Is there an optimum size of vessel for passagemaking under power?
Fifty-four feet nine inches.
The absurdity of that answer highlights the difficulty of the question.
There are several trade-offs involved, among them comfort, safety, ease of
handling, and cost of operation, and they can all point in different
directions. Just considering safety and comfort might lead one to just say
"make it bigger" but does that mean longer, heavier, or what? Increasing
weight might increase comfort and decrease safety. The hull of a 600' boat
in a Pacific typhoon like that experienced by Mike's father would be subject
to unusually high bending loads that could conceivably result in hull
failure, but a 50' boat wouldn't be subject to that kind of stress.
For owner-operated motorboats, I think most of the tradeoffs for
passagemakers are the same as those for coastal or inland cruising, with the
additional considerations of redundancy, self-sufficiency, reliability and
beefiness, none of which have too much to do directly with size, assuming a
boat big enough to carry the necessary equipment and fuel. Comfort in heavy
seas is the only factor I can think of offhand that might be directly
related to size, but even here the relation is not completely obvious.
What range of size would you recommend?
I think the proper range is from anything that can carry the requisite
equipment and fuel (probably in the 40+ foot range for "normal" boats) to
anything the crew can handle logistically and financially (probably in the
65' range) The Nordhavn 46 is an eminently successful passagemaker, while
the 40, although capable, requires considerably more care in planning. For
a boat carrying a live-aboard couple without full-time crew, a primary
consideration (at least for myself) is the amount of time necessary to be
spent keeping the darn thing clean. I'd hate to have to keep a Nordhavn 62
clean, especially in the Mediterranean with all the Saharan red dust that
shows up quite frequently.
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses.]
>
> Is there an optimum size of vessel for passagemaking under power?
>
Fifty-four feet nine inches.
The absurdity of that answer highlights the difficulty of the question.
There are several trade-offs involved, among them comfort, safety, ease of
handling, and cost of operation, and they can all point in different
directions. Just considering safety and comfort might lead one to just say
"make it bigger" but does that mean longer, heavier, or what? Increasing
weight might increase comfort and decrease safety. The hull of a 600' boat
in a Pacific typhoon like that experienced by Mike's father would be subject
to unusually high bending loads that could conceivably result in hull
failure, but a 50' boat wouldn't be subject to that kind of stress.
For owner-operated motorboats, I think most of the tradeoffs for
passagemakers are the same as those for coastal or inland cruising, with the
additional considerations of redundancy, self-sufficiency, reliability and
beefiness, none of which have too much to do directly with size, assuming a
boat big enough to carry the necessary equipment and fuel. Comfort in heavy
seas is the only factor I can think of offhand that might be directly
related to size, but even here the relation is not completely obvious.
> What range of size would you recommend?
I think the proper range is from anything that can carry the requisite
equipment and fuel (probably in the 40+ foot range for "normal" boats) to
anything the crew can handle logistically and financially (probably in the
65' range) The Nordhavn 46 is an eminently successful passagemaker, while
the 40, although capable, requires considerably more care in planning. For
a boat carrying a live-aboard couple without full-time crew, a primary
consideration (at least for myself) is the amount of time necessary to be
spent keeping the darn thing clean. I'd hate to have to keep a Nordhavn 62
clean, especially in the Mediterranean with all the Saharan red dust that
shows up quite frequently.
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses.]
