© Attainable Adventure Cruising Ltd and the authors, all rights are reserved.
Nothing on this website or in direct communications received from us, or in our articles in the media, should be construed to mean or imply that offshore voyaging is anything other than potentially hazardous. Dangers such as, but not limited to, extreme weather, cold, ice, lack of help or assistance, gear failure, grounding, and falling overboard could injure or kill you and wreck your boat. Decisions such as, but not limited to, heading offshore, where you go, and how you equip your boat, are yours and yours alone. The information on this web site is based on what has worked for the authors in the past, but that does not mean it will work for you, or that it is the best, or even a good way for you to do things.
It also allows more internal living space within the same LOA which is important to people paying pricey marina fees per metre!
Hi Geoff,
That’s true, but I personally would always put sailing capability and motion comfort offshore ahead of that. My thinking is once we start making those compromises we might as well buy a fat trawler and be done with it—max living space for LOA.
That’s a non-negligible factor, if you need to be in a marina. The Beneteau Oceanis 30.1 is a typical plumb-bow, wide-stern “modern” design. It has a larger interior with more spacious berths than our C&C 35-2, despite being four feet shorter and two tons lighter (and, therefore, incurring marina, storage, wrapping, hauling, and launching fees that are all about 11% cheaper). In conditions up to about the low end of Force 4, it’ll be faster than our boat, as well. However, if conditions are Force 5 or stronger, I would *much* rather be on the C&C. And the Beneteau’s depreciation will more than offset any savings in dock fees during its first decade.
If living space per unit LOA were the sole figure of merit, we’d all be driving Gibson and Stardust houseboats. Each of us must apply our own weighting to the various trade-offs.
I think there are exceptions to this rule. You have already expressed an appreciation for the Saga 43 which has quite a plumb bow, but it is certainly not a design inspired by a rule. With very deep U shaped sections, some topsides flare, and a low/moderate L/B, the hullform is decidedly different than most newer plumb bow designs. The extension of the near maximum beam forward of amidships likely makes up for the reserve buoyancy lost with the finer bow. Owners seem to report that the boat is not as wet as many might assume.
Hi Jesse,
Sure, always exceptions. My point though was that the idea that plum=good &fast, overhang=bad&slow, is, while common today, also flawed. That said, having sailed alongside a Saga 43 offshore, I would be pretty sure she would be a lot wetter than the M&R 56, even adjusted for size.