Some thoughts on boat size

[CharlieJ]

Laura and I have spent the last six weeks aboard a friends Tartan 41. That time included six days at sea crossing the Gulf of Mexico, in winds reaching 25 knots, and three days sailing from our clear in-port (Progresso) around to Isla Mujeres, Mexico, again totally to weather and again in winds reaching 25 knots..

We have talked at length during this time about the size and complexity of this 41 footer, compared to our Tehani at 25 feet. Our conclusions are that the 41 is simply too big. Huge amounts of space in the main saloon, but most is just that- empty space. Way to large for easy reaching of handholds, plus the empty areas are virtually useless from a storage point of view-

This boat is also equipped with refrigerator/freezer, radar, TWO chartplotters, pressure water, SSB, electric anchor winch, etc. Way to complex for us. The owner spends a good deal of time simply keeping up with systems, and worrying about whether the batteries are up to snuff.

Sail handling, anchor handling, docking etc are serious jobs for two people on a 41 foot boat, particularly when part of the crew is 5'2" and 110 pounds ;).

It's a great boat, and will outsail our boat handily (41 feet against 25 feet) But we concluded we'd rather have our 25.

Although we both agreed that the 6 days to weather would have been completely miserable aboard Tehani ( in the conditions we had), the BOAT would have done just fine. The crew would have been a different story ;D ;D Aboard Tehani, we would have sailed to Key West, then to Isla, sailing on a beam wind.

[s/v Faith]

You know I had some of the same thoughts aboard that Pearson 424...

Sadly, it is still in Marathon.  The Westerbeke apparently started fine a couple times after I left but then
acted like it had developed a internal problem....

... there are advantages, but like you I am quite happy with what I have... (see signature).

[Captain Smollett]

I know we've talked about the advantages of sail handling on small boats vs big ones quite a bit here on sailfar, but I thought I'd throw this into this thread.

I did something today that I *KNOW* I would not like to do on a 40+ footer:  remove the mainsail from the mast/boom with a 20 knot side wind (with gusts over 25 kts per NWS) blowing across the boat.   ;)

How I did it:  Sail ties around sail and boom very loose so they could slide as the bolt rope was pulled out of the boom slot.  As a section came off, tied the loose sail (on deck) into a tube with a sail tie.  This process kept the sail from filling with wind.  Once all off, folded the whole tube over and lashed with another tie.

Then, took the bundle to the shore, in the same wind, and laid out and more properly furled the sail for stowage in a sail bag.

There is no way I'd want to do this with a bigger sail that I probably could not even lift myself (at least without a ton more effort).

Maybe that's just me...

[Tim]

Wheww!! :o   I was glad to get to the part where you were at dockside doing this.


(Otherwise I would have REALLY thought you were nuts!)  ;D

[Captain Smollett]

(Otherwise I would have REALLY thought you were nuts!)  ;D

Yeah, why would I be taking the sail off the boom in those conditions...that's SAILING weather!   ;D

[tomwatt]

Boat size - to me - is kind of an individual thing.
If your boat seems too small, or too big, then comfort (not necessarily creature comforts, but mental space) is affected.

Although I'd planned on getting a smaller, more easily trailered boat this go-around, when this fell into my lap, it just felt right. It's a good size for me and what I hope to do, and after spending several hours aboard digging through it, I was convinced it was a fit for my current needs.

And although this Southcoast throws overboard all the older style builds that traced back to Alberg in favor of something with a topsides more like a Bayliner, it shares some of its hull shape with the older Westerly hulls.

Perhaps the folks in the 40'+ hulls feel good about them, in which case I could not criticize their choice. But part of me wonders if they responded to the boat's lines, or the boat's advertising.

I know bigger does not translate to safer at sea. Storms take down big freighters all the time.

Surely a nice solidly built seaworthy craft speaks well of its owner. Regardless of size.

[CharlieJ]

Some time ago Laura replaced the protective strip on a roller furled jib from an Irwin 46. She couldn't carry the sail. I barely could.

We helped deliver the boat for a haul out and back, and when we returned and were putting it to bed, Laura was putting the mainsail cover on. She had to stand on the mast mounted winches to reach the tie cord up top. She asked the wife how SHE did it- was told "Oh, I keep a ladder aboard so I can reach that"! :o! :o!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Captain Smollett]

Boat size - to me - is kind of an individual thing.

...

Perhaps the folks in the 40'+ hulls feel good about them, in which case I could not criticize their choice.

Well said.  Grog for that.

I will say, however, that I do find it sad when dreams to cruise die.  Sometimes, they die because a person bought more boat than he could afford, financially, mentally or spiritually, to maintain.  It's a VERY difficult thing to be able to predict, but the "conventional wisdom" on LOA "required" to go cruising does not help.

Leading to the problem...

I know bigger does not translate to safer at sea.

I can respect the big boat guy's right to make his choices.  A friend of mine has a 46' schooner that he absolutely cannot sail alone.  He MUST have crew.  But, it's the boat HE wants and he's happy with it.

I just wish the vocal big boat advocates extended me the same courtesy.

[Godot]

It's kind of a stupid thing to say, I guess; but I have the feeling that if you think your boat is too small, too large, or perfectly sized, you are right. 

Whether you prefer a tiller or wheel, you are right.

Stinkpot or ragboat? Right again.

Individuality is a good thing.

More than one big boat sailor (a couple liveaboards in particular) has told me that they don't like to feel like they are camping onboard (almost always stated in those terms).  A legitimate choice.  Personally, I'm comfortable roughing it.  Although, I admit, I would like a few more feet length, a couple inches headroom, a fully enclosed head, and a shower.  Not so much for me (except for the headroom and a better place to store clothes ... I'm looking to move aboard, after all); but for the women I've met who seemed real exited by the sailboat and sailing until they realized how small it really is <sigh>.

[tomwatt]

Although a boat is much more, it's also a tool whose usefulness and fitness to the task at hand can be measured.
Dockside condos are great live-aboards.
Narrow-beamed, deep hulled oldies are great long distance cruisers.
Lightweight trailer-sailers are good for that.

Next to the claw hammer, which is often touted as the most abused tool on earth, boats might well come in second.

[excavman]

Not too many years ago I spent two months working in the High Sierra Mtns of CA. I slept in a pup tent on the ground and cooked my meals on a one burner stove on the hood of my pickup. Compared to that my C-22 is a mansion on water. It's all relative.

Larry

[Bubba the Pirate]

Next to the claw hammer, which is often touted as the most abused tool on earth, boats might well come in second.

If a man with only a hammer thinks every problem is a nail, then I must think every problem is broad reach. :o)

Todd

[tomwatt]

then I must think every problem is broad reach. :o)
Todd

Grog for that!

[Jim_ME]

I recently found this cool sailboat performance calculator with side-by-side comparison feature. http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html

I was surprised when comparing the Rhodes Meridian 25 to the Tartan 41. The Meridian scored considerably higher in several important aspects...   

Capsize Ratio:
Tartan 41 -  1.88
Rhodes Meridian - 1.6

Motion Comfort:
Tartan 41    -  27.64
Rhodes Meridian - 31.53

Displacement to LWL
Tartan 41    - 232
Rhodes Meridian - 450

[Jim_ME]

Comparing a similar-sized Rhodes Reliant 41 design to the Tartan 41 shows how much more seakindly the Rhodes design is...

Capsize Ratio    
Tartan 41 - 1.88
Rhodes Reliant - 1.53

Motion Comfort
Tartan 41    - 27.64
Rhodes Reliant - 44.95

Displacement to LWL
Tartan 41    - 232
Rhodes Reliant - 448 [Consistent with the Meridian]

[CharlieJ]

 :D :D

But let's not tell HIM that!

;) ;)

Of course that last figure means you can't load as much "stuff" aboard. Which means you don't have as much "poop" to keep track of.

;D

[Jim_ME]

Sure thing, I'll keep these specs between us. Bad enough to have to suffer from a crew-punishing boat design, without also having to hear about the comparison...  ;) (To be fair to the T41, it is designed to go fast and crew comfort is secondary--so it is no doubt a success on its own terms)

I was thinking that as you load a boat like and Rhodes or Alberg design, that the overhangs do increase the waterline LWL length as it sits deeper in the water (as it also does when heeled to its sailing lines), to compensate in some degree.

Was looking at some of the other large boats with low motion comfort specs, for instance...

Beneteau Oceanis 381, Motion Comfort=20.59
Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 45.2, Motion Comfort=21.29

Contrast with some of the well-regarded cruising designs...

Allied Seawind, Motion Comfort=39.69
Alberg 37, Motion Comfort=39.3
Bristol Channel Cutter, Motion Comfort=36.89
Cape George 31, Motion Comfort=42.16
Camper Nicholson 32, Motion Comfort=43.52
Hinckley Pilot 35 Sloop, Motion Comfort=36.58
Laurent Guiles Vertue, Motion Comfort=46.91
Rhodes Bounty II, Motion Comfort=40.8
Rhodes Reliant, Motion Comfort=44.95

So I don't know how precise the Comfort Ratio is, but there definitely seems to be something to it when you see this kind of pattern with proven cruising designs.
[Granted, most of these are on the large size...]

[Jim_ME]

If I can share an example of how this has influenced my personal thinking...

For awhile I've appreciated the Laurent Giles Westerly designs, and was torn between the Centaur 26 design and the Longbow 31. I had seen a couple of the larger boats for sale very reasonably (one was a free "project", but had to be transported some distance), and was tempted...

At 6700 lbs, the Centaur is quite large for a older 26-foot design, and the interior is especially roomy, (although the cabin trunk is large compared to the traditional Alberg or Rhodes proportions). It has a mast/rig that is still within the range that a couple people can step (with tabernackle base). The Centaur 26 is quite a bit to trailer, even with a heavy duty pickup, but the 3'-0" draft helps, and it is doable.

The Longbow 31 (or Berwick 31 twin keel) is 2500 lbs heavier, and the interior is quite a bit more spacious, but the 31's mast is so much larger that stepping it oneself is not that practical. Setting up a trailer and towing a 9400-lb boat with a 4'-6" draft (higher CG and total height, 9'-6" beam) is also over the line.

These were real penalties for a cost-conscious do-it-yourself cruiser, but I had always assumed that since the boats were by the same designer and builder, that of course the larger boat will have gains in seakindliness and seaworthiness proportional to its increase in size (displacement).

Wrong. When I now look at the performance specs...

Displacement
Westerly Centaur 26 - 6700
Westerly Longbow 31 - 9261

Hull Speed
Westerly Centaur 26 -  6.18
Westerly Longbow 31 - 6.56

Capsize Ratio
Westerly Centaur 26 - 1.8
Westerly Longbow 31 -  1.81

Motion Comfort
Westerly Centaur 26 - 26.21
Westerly Longbow 31 - 27.13

So I have to conclude that perhaps if one needs the additional room, there is a case to be made for moving up, but for seakindliness and seaworthiness--probably not so much.

That Giles did not include a bridge deck (that the Centaur has) on the larger boat, should perhaps have been a clue that priorities were shifting a bit. The early designs are the ones that made his reputation, while the later ones may be compromises that are made by a now popular builder to reach out to a broader market... [the boats in the previous posts may be exceptional because the designer did not compromise the seakeeping ability to create more interior room, or lighten the displacement to compete with beamy lower-cost boats]

So although the performance specs may not have a precise absolute meaning, I do believe that the application to and comparison of these two somewhat similar designs is valuable. It's not that the Longbow (or Berwick 31) is not a nice boat--it is--but this does help one think about the true costs and benefits (or lack thereof) of a larger boat.

[CharlieJ]

Good stuff.

And also, you might not be aware that Eric and Susan Hiscock's famed Wanderer III was a Laurent Giles design, built in wood- 30 loa, with an 8 foot beam.

[Captain Smollett]

That Giles did not include a bridge deck (that the Centaur has) on the larger boat, should perhaps have been a clue that priorities were shifting a bit. The early designs are the ones that made his reputation, while the later ones may be compromises that are made by a now popular builder to reach out to a broader market... [the boats in the previous posts may be exceptional because the designer did not compromise the seakeeping ability to create more interior room, or lighten the displacement to compete with beamy lower-cost boats]

I'm fascinated by the notion that leaving the bridge deck out has a positive side.  I can think of numerous advantages of having it, and no real downside.  Maybe some argue "getting into the cabin is easier without a bridge deck," but since both of my cabin boats have bridge decks, I've NEVER cussed it as an inconvenience.

Is there really a 'broader market' that demands a boat that lets any water in the cockpit down below?

By the way, Giles is another favorite designer of mine, but as you say, Jim, that may be based on his earlier work.