Motion sickness on QE vs bigger Celebrity ships?

[newbie202020]

Hi, I easily have motion sickness and took bonine and was fine on Celebrity Eclipse, which takes about 2900 passengers, last summer to Alaska. I'm booked for QE next summer to Alaska but am worried that since the QE is smaller (2100 passengers), I will feel the motion more. Anyone has experience with both ships to help ease my concerns? I would love to go on the QE but I'm quite worried about this. Thanks

[mumoftwo]

Not been on Celebrity but Husband has been very sea sick on other ships, but not on QE/QV - we have passed through the bay of biscay/NY to Southampton via Ireland with no issues.

 

He did feel a little unwell in the library on QM2 in very large waves on a transatlantic but was all good once moved back to mid-ships.

[Victoria2]

2 hours ago, newbie202020 said:

Hi, I easily have motion sickness and took bonine and was fine on Celebrity Eclipse, which takes about 2900 passengers, last summer to Alaska. I'm booked for QE next summer to Alaska but am worried that since the QE is smaller (2100 passengers), I will feel the motion more. Anyone has experience with both ships to help ease my concerns? I would love to go on the QE but I'm quite worried about this. Thanks

A lot depends on cabin position.

Mid ships is a different scenario to, let's  say, aft eg we like aft on 'gentle' itineraries but mid ships if BoB is involved.

[newbie202020]

Thanks, I always book mid ship because of motion sickness.

 

Just weary about whether QE is "small" enough for me to feel the motion vs the bigger ships.

[NE John]

I’ll be in Alaska on QE next June too so be sure to sign up for Roll Call. 
I’ve been on QE before with no seasickness problems but that was in the Med and the Black Sea. I’ve never had motion sickness on any Cunard ships I’ve been on.
For Alaska, I booked PG midship. However for Alaska, most of the traveling is done on calmer Inside Passage waters hopefully posing little threat for seasickness. 

[NE John]

3 minutes ago, newbie202020 said:

Thanks, I always book mid ship because of motion sickness.

 

Just weary about whether QE is "small" enough for me to feel the motion vs the bigger ships.

Compare tonnage of each ship, not just passenger count. 

[Victoria2]

8 minutes ago, newbie202020 said:

Thanks, I always book mid ship because of motion sickness.

 

Just weary about whether QE is "small" enough for me to feel the motion vs the bigger ships.

We have managed a few Inside passage cruises, not on Cunard as the company is relatively new to Alaska, and have never felt any motion sickness.

edit

On ships smaller than  QE.

 

Go for it, Fabulous area of the world.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Victoria2

[chengkp75]

15 hours ago, NE John said:

Compare tonnage of each ship, not just passenger count. 

Not entirely accurate.  To make a reasonable comparison, you would need the ship's GT (which is volume), displacement (weight, and rarely common knowledge), length, beam, and draft.  Ships with a larger GT tend to have much more "sail area" (size of the ship exposed to wind) than a ship with a smaller GT, making the larger ship more susceptible to wind heel.  The other dimensions relate to how the hull reacts to seas and swells.  Even more important is the environmental conditions at the moment:  what direction is the ship heading in relation to both the seas and the swells, what is the height of the seas and swells, what is the period of the seas and swells, what is the ship's speed.

 

There can be no real comparison of how different ships "handle seas" until they are in the exact same location, at the exact same moment, travelling the same direction at the same speed.

[techteach]

Dear Cunard,

 

We, the frequent posters on the Cruise Critic Cunard Forum, would like to recommend @chengkp75 as a presenter on all of the 4 Queen’s. His/Her knowledge of ships is extensive and would add greatly to any cruise where building, design, construction, or maintenance of ships was a focus. I’m sure many of us who read his/her posts would book a cruise to meet and listen to his/her presentations.

 

Sincerely,

 

Frequent posters and lurkers of the Cunard Forum

Cruise Critic

[buchanan101]

On 11/4/2023 at 6:08 PM, newbie202020 said:

Thanks, I always book mid ship because of motion sickness.

 

Just weary about whether QE is "small" enough for me to feel the motion vs the bigger ships.

Midships plus a bit if you can - 2/3rds back is the fulcrum. And as low as possible obviously

[Winifred 22]

3 hours ago, buchanan101 said:

Midships plus a bit if you can - 2/3rds back is the fulcrum. And as low as possible obviously

So mid aft is better than mid is that what you mean  ? I didn’t know that. 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, buchanan101 said:

Midships plus a bit if you can - 2/3rds back is the fulcrum. And as low as possible obviously

To say that the "fulcrum" or tipping point (center of flotation) is 2/3 back from midships is an over generalization.  The distance from midships will depend on the hull shape of the particular ship, and its waterplane shape.  And, given the flat hull above the azipods on those ships with pods, the tipping center moves forward from what it would be if the after hull area was fuller, as with the old shafted propeller system.  It would still be aft of midships, but not 2/3 back from bow, and cabins within a quarter of the ship's length either side of the midships point would exhibit virtually the same motion.

[buchanan101]

41 minutes ago, Winifred 22 said:

So mid aft is better than mid is that what you mean  ? I didn’t know that. 

The designer of the QM2 quotes it in an interview I’ve seen. 2/3rds of the way back (because the bow moves more than the stern as the bow hits the waves)

 

He was explaining why QM2 Britannia restaurant is 2/3rds way back (and low down). 

[chengkp75]

Just now, buchanan101 said:

The designer of the QM2 quotes it in an interview I’ve seen. 2/3rds of the way back (because the bow moves more than the stern as the bow hits the waves)

 

He was explaining why QM2 Britannia restaurant is 2/3rds way back (and low down). 

And, that would be the characteristic of the QM2, not of every ship.

[buchanan101]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

To say that the "fulcrum" or tipping point (center of flotation) is 2/3 back from midships is an over generalization.  The distance from midships will depend on the hull shape of the particular ship, and its waterplane shape.  And, given the flat hull above the azipods on those ships with pods, the tipping center moves forward from what it would be if the after hull area was fuller, as with the old shafted propeller system.  It would still be aft of midships, but not 2/3 back from bow, and cabins within a quarter of the ship's length either side of the midships point would exhibit virtually the same motion.

I’m only going on what the designer of the QM2 says as the reasoning why the Britannia restaurant is where it is. 
 

It’s in a YouTube interview. Maybe other ships are a bit different from QM2 but aft of midships is logical if you think about how a ship behaves as it hits a swell. The bow will react and the stern will be dragged somewhat. 

[buchanan101]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, that would be the characteristic of the QM2, not of every ship.

Agreed. But a ship isn’t going to work if the fulcrum is in front of midships. 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, buchanan101 said:

Agreed. But a ship isn’t going to work if the fulcrum is in front of midships. 

Actually, ships with the "new" X bow (reverse bow) are designed to go more through waves and not ride up on them, so the tipping point is either midships or in front of it, again due to the waterplane shape (more area forward of midships than a ship with a "flared" bow).  And, ships going astern (so the tipping center is now only 1/3 of the way back) seem to work just fine.

[buchanan101]

12 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, ships with the "new" X bow (reverse bow) are designed to go more through waves and not ride up on them, so the tipping point is either midships or in front of it, again due to the waterplane shape (more area forward of midships than a ship with a "flared" bow).  And, ships going astern (so the tipping center is now only 1/3 of the way back) seem to work just fine.

The bow of a ship will move more than the stern. In general… therefore the minimum movement point will not be midway between bow and stern but towards the stern. That’s just geometry. 
 

The ships with features you mention would have to have the bow moving less than the stern for tipping centre to be in front of midships. I just don’t see that…surely you’d want where the propellers are not to move up and down excessively. 
 

the X bow cutting through waves more would reduce motion overall. I’d still suggest the bow moves more than the stern. 
 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by buchanan101

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, buchanan101 said:

The bow of a ship will move more than the stern. In general… therefore the minimum movement point will not be midway between bow and stern but towards the stern. That’s just geometry. 
 

The ships with features you mention would have to have the bow moving less than the stern for tipping centre to be in front of midships. I just don’t see that…surely you’d want where the propellers are not to move up and down excessively. 
 

 

I'll leave it to you.  I guess my classes in ship's stability were generally wrong.

[buchanan101]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

I'll leave it to you.  I guess my classes in ship's stability were generally wrong.

I apologise. I’m Not saying they were - but are you saying there are ship designs where the stern moves more than the bow? Surely the bow would always move more, but not always twice as much as on the QM2 (as a 2/3rds fulcrum point dictates) 

[D&N]

A complete guess; but with azipods the need for propulsion at rear probably disappears. P&O Ferries new Pioneer has them mounted at each corner, and with bridges at each end like Staten Island ferries and others, shouldn't need to turn round on it's Dover-Calais route

[Winifred 22]

You have both lost me now too technical . All I wanted was to know if mid aft was better than mid ? I like to be in the best spot. 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Winifred 22 said:

You have both lost me now too technical . All I wanted was to know if mid aft was better than mid ? I like to be in the best spot. 

You won't notice any difference for any cabin in the middle third of the ship.

[buchanan101]

3 minutes ago, Winifred 22 said:

You have both lost me now too technical . All I wanted was to know if mid aft was better than mid ? I like to be in the best spot. 

Personally I’d go somewhere a little bit aft of centre. Maybe the back end of the “midships” section on the QE side view on deck plans.

 

But the differences would be marginal. 

 

Being lower down may count for more? 

 

 

 

[Victoria2]

11 minutes ago, Winifred 22 said:

You have both lost me now too technical . All I wanted was to know if mid aft was better than mid ? I like to be in the best spot. 

How's this for technical.

 

Stay away from the back if thinking if the BoB or Drake's Passage etc, middle is great if seas are lively

 

and I talk from experience, of both parts of the ship! 🙂