Allure or Oasis -- Which ship is larger, or is it longer, or is it "grosser"

[FloridaPalms]

Until Harmony arrives which ship is bigger?

 

"Do these PURPLE slides make my butt look BIG?!?!"

 

 

 

:D:D:D

 

~ Judy

Edited April 19, 2016 by FloridaPalms

[cruisinderek]

I had thought that the extra weight was from having more letters in the word Harmony, than in Allure or Oasis, Those letters on the catwalk on the back have to weigh at least 500 pounds each. Then there is the extra weight for the water in the water slides.

[Pratique]

On the All Access Tour of Allure, one of the crew told us Harmony is five inches longer than Allure.

[Pipo]

On the All Access Tour of Allure, one of the crew told us Harmony is five inches longer than Allure.

 

RCI has published that Harmony is 7 FEET longer, about 19 feet wider, and 2,000 more gross tons than Allure.

[John&LaLa]

RCI has published that Harmony is 7 FEET longer, about 19 feet wider, and 2,000 more gross tons than Allure.

 

If you do the math 19' wider is way more than 2000 tons extra.

[Extra Kim]

From what I have heard, the difference between Allure and Oasis is 5 CENTIMETER (~2") when it comes to length. But when we are talking about a steel ship that's more then 36 000 cm long, I guess that the length might differ depending on the temperature on the day you measure the ship.

 

They have the same gross tonnage, but Oasis is heavier. The difference is that they used more aluminium instead of steel on Allure then they did on Oasis.

[Ourusualbeach]

RCI has published that Harmony is 7 FEET longer, about 19 feet wider, and 2,000 more gross tons than Allure.

 

It was 1.9 feet wider not 19.

[dedosr]

I'm sure each has their own opinion! I forgot to include the Harmony info:

Gross Tonnage 226,000

Length 1,187 ft

Max Beam 154 ft

Draft 30 ft

Cruising Speed 23 knots

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do?shipClassCode=OA&shipCode=HM&br=R

 

I think Max Beam of 154 is a typo??:confused:

[Pipo]

It was 1.9 feet wider not 19.

 

I don't know where are you getting those numbers from, but the manufacturer is probably the best reference we can get:http://www.stxfrance.fr//FR/harmony_of_the_seas.awp

 

We know that Oasis/Allure have 60.5m (198 ft.) of max beam, while the shipyard is reporting 66m (217 ft.) for Harmony, that's a 19 ft. difference. What I don't know is if they stretched just the bridge or the hull.

[Ourusualbeach]

I don't know where are you getting those numbers from, but the manufacturer is probably the best reference we can get:http://www.stxfrance.fr//FR/harmony_of_the_seas.awp

 

We know that Oasis/Allure have 60.5m (198 ft.) of max beam, while the shipyard is reporting 66m (217 ft.) for Harmony, that's a 19 ft. difference. What I don't know is if they stretched just the bridge or the hull.

 

I don't know where the 198 ft comes from but it is an error. Royal lists on their ship fact sheets as Oasis being 215ft wide and Harmony being 218 ft wide.

 

http://m.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/fact-sheet/21/oasis-of-the-seas/

 

http://m.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/fact-sheet/29/harmony-of-the-seas/

[M_BA]

I think Max Beam of 154 is a typo??:confused:

 

Unless it's the Weight Watcher's ship, yes! :D

[tsconley19]

Well if you believe Wikipedia

Harmony will be 362.15 m or 1188.2' long

66 m or 217' wide

227,700 GT

Making her 7.1' longer than Oasis and Allure

2000 GT heavier

 

I think some of the discrepancies are measurements at the water line vs total width and length

Edited April 23, 2016 by tsconley19

[jagsfan]

The only possible change would have been an extension of the "fairwater cap" on the back of the fixipod, since this is the aftermost pod. Not sure why they would have done that, but regardless the LOA is for hull dimensions.

 

 

 

Whether Allure is "bigger" due to being maybe 4-6" longer is really pretty moot. It can also depend on what time of day, and the temperature, that the measurement is taken. Just like gross tonnage, it's all pretty much an approximation. Any two ships, built to the same set of plans will not match each other in multitudes of dimensions. Shipbuilding is still a lot more art than science.

 

 

 

The real measure of how large a ship is, is it's displacement, or the weight of water it displaces (essentially its weight with cargo). Oasis and Allure aren't even in the world class by this measurement, when you see that the largest bulk carrier in the world has a deadweight (weight of cargo and fuel it can carry) is over 400,000 tons, while the displacement of the Oasis/Allure is reported to be around 100,000 tons. So the M/V Vale Brasil could lift 4 Oasis class ships.

 

 

What is LOA? Just in case I ever want to use it in conversation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[Pipo]

I don't know where the 198 ft comes from but it is an error. Royal lists on their ship fact sheets as Oasis being 215ft wide and Harmony being 218 ft wide.

 

http://m.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/fact-sheet/21/oasis-of-the-seas/

 

http://m.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/fact-sheet/29/harmony-of-the-seas/

 

This database is a reliable reference. Operators' webpages are always plagued with inaccuracies, including RCI.

 

Oasis: https://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=27091

 

Allure: https://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=28329

 

Both Oasis and Allure have a max beam of 60.5 m (198 ft), and we have concurrence that Harmony has 66 m (217 ft) of max beam.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Pipo

[Extra Kim]

Well if you believe Wikipedia

Harmony will be 362.15 m or 1188.2' long

66 m or 217' wide

227,700 GT

Making her 7.1' longer than Oasis and Allure

2000 GT heavier

 

I think some of the discrepancies are measurements at the water line vs total width and length

GT are not weight, it's volume.

[loubetti]

What is LOA? Just in case I ever want to use it in conversation.

 

 

LOA = Length Over All, or overall length.

[Ourusualbeach]

This database is a reliable reference. Operators' webpages are always plagued with inaccuracies, including RCI.

 

Oasis: https://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=27091

 

Allure: https://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=28329

 

Both Oasis and Allure have a max beam of 60.5 m (198 ft), and we have concurrence that Harmony has 66 m (217 ft) of max beam.

 

I would say that it's differences in where the measurements are taken. To appears that there are two sets of measurements being used and I still say that the width of Harmony is only being increadpsed by a couple of feet from 215 to 217. Using the other measurements I would say they are increasing from 198 to 200.

 

There is no way that they could have an increase of 19 feet and only increase the tonnage by a few thousand.

[chengkp75]

I would say that it's differences in where the measurements are taken. To appears that there are two sets of measurements being used and I still say that the width of Harmony is only being increadpsed by a couple of feet from 215 to 217. Using the other measurements I would say they are increasing from 198 to 200.

 

There is no way that they could have an increase of 19 feet and only increase the tonnage by a few thousand.

 

While I would also not think that Harmony has her beam increased by 19 feet, it could easily be increased by that amount, and still only increase the gross tonnage by a couple of thousand. Increasing the promenade or the boardwalk areas (which are not internal volume) would not increase the gross tonnage at all, even if 40' wider.

[Ourusualbeach]

While I would also not think that Harmony has her beam increased by 19 feet, it could easily be increased by that amount, and still only increase the gross tonnage by a couple of thousand. Increasing the promenade or the boardwalk areas (which are not internal volume) would not increase the gross tonnage at all, even if 40' wider.

 

Yes that's true however they can't just bump out those areas without affecting the areas in between those spaces and fore and aft of those which would affect the gross tonnage.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Ourusualbeach

[John&LaLa]

While I would also not think that Harmony has her beam increased by 19 feet, it could easily be increased by that amount, and still only increase the gross tonnage by a couple of thousand. Increasing the promenade or the boardwalk areas (which are not internal volume) would not increase the gross tonnage at all, even if 40' wider.

 

Did you mean Central Park instead of Promenade. The Promenade is internal.

 

Plus Central Park and Boardwalk are only from Decks 8 and up.

 

It just seems that 19 feet of width would make for a massively larger ship.

 

Plus why make it larger if you aren't using the space for something other than making the open area of Central Park and Boardwalk wider

Edited April 24, 2016 by John&LaLa

[chengkp75]

Did you mean Central Park instead of Promenade. The Promenade is internal.

 

Plus Central Park and Boardwalk are only from Decks 8 and up.

 

It just seems that 19 feet of width would make for a massively larger ship.

 

Plus why make it larger if you aren't using the space for something other than making the open area of Central Park and Boardwalk wider

 

Not having been on Oasis class, was speaking of generic "promenade" or exterior deck by the lifeboats.

 

Yes, increasing beam would increase gross tonnage in volume in the lower decks, but could be compensated for by increasing open area in boardwalk.

 

I'm not saying they would do this, just saying that increasing beam would not necessarily increase gross tonnage. Who knows, maybe they want more open deck area for pools, or whatever. Just because its open space doesn't mean its not usable, just not counted as gross tonnage. All ships pool decks, even when enclosed by glass walls, or with overhanging decks, if not totally enclosed are not counted towards gross tonnage.

[chengkp75]

Its a moot point, really, since I highly doubt they would increase the beam by 19'. This is not like a house where you can just change the design to add on space. This structure has to be self-supporting, and that addition of 19' would require a complete re-analysis of the strength, flexibility, and stability of what would be a "new" vessel, let alone questions of "buildability" of the new design, and the need to change nearly the entire construction program as this may entail weights of "blocks" that are now too heavy to lift into the dock, and also redesign of piping, wiring, and ducting. Just not worth it, in my opinion, unless there was a major benefit, and I don't see a major increase in passenger capacity, so no major benefit.

[papcx]

chengkp75 is back! Knocking those questions out of the park.

 

My world is complete again! [emoji3]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A&L_Ont]

I'd take an extra 19' of space in my cabin. :)

[Clarea]

I would say that it's differences in where the measurements are taken. To appears that there are two sets of measurements being used and I still say that the width of Harmony is only being increadpsed by a couple of feet from 215 to 217. Using the other measurements I would say they are increasing from 198 to 200.

 

There is no way that they could have an increase of 19 feet and only increase the tonnage by a few thousand.

They might have increased the extent of the bridge wings.