Poll - Cruising yacht hull length; Longer or Shorter?

Shorter or Longer hull for cruising?

  • 30ft

    Votes: 39 37.1%

  • 40ft

    Votes: 66 62.9%
  • Total voters
    105
Depends what you want.
30ft is small if you want to have say 4 or 5 people on board, perhaps to do a late or early season 3 day cross channel jaunt.
40ft is harder to park, takes longer to antifoul, gear can get heavy.
Depth can be an issue, but there are plenty of 2m draught boats at either length.
40ft carries a dinghy on deck easily.
Longer boat is faster, generally more 'seakindly'.
Costs can be disproportionately more.

What will you get more use out of?
 
Eyore said:
...now back to a 32footer I am more than happy that it is the perfect compromise taking into account marina fees, maintenance, draught, accommodation and running costs and manageability for the two of us. It is also as capable and seaworthy as any 40 footer and costs an awful lot less in running and purchase costs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Having spent eight years with a 27ft yacht with only three single berths - ridiculously easy to sail and to handle in confined spaces despite its long keel - I'm only interested in going up to 32ft.

The 5ft (18%) increase in length will give the most significant increase in internal space (doubles the berths, which 32-40ft doesn't) and gives sufficient increase in speed and comfort to overcome the 'stopping-power' of short seas and achieve adequately good passage times between tidal gates etc.

I won't have to change to a bigger mooring, my running costs won't increase more than a smidgeon, and I'd still be able to handle her easily single-handed.

I'm surprised so many people voted for big (60%) rather than for medium (40%).
 
I would take the question of whether you can handle the size out of the equation. Unless you are a beginner or in some way physically compromised, a modern 40-footer isn't going to overtax you. As far as speed is concerned, a boat with longer legs means a wider cruising range or shorter days at sea. For ocean sailing the bigger the better but for coastal there is a lot to be said for a small boat that can be squeezed in almost anywhere.

As an aside, 40 ft puts you in the over 12m bracket which requires higher standards of equipment e.g. 25w nav lights instead of 10w, no all-round white when steaming etc. I bobbed bow and stern of my 40 footer during the build to bring it down to 11.99m.

I think the modern 35 ft AWB with sails handled from the cockpit is ideal for a couple with occasional guests as a weekends-and-2-week-summer-cruise boat. Anything smaller is going to give you a crick in the neck which can become irritating after a couple of weeks.

Having said that, I'll be through the Raz before you sight the Channel Light Vessel - there are some perks to being the big boy on the block. Mind you I'll probably still be looking for somewhere to park when you arrive!
 
snowleopard said:
I would take the question of whether you can handle the size out of the equation. Unless you are a beginner or in some way physically compromised, a modern 40-footer isn't going to overtax you.
Click to expand...

This is right. Most people seem to be thinking of marina handling in this respect, and simply that's just practice. No modern 40 footer is hard to handle with the sails up, they just have bigger winches. To me the issue is the balance between comfort aboard, the type of place you want to visit and cost. Take cost out of the equation, and it becomes one of comfort and where you want to go.

If you're happiest tucked up a small creek, or wedged into a drying harbour, and don't mind coping without standing headroom, separate cabins, running water, fridge etc then a small boat is best. But if you (or more accurately often the people you wish to take sailing...) will be put off by roughing it and you need standing headroom, separate sleeping cabins, running water, fridge etc then you have to accept that drying creeks and tiny harbours are out.

But really once you're into talking about a new 30 or a new 40 footer, you're talking about degrees of comfort, so the "range" factor comes in to it. I think there is a reason why people who are limited to weekends and their annual leave often buy the biggest boat they can - maximizing the range for the time.

I've done a lot of cruising in a 34 foot boat, and then it got replaced by a 40 foot boat. Frankly I've had more fun in the 40 footer, we've been to some quite far flung places and did it all with enough comfort to persuade non sailors to come too.
 
My "small" 32 footer has separate cabins, I aft and 1 forward, large U shaped saloon seating area, pressurised hot and cold water, shower, fridge,central heating .if I am roughing it then its a complete revelation as to how the other half live in big 40 footers!
 
Eyore said:
My "small" 32 footer has separate cabins, I aft and 1 forward, large U shaped saloon seating area, pressurised hot and cold water, shower, fridge,central heating .if I am roughing it then its a complete revelation as to how the other half live in big 40 footers!
Click to expand...

Still being 2 hours out while we're supping our first pint in the Dartmouth Arms sounds like roughing it to me.....
 
Just woken up. . . another way I judge a boat isn't by length but when I step on it to cross to mine, does it roll through 20 degrees or sit firm. Secondly, can I cross it without risking life and limb, without tripping or being near decapitated!
 
Interesting post....!
I had a Beneteau 325 and it sailed brilliantly, for Marina ect it was great, what i found is when the wind got up slight past 10-15 it became difficult to handle in confined places, on the seas, it was a little bouncy but nothing to write home about. i was fortunate to sail for a week on a HR 42, whcih was the easiest thing to maneuver in confined areas.
So when i returned my first task was to upgrade the size to gain the weight in the boat , now i have a bigger boat, i find it easier to maneuver around in relatively smaller place, but it does allow me to go further a field with comfort. it also is more sociable. with cost taken out, then it has to be about what is easy to handle in stronger weather, for example a wind of 37 knts the captain got terrified, the boat was fine. but i am much better now.....!
 
yodave said:
For a coastal-hopping cruising yacht, taking interior space and money out of the equation, would you rather have a 30ft yacht or a 40ft yacht?

I guess what I'm looking to get at here are non-financial and non-interior space related benefits and drawbacks. So for example a 40ft yacht might typically be faster, but a 30ft yacht might be easier to handle without crew. Please keep in mind that it's specifically cruising, not racing that I'm interested in, so input from a racing perspective will only skew the results.

Many thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I have had a number of yachts in the 26 to 35 ft range and based on that I would say 35 ft is the ideal for single or man and wife sailing. Its big enough internally to be comfortable but small enough to have reasonable sheet winch and halyard loads. That said its also a function of design - the high topsides of the Bavs make handling in confined spaces more difficult that they otherwise would be, and light weight and drop keels on some boats dont help either. The speed difference between 35 and 40 isnt that great and again design would coime into it as much as anything - there are 32 ft boats that I struggle to keep up with in my 35 ft boat. Finally there is the issue of age and your size. My best sailing pals is a big bu66er and happily single hands a 39 ft 11 tonne boat that needs for some TLC resulting in even heavier loads that it normally would have. I could not single hand his boat but its no problem for him.


When I bought my current boat, money wasnt an issue and I tried 40 footers before settling at 35 as a size I felt comfortable with. Never regretted it
 
Last edited:
Well the results are all in and with 73 votes cast a 40ft hull is preferred over a 30ft hull by 64% to 36%.

I am surprised at the margin, but not the result. The comments make particularly interesting reading, so thanks to each and every one of you that took the time to add rational, reasoning and detail.

I think that our type of sailing is more about coastal port hopping than crossing oceans. Our first passage was straight up from Naarden to the Forth, but we haven't strayed back out of the Forth since then. That said, we may head over to the west coast this summer.

Lots of food for thought. I'm going to read through all of the answers again in a few days time and see if I can reason my way to an outcome.

Thanks once again for your thoughts, advice and help.

Best wishes

Yodave

P.S. I'd better go and update my profile, as I don't suppose I'm new to sailing any more.
 
ChrisRayner said:
It is an old axiom that all boats are too small offshore and too big in port. Having said that I have always hankered after a 45 foot square topsail gaff schooner, but I suspect that I shall continue to be satisfied with my Hunter Pilot 27.
Click to expand...

Now that is deffo hanker of the week. Respect!
 
michaelchapman said:
236ft should be long enough.

It was for Alain Colas for his single handed race:-
Click to expand...
Uffa Fox reckon a bloke needed a boat length in feet equal to his age in years.
Makes sense in the 6 to 14 age group at least..
I think the presumption was any yottie over 40 could afford paid staff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top