I don't agree with the philosophy that within the context of passagemakers larger boats are necessarily more complex to the extent that crew maintenance training should affect vessel choice. Realistically we are speaking of a range from 30 feet minimum to perhaps 90 feet maximum and a displacement ranging from 25,000 lbs to 250,000 lbs. The displacement variance (10x) sounds like a broad range but I made a trip once on a ship that displaced over 1.2 billion lbs (4800x more than the largest passagemaker), to keep things in context. In general most contemporary passagemakers are comparably equipped when it comes to the types of basic equipment involved. One could even make the argument that the larger and more expensive passagemaker owners have budgets that allow for significant system redundancy which makes them, potentially, substantially safer. In my view most owners consider their budgets first and let that dictate the size of the vessel that they wind up owning. Given the choice between the pre-described range I would take the larger vessel most times if the operational costs were not a factor or the budget was available. An experienced operator can dock a 90 footer as well as a 30 footer under most conditions and will be a hell of a lot more comfortable. And, with an appropriately designed vessel built of the right contemporary materials the maintenance cost differences will not be that substantial. Georgs, in my rather pragmatic view the right size passagemaker is the one you can afford that will safely take you out on the oceans of the world. Better to get out there now than spend endless hours agonizing over the perfect vessel choice and hoping to achieve a budget that might never transpire. Boats like your 30 footer or some of George Buehler's designs are perfect in the sense that they are more affordable and more accessible than production vessels. My comments about longer, more slender hulls are becoming redundant. My current 68' vessel displaces 160,000 lbs while my new 85' passagemaker will come in under 120,000 lbs and could have been 100,000 if built from aluminium instead of steel. A Krogen 58 has a full 30 feet less LWL at the same displacement. The fuel efficiency/speed differences are remarkable. As far as ballast in passagemakers is concerned it will clearly increase reserve (e.g. ultimate) stability. However, hull form is a major issue. A long, narrow hull with deep draft will tend to be initially tender which has the advantage of a more pleasing and comfortable rolling motion (in addition to being easier to stabilize with paravanes of active stabilizers) but it will have great reserve stability. A shallow draft semi-displacement hull will have greater initial stability, but much less reserve stability and is thus a better candidate for more ballast. Adding ballast should never be done without the advice of a qualified naval architect. Bruce