😛

I didn’t say you were entirely wrong , I just said it’s a simplification.

The graph further oversimplifies - Plenty of reasons why you can be hungry, tired, wet and scared on a Swan 65.

Sure as you go to the extremes your argument gets stronger no doubt. 60ft vs 24ft is generally going to be a safer boat all things being equal.

In a gale, in the wrong bit of water though they are ALL small boats.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Thats just some socialist construct. Ohhhh your house is bigger than you NEED.
> 
> Just the same as my spreadsheet is, of course, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs so is the rebuttal of your needs philosophy


I can never tell if you're trying to be funny, or simply antagonistic. You argue bigger is safer and more comfortable. Now you're talking economic philosophy, so what is it? 

BTW the "socialist" comment is childish, and should be beneath you. If you actually read what I say, I'm NOT arguing you should always go smaller. I'm saying, don't be led around by the nose to accept the societal lie that bigger is always better. Understanding what you NEED puts you at the top of Maslow's pyramid.

And if you want to quote research, I'm happy to do so. There are MOUNTAINS of current psychological and behavioural economic research showing that _bigger_ and _more_ does not lead to greater happiness or life satisfaction.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

MikeOReilly said:


> This is why I suggest people look at this question from the other end. What's the _smallest_ boat that will fulfill your needs? It might be a 54-footer. Heck, it might be a 60+ foot boat. For the average circumnavigating couple (at least from the west coast) it has been about 42-feet. Some find 30ish feet to be all they need. Heck, some find a floating bathtub enough.


I agree with you Mike, but I think it is important to be honest with oneself in terms of your actual needs or wants. For some people that may mean the larger boat, air conditioning and a ice maker! 

Being entirely honest we are learning this lesson. We do sometimes wish we bought a bigger boat. 42ft works for us, our boat could take us anywhere we care to sail her. However as our children have grown and we have acquired more ‘stuff’ and spent longer on board, doing longer passages, spending longer at anchor it is sometimes only just working.

Now that’s not about safety, it’s about our lifestyle choices and levels of comfort. It’s about being able to carry more dive gear, go a bit faster and keep more fish in a freezer. 

Having said all that, by buying a modest boat I have never scrimped on maintenance, I’ve upgraded as required and we can happily cruise for as long and far as we desire.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chall03 said:


> I agree with you Mike, but I think it is important to be honest with oneself in terms of your actual needs or wants. For some people that may mean the larger boat, air conditioning and a ice maker!
> 
> Being entirely honest we are learning this lesson. We do sometimes wish we bought a bigger boat. 42ft works for us, our boat could take us anywhere we care to sail her. However as our children have grown and we have acquired more ‘stuff’ and spent longer on board, doing longer passages, spending longer at anchor it is sometimes only just working.
> 
> ...


Completely agree, which is why I said _"It might be a 54-footer. Heck, it might be a 60+ foot boat. For the average circumnavigating couple (at least from the west coast) it has been about 42-feet. Some find 30ish feet to be all they need. Heck, some find a floating bathtub enough." _Point is, and to use Mark's Maslow reference, you become "self-actualized" only by understanding your self. We are bombarded with _more, More, MORE!_ in our societies. It's hard to think through the noise. By looking at the boat size question from the other end, it forces us to actually consider what we actually need.

On the practical side, there is the reality of people falling into the trap of being "house-rich, but cash-poor." I think the same happens with people moving into the boating life. By buying a boat that fits your needs, it makes it easier to live a fulfilling and rich life, without having to be economically worried about maintaining your maxed-out yacht.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

It isn't how big a boat a couple can handle if talking "cruiser". It is how big a boat will it take to get what a cruising couple might want in layout etc. on the boat. Unfortunately most boat builders don't really build boats for a cruising couple. Instead production boat builders as they build longer design to be able to have more people on the boat. So instead of a 40' boat with good tankage and layout with storage for a cruising couple you get a 46' one with smaller tanks, 2 smaller heads instead of 1 good one, extra berths instead of storage.

I have a 41' boat that is really 43.5' OA. I never have wanted a smaller boat and if I could start with a blank piece of paper to design a boat would end up with a 45-48' boat. Bigger than that doesn't really get a couple more useful space 

It gets old on forums to read the endless posts designed to suggest there is something wrong with people that don't want a small boat. A 45-50' boat is a tiny living space, period!


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Don L said:


> It isn't how big a boat a couple can handle if talking "cruiser". It is how big a boat will it take to get what a cruising couple might want in layout etc. on the boat. Unfortunately most boat builders don't really build boats for a cruising couple. Instead production boat builders as they build longer design to be able to have more people on the boat. So instead of a 40' boat with good tankage and layout with storage for a cruising couple you get a 46' one with smaller tanks, 2 smaller heads instead of 1 good one, extra berths instead of storage.
> 
> I have a 41' boat that is really 43.5' OA. I never have wanted a smaller boat and if I could start with a blank piece of paper to design a boat would end up with a 45-48' boat. Bigger than that doesn't really get a couple more useful space
> 
> It gets old on forums to read the endless posts designed to suggest there is something wrong with people that don't want a small boat. A 45-50' boat is a tiny living space, period!


Not sure anyone in this thread is suggesting there is anything wrong with not wanting a small boat ?

I’m certainly not.

My point was folk who are considering 45ft shouldn’t now be running of buying 60ft boats ‘to be safe’. Especially if their cruising plans are one, maybe two vanilla ocean crossings.

I do agree with you, living aboard full time on 45’ boat is by no means palatial by most modern measures.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chall03 said:


> Not sure anyone in this thread is suggesting there is anything wrong with not wanting a small boat ?
> 
> I’m certainly not.
> 
> ...


You’re right. No one has suggested this. 

As for what’s palatial, I guess it all depends on what you’re used to. When I go on board most modern 40+ footers I’m astounded with the living space. Way more than my meagre old-style 37-footer.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> You’re right. No one has suggested this.
> 
> As for what’s palatial, I guess it all depends on what you’re used to. When I go on board most modern 40+ footers I’m astounded with the living space. Way more than my meagre old-style 37-footer.


Probably due to the fact that the notion of a boat for mini cruising and cruising/live aboard is much more common today than it was in the past. Maybe.


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

A couple of thoughts:

1 - I always thing DISPLACEMENT is a lot better measure of size than length.

2- Last spring I had the yard tell me the weight of my boat when we hauled - 22 tons,Monday when we launched I asked the same question - 16 tons. Same lift, different operators.

3 - The biggest boat a 30yo couple can handle will be different when they are 80. That rate of change is not the same for everyone.

4 - We met a dumb a$$ couple, mid 50’s, he had done a circum nav solo,she had crossed the Atlantic to Brazil with him. In our brief encounter they clearly had very few skills, astounding. Clearly sometimes Lady Luck is a silent partner, for better or worse.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suspect that when someone of whatever skill level buys a boat... they will "learn" the boat quickly as they use the boat. Obviously this would depend on your experience level when you make the purchase. I think an analogy might be to a car.. as you use it... it become second nature.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

hpeer said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1 - I always thing DISPLACEMENT is a lot better measure of size than length.
> 
> ...


Displacement comparisons only work when comparing similar types and designs of boats. A Pogo 50 is ~10 tons loaded for cruising. Similar comparing multihulls to monohulls. How this relates to comfort or safety would be a personal preference, but a Pogo 50 and a similar size catamaran are not uncomfortable or unsafe.

We have also magically gained or lost tons (literally) of weight between hauling out and launching, without removal or addition of anything. Travel lift scales are so unreliable that they often don't even get in the general ballpark.

I think most people who cruise from their 30's to 80 will have been through a few boats during this period, with each accommodating them accordingly.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

the scales probably "work" if pay by the pound


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> Probably due to the fact that the notion of a boat for mini cruising and cruising/live aboard is much more common today than it was in the past. Maybe.


I think modern boat maximize living space, but often do so at the expense of storage and tankage. For example, my 37-footer (which is actually 36' 9") has perhaps 125 sq ft of actual living space. But without any real effort we (there are two of us) can easily and comfortably live for three months without touching a dock. We could stock the boat for a year if I wanted -- we routinely stock for 6 months with lots of space left over. Our limiting factor is water, which we can stretch to four months if needed. Fuel would be the other factor I suppose, but we're a sailboat, so the primary engine only takes time to run (i.e. no schedule).

Few modern monohulls of similar LOA would be able to do the same. But that's because they were designed this way. They aren't intended to be operated for long periods off the dock. Days or weeks.

Before someone gets their panties in a twist, I am NOT saying one is right and one is wrong. It's just different. Whatever floats your boat...


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> I think modern boat maximize living space, but often do so at the expense of storage and tankage. For example, my 37-footer (which is actually 36' 9") has perhaps 125 sq ft of actual living space. But without any real effort we (there are two of us) can easily and comfortably live for three months without touching a dock. We could stock the boat for a year if I wanted -- we routinely stock for 6 months with lots of space left over. Our limiting factor is water, which we can stretch to four months if needed. Fuel would be the other factor I suppose, but we're a sailboat, so the primary engine only takes time to run (i.e. no schedule).
> 
> Few modern monohulls of similar LOA would be able to do the same. But that's because they were designed this way. They aren't intended to be operated for long periods off the dock. Days or weeks.
> 
> Before someone gets their panties in a twist, I am NOT saying one is right and one is wrong. It's just different. Whatever floats your boat...


I disagree about tankage. Today, watermakers are common and reliable, so large water tanks are unnecessary. Current model designs are also better sailing boats - particularly in light winds - so large fuel tanks are unnecessary.

I agree that more volume is given to interior appointments rather than storage. Many simply make unused bunk space garages instead and have storage that way. On the other hand, I've been surprised at just how much storage some of these boats actually have, compared to how much they appear to have. When you start bumping out beam and carrying it further to the ends, as well as use more of those ends as waterline, you end up with a lot of storage areas within the larger living accommodations compared to a similar length boat with half the beam, narrower ends, and less usage of those ends.

For example, I bet Don L's 41' Hunter out stows a Rhodes Reliant 41' by probably 2:1. We owned a boat very similar to the Rhodes Reliant and it had pretty much no storage other than some small cupboards and a cockpit locker that went to the pits of hell - large, but not very useable.

Mark


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

> I think modern boat maximize living space, but often do so at the expense of storage and tankage


Exactly.

They “sell” the look, not the function.

BUT, how many folks actually GO cruising? Or sufficiently away from a dock and supermarket that storage becomes an issue?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

How many of these modern boats have you two been on? As I mentioned above, I found the actual amount of storage much larger than it appeared to me superficially on many of these boats. They are out cruising in droves, not on docks, and I have been on quite a few. I'd bet that they have the same amount of absolute storage as your boats (length for length), only the relative ratio of storage to living space is smaller in comparison.

The question about how many folks actually go cruising where storage becomes an issue is equally applied to all types and sizes of boats. The fact is that few boats are cruising at all beyond a weekend or a week or two. 

BTW, they don't sell the look - they sell the dream. Just as they always have. The specifics of the dream may be different today - I don't know anyone buying new boats who romanticizes being on a cramped, slow, few amenities boat anymore for longer than daysailing.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> For example, I bet Don L's 41' Hunter out stows a Rhodes Reliant 41' by probably 2:1.


My 2001 Hunter 410 is HUGE compared to the 1988 Cal-39 I had before. And the only thing the Cal did better was put the rail down in the water and not really get sailing till it got to 30 degrees heel.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

MikeOReilly said:


> I think modern boat maximize living space, but often do so at the expense of storage and tankage. For example, my 37-footer (which is actually 36' 9") has perhaps 125 sq ft of actual living space. But without any real effort we (there are two of us) can easily and comfortably live for three months without touching a dock. We could stock the boat for a year if I wanted -- we routinely stock for 6 months with lots of space left over. Our limiting factor is water, which we can stretch to four months if needed. Fuel would be the other factor I suppose, but we're a sailboat, so the primary engine only takes time to run (i.e. no schedule).
> 
> Few modern monohulls of similar LOA would be able to do the same. But that's because they were designed this way. They aren't intended to be operated for long periods off the dock. Days or weeks.
> 
> Before someone gets their panties in a twist, I am NOT saying one is right and one is wrong. It's just different. Whatever floats your boat...


I have never been on a Rafiki 37, but I am having a hard time seeing where you would have more storage than a modern boat. Our boat has storage under every seat, under almost every floor board there is a fairly deep, clean and dry storage compartment. The aft stateroom is cavernous. On the port side we have an enormous storage area, with tool drawers and a storage cabinet. We have more storage than we know what to do with. I'm sure once I retire and I start provisioning for months rather than weeks we will start using more of it.

In the cockpit we have 2 very large lazarettes. (One of them has 3 inflatable kayaks and snorkeling gear with room to spare.) There is a propane locker that holds 2 propane bottles, and there is a cavernous aft locker for things like cleaning supplies, kayak paddles, boat hooks, brush handles, crab traps etc. Oh yeah and under one of the seats is a liferaft locker. We don't have a liferaft so we have room for 3x 20L Jerry cans of fuel along with miscellaneous other items.


Granted, we only have tankage for 400 liters of water and 135 liters of fuel, but I also have plenty of space to add a watermaker, in fact the plumbing is already there to connect it. Because we are only 16,000 lbs we don't need as much fuel as a heavyweight such as a Rafiki might need, and having good light wind performance, we would probably spend less time motoring anyway.

It seems to me that the vast increase in interior volume in modern boats can't help but translate into more storage as well.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SchockT said:


> It seems to me that the vast increase in interior volume in modern boats can't help but translate into more storage as well.


You'd think so, but not in the limited experience I've got. Anyone who hangs around with other boaters innevitably gets the boat-tour, so I've been through, I dunno... many dozens? In the hundreds perhaps. Certainly seems to be a consistent theme. It's also a complaint I hear from some modern boat owners. But clearly my information is very narrow, and self-selected. 

I really wish this kind of data were easily available. We have databases of boat stats, but I'm not aware of any which list storage space. Sometimes there's mention of tank sizes. I'd love to be able to look at actual data on this, because we all bring rather skewed perspectives to the table.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> I really wish this kind of data were easily available. We have databases of boat stats, but I'm not aware of any which list storage space. Sometimes there's mention of tank sizes. I'd love to be able to look at actual data on this, because we all bring rather skewed perspectives to the table.


I think pretty much all boats list tankage stats. As for storage space, one would need to define that first. Cupboards and closets are relatively easy, but pretty much every boat has other "dead" spaces utilized as storage. Some would never store stuff in a bilge, while others build entire pantry racks there for can goods and wine/beer/rum. Some share their second head as a utility room with washer, watermaker, etc, while others need it to be a full-time head only. Bow and stern lockers are often so oddly shaped that even listing cubic feet wouldn't really tell the story for how they can stow stuff.

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> I think pretty much all boats list tankage stats. As for storage space, one would need to define that first. Cupboards and closets are relatively easy, but pretty much every boat has other "dead" spaces utilized as storage. Some would never store stuff in a bilge, while others build entire pantry racks there for can goods and wine/beer/rum. Some share their second head as a utility room with washer, watermaker, etc, while others need it to be a full-time head only. Bow and stern lockers are often so oddly shaped that even listing cubic feet wouldn't really tell the story for how they can stow stuff.
> 
> Mark


True, although I'm not aware of any database that would allow comparisons, are you? And yes, it would be hard to define storage space.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SchockT said:


> I have never been on a Rafiki 37


I've also never been on a Rafiki 37, but guess it is similar in design to the Tayana 37, of which I have been on quite a few. These, like the Westsail 32, are large boats for their design type. They carry beam further out to the ends than their contemporaries and have round slack bilges almost to the keel. 

So Mike really has a large 37' boat that is not representative of most of the other boats of that age, but he has predicated his position on it being representative.

Instead, let's look at other popular boats at the time his was designed and built (circa 1975) - like the Ranger 37, Ericson 37, Soverel 37, Choate 37, Tartan 37, Pacific Seacraft 37, to name a few.

These boats have little storage space compared to modern designs, and likely a lot less than a Rafiki 37, if that boat is what I suspect.

Don L and I have both described owning older designs and know what the storage is like on them. There simply cannot be a lot of storage on a 10' beam, pointy ends, and LWL/LOA of 60% or so. Or if there is a lot of storage, there isn't a lot of living space.

So the argument can make sense if one compares a relatively large old design to a relatively small new design - particularly if that new design was particularly aimed at racing or club sailing, etc.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MikeOReilly said:


> True, although I'm not aware of any database that would allow comparisons, are you? And yes, it would be hard to define storage space.


I don't know of any manufacturer, organization, or person who has bothered to even measure those volumes, so no data for a database. 

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> So Mike really has a large 37' boat that is not representative of most of the other boats of that age, but he has predicated his position on it being representative.


Hmmmm, that’s something to think about. I know the Rafiki-37 was purpose-designed on the idea of creating a boat that could operate independently for long periods, and with a small crew. Never really thought it was special when it comes to storage, but perhaps…


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

MikeOReilly said:


> Hmmmm, that’s something to think about. I know the Rafiki-37 was purpose-designed on the idea of creating a boat that could operate independently for long periods, and with a small crew. Never really thought it was special when it comes to storage, but perhaps…


I was looking at the layout of your boat and I was surprised at how far the beam is carried aft, not to mention how beamy it is in the first place. It is definitely an unusual design.

Here is the Rafiki 37 compared to a Tartan 37


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I just learned about Sailboat Data's comparison option. Here's three from the Colemj's list: Tartan-37, Rafiki-37 and Pacific Seacraft-37





__





SailboatData.com -


Sailboat and sailing yacht searchable database with more than 8,000 sailboats from around the world including sailboat photos and drawings.




sailboatdata.com





Beam on the Tartan and the Rafiki are very close, and while the schematic suggests the Rafiki carries its beam longer, it is also a double-ender which means the aft offers rapidly diminishing space. 

What really jumps out is the displacement numbers: 

Rafiki: 26,500 lb / 12,020 kg (and this is under what my boat measured on the crane scale, not travel lift)
Tartan:15,500 lb / 7,031 kg
PC: 16,000 lb / 7,257 kg

The others listed are similar lightweights compared to my Rafiki. (There was no Choate-37 listed).

So this lends creadence to Hpeer's comments.


----------

