HALLBERG RASSY 40C VERSUS SAARE 41CC2

Apparently, the logical choice would be to compare the Hallberg Rassy 40C with the Najad 395CC, the other recent 40ft central cockpit on the market (2018), but I really dislike the Najad to the point of finding the previous model, the Najad 410 (2009), more elegant and with a nicer interior.

Najad 395CC, above, Saare 41CC2, below HR40C

I find it hard that someone would spend a small fortune on an ugly boat and because the HR is a beautiful boat with a very nice interior, it is difficult to understand how the Najad 395CC would be an option, not to mention that the HR sails better and faster, being less heavy and having more sail area. 

So, instead of making what seems a useless comparison with a boat that I don't find interesting, I prefer to compare it with a boat that I like, an older and less known boat, the Saare 41CC2. 

The "2" stands for an MKII version that arrived a few years ago and provided the Saare with a much better-looking interior, with an option for light European oak, which is really an improvement over the dark mahogany of the first boats. 

The hull is from 2008 but the MKII, besides the better-looking interior, has improved outside storage, with a bigger sail-locker. The interior storage was also improved with a big wet locker (accessible from the outside) as well as more overall storage cabinets.

The interior finish and layout were always good but the lighter wood, and some improvements in design, really make it not only look better, besides being almost perfect in regards to functionality. One great addition was the freezer that occupies the center of the saloon table. It looks not only nice and integrated as it is a great idea to store at hand the cold beer and white wine, a perfect location to keep on drinking, while seated at the table with friends.

In regards to sailing potential what matters are the boat dimensions and technical characteristics: the Saare is a bit longer with a 12.50m hull length to 12.30m, but the HR has a bigger LWL, with 11.74 for 11.20m, due mostly to a more modern bow design. But the bigger difference regards beam and displacement, having the Saare a 3.92 beam for 4.18m on the HR, and while the Saare displaces 9500kg the HR displaces 1500kg more (11000kg).

The keels are of a similar design, bulbed lead keels, with the Saare having just a bit more draft (2.00 to 1.92m). The Saare has a 41.1%B/D the HR a 33.2% B/D. The bigger displacement will give the HR bigger overall stability but the Saare has a better AVS, over 130º, one that starts to be unusual, and a better dynamic and safety stability.

Above HR40C, below Saare 41CC2

It is true that the HR has a more modern hull, but in this case, the difference in the type of hull is much more important than an eventually small hull evolution in design. Besides the Saare hull was designed by Karl-Johan Stråhlmann, best known for designing fast-cruiser racers, among them the Finngulf, and it is a very nice hull, from the family of the one of the new J45, and not very different.

In regards to sailing power/weight, the Saare compensates the HR bigger hull stability with a superior RM coming from the keel, due not only to more draft but also to a bigger B/D. But it is in what regards power/drag that the Saare will make the difference in performance to the HR, having less wetted area, due to being lighter, finner entries, less beam and a transom designed to minimize drag, especially in lighter winds and upwind.

Less displacement, less drag and almost the same sail area upwind (Saare 87.6, HR 90.1m2) will give the Saare a superior sailing performance, especially upwind and in lighter wind situations. But most of all it is necessary to understand that the yachts will sail in a different way, the Saare (out of the light wind) with more heel, to be able to take advantage of the bigger B/D, with more roll downwind, and having a more comfortable motion upwind with waves, slamming less.

On top Saare 41CC, above HR40C

With medium-high to high winds, on a beam reach or downwind, the HR will have a very good performance, being easier on the auto-pilot, sailing with less heel, less roll on the waves and probably going at the same speed as the Saare. Upwind, on those conditions, the Saare will sail faster, closer to the wind, slamming less, even if with more heel. Under lighter winds, the Saare will always be faster, no matter the point of sail.

So, it is up to you to know what the conditions are in which you sail most, and if sailing with some more degrees of heel is or isn't a problem, to know what type of hull and type of boat will suit you better. But one thing is for sure, you will have to use the engine more often on the HR, due to his worst performance in light winds.

It is fair to say that the HR offers optionally more sail area (96.6m2) but the Saare is much more adapted to use a big genoa (135%) as a forward sail. The genoa track is over the cabin is much more centered than the one on the HR (that is on the deck on a beamier hull). Using or not a big genoa as the standard sail has all to do with the setup you will use for lighter wind: You can use a 135% genoa for light and heavier wind (furled), or a 105% genoa for heavier wind and a gennaker or code 0 for light winds.

The genoa on the Saare will certainly give it a much better-pointed ability than a Code 0 on the Hallberg Rassy. A Code 0 with a 105% genoa is probably a better solution in what regards overall performance, although not in all situations. But having two sails instead of one, being one of them huge and removable, gives a lot more work, especially if the crew is an old couple or inexperienced sailors. 

Compared to a 135% genoa it is not as practical, demanding frequent changes of sail, versus furling the genoa. Out of sportive sailors, I see almost no cruising boats of this size sailed by aged couples using gennaker or Code 0. Something you should take into consideration when choosing the sail setup you are going to use on the boat. A big genoa gives a bit more work tacking, but nothing compared with the extra work for using two sails. On smaller and lighter boats the much smaller sail size makes the 2nd option more practical. 

Anyway, for using the gennaker or code 0 the HR40C comes already with a very nicely designed integrated bowsprit, one that has the disadvantage of increasing the boat size for marinas, making them more expensive (42.9ft versus 41ft for the Saare). 

The Saare offers optionally a less nice, but more practical, traditional nordic designed bowsprit/bow platform, that with the use of an integrated small stair allows easy access to the boat from the bow. 

This allows on marinas that do not have a lateral pontoon, like the ones on the med, to have the yacht bow to the pontoon, preserving the intimacy of the cockpit from passing pedestrians.

Both come standard with one-line reefing through the boom, the HR with 3 winches, the Saare with 6. The beamier HR has a twin rudder system the Saare has a deeper single one, and both offer standard about the same equipment, more than what it is normal on less expensive sailboats.

The Saare offers true deck ventilators, a very rare thing on yachts these days, particularly with this dimension. The ones forward are protected by a bench that is also useful to reach the boom and the mainsail. These ventilators while being unnecessary on hot summer days, are very useful to sail or live on the boat out of season, particularly on rainy days.

Both boats offer the same engine as standard, a 60hp Volvo Penta, with the possibility of having optionally a 75hp engine. The HR40C offers as tankage 400L diesel and 520L water while the Saare offers 320+100L diesel and 300+100L water, being the extra 100L an option.

Regarding layout, the Saare offers a better one and it is truly a 2 cabin, 2 head yacht, being both heads accessible from the cabins. The HR is a two cabin one-head boat and to make things worse, the single head is on the yacht's opposite side of the main cabin.

The galleys are of a different design but both are big and with a lot of storage, both chart tables are also big, good and of similar size. Due to the bigger beam, the saloon is wider on the HR, allowing for an optional solution with two very nice armchairs, while the Saare has a traditional saloon solution similar to the one in the standard HR.

But besides the two cabins - two heads solution, where the Saare really makes the difference is on the outside storage space, which is much bigger than on the HR. Not only the bow locker is much bigger, with a separate big hatch, a true sail locker, as the wet locker is much bigger than the one on the HR, and being accessed from the outside,  it can be used to store fenders or other material.

On top HR40C, above Saare 41CC2

The two stern storage spaces on the Saare are also considerably bigger than the ones on the HR. On the HR they chose to use more lateral space in the king-size cabin, which is bigger than the one on the Saare, at the cost of the exterior storage and also due to a larger transom.

While considering the outside storage space, I would not have a problem doing extended cruising on the Saare, I would not be happy doing the same with what the HR offers, and I am not the type that sails or lives with a lot of stuff, but as all that live for long periods on a sailboat and stay considerable periods at anchor know, a lot of material is needed, from ropes to fenders, to maintenance and cleaning products, bucket and bowls, tools, spares, sometimes bicycles or scooters, a big shade for the cockpit, a geenaker and so on.

Saare 41CC2 sail locker

But, even if I prefer the Saare in many aspects, I have to agree that the HR40C interior and exterior looks are very hard to beat and on both counts, I would say that the HR looks better than the Saare. While the Saare is a bit too much "classical" the HR looks decidedly modern and up-to-date. Who would have imagined that from HR a decade ago? You can judge by yourself and see both interiors in virtual reality in the two links below:

https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/static_content/360grader/HR40C-Imacis-Ver2/index.html

https://saareyachts.com/en/saare-41cc/

HR40C - European oak

Regarding the outside, the more classical approach of the Saare is not without appeal, with very clean lines. In the inside, it is not a question of quality and finish, but truly a question of superior design quality, and I am not talking about style but how well a given style is worked on.

I don't find the Saare interior badly designed but the one of the Hallberg Rassy is of exceptional design quality and as saloon space, the optional layout with the two armchairs is really perfect for a boat of this size. The one of the Saare has at least a similar quality of finish, it is cozy and nice but has not the same appeal. One would find it very nice before seeing and falling in love with the one of the HR.

Saare 41CC2 - mahogany version

But if the HR interior design is better, in what concerns hull deck and structure, the Saare is built with better materials and better techniques. Not meaning that HR has not a high-quality building, but while more money is spent by HR on the interior looks, more money is spent by Saare in building the hull, and that's why the Saare weighs 1500kg less than the HR.

The Hallberg Rassy uses polyester resins with vinylester only on the outside coat, the Saare is built entirely using vynilester based epoxy resins. While HR uses a hand lay-up method, Saare uses vacuum infusion technology, and that allows for a perfect fiber saturation using less resin, with a final product that is lighter, and at least as good as the one using the hand-laid method. The better quality vinylester resin also allows savings in weight, for the same composite strength.

Saare 41CC2 - oak version

Both yachts use composite sandwich hulls and decks, using the same core material, Divinycel, which is a high-quality foam. On the keel area and engine area as well as in all through the hull passages, solid monolithic laminate is used. 

The boat structure is not very different, in both cases a solid GRP structure, that is strongly laminated to the hull. Both use marine-grade plywood for bulkheads, that are bonded and laminated to the hull. The deck is also bonded and laminated to the hull.

Probably because it is made in Estonia, one of the Baltic small countries, the Saare 41CC2, even if slightly bigger, is a bit less expensive than the Hallberg Rassy 40C, which is made in Sweden, where manpower is more expensive. 

Saare 41CC2 structure: remarkably well laminated

But it is not a huge difference, because both boats are very similar in quality, and quality does not come cheap. The Halberg Rassy costs about 420 000 € and the Saare about 400 000 €, both prices standard, on the shipyard and without VAT.

I find that for many sailing programs a Saare 41CC2 would make more sense than the Hallberg Rassy 41C, but the fact that HR is a very prestigious brand and the Saare has a slightly outdated look, will make the HR 40C much more popular as a choice. 

HR 40C hull structure

One can only hope that Saare decides to substitute the 41 CC2 for a 42fter, a sailboat with similar characteristics but with a more modern transom and bow, an integrated bowsprit and a more modern look. And if possible with a more modern keel that would make it even lighter and faster. 

Why a 42ft boat? Because with a bigger cockpit, a slightly bigger technical space, a dedicated locker for the liferaft on the transom and a swimming platform, this boat would be even better. The problem with small boat builders is that due to much smaller production, the costs of having a new model are proportionally much bigger than on a big or medium production builder, which can distribute those costs for many more sailboats. But one can dream ;-)

NEW HALLBERG RASSY 400 VERSUS HR 40C

Well, half new, because it is not really a new sailboat but an aft-cockpit version of the 40C, which is a central cockpit boat. Except for the different cockpit position and interior layout, all is the same, the hull, sail area, tankage, engine, hull, rudders, keel ballast and draft.

I have done a comparison between the  HR 40C and the HR 412 here: 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-hallberg-rassy-40c-versus-hr-412.html

Now that the HR 412 has been retired and substituted by the HR 400, a 41.4ft boat being substituted by a slightly smaller yacht (40.4ft), but with a bigger waterline and more beam (4.18 to 4.11m), the comparison that matters now is between the HR 400 and the 40C.

The HR 400 has a bigger cockpit, even if not as big as it could have been. On the 40C the passage from the steering post to the rest of the cockpit is more difficult but all sailing controls are at the reach of the helmsman and are easier to use, while on the 400C only 2 of the four winches are at the direct reach of the helmsman even if the passage to the other two is facilitated by a two rudder setup.

Difficult to understand why the winches on the 400 are not more aft and why the second winch is not closer to the one near the wheel. The way it is, it does not only prevent the helmsman from reaching it from the wheel position as its operation intrudes with "passengers" sitting on the cockpit.

The mainsail control on the 40C is more intuitive, quicker and better, through a purchase system on a traveller at easy reach. On the 400 the traveller is over the cabin and for controlling the mainsail you will have to do it on the winches that are out of reach, as well as the lines for controlling the mainsail traveller.

On top of all this, the helmsman seating position is better on the 40C. Normally in this size of boat, I would prefer an AC cockpit to a CC one, but in this case, while the 40C is exceptionally well designed, the 400 leaves much to be desired, particularly the winch position and the treatment of the aft part of the cockpit.

The 400 has an odd transom with two transom small seats that will be uncomfortable with the boat heeled (and the boat is heeled most of the time). The only lateral possible sitting places are very narrow and high, so narrow and high that I doubt they would be of any use due to discomfort, even if most normally sit laterally when sailing the boat upwind, or with any considerable degree of heel.

I don't understand why the back seats don't start at the transom, allowing the wheels to come further aft, increasing the length of the cockpit seats, and allowing more space to lie down. Don't understand either why the swimming platform is not bigger, closing the cockpit. Saving money using the 40C swimming platform, on a boat this expensive should not be a reason.

One of the disadvantages of the 40C is having more difficult access to the swimming platform, and a small one, by limitations due to the type of design (CC). The 400 has not those limitations but it has a small swimming platform anyway, as if a bigger one was not an advantage.

Regarding outside storage, the 400, in the 3 cabin version, has little storage and should only be considered if small cruises or marina to marina cruising will be the owner's main program. The 40C offers more storage space, with two bigger stern sail lockers. The 400 two under the seat cockpit lockers (one on the 40C) will not compensate for the bigger overall outside storage space on the 40C.

But things will change radically if we consider the 400 two-cabin version (the 40C has only a two-cabin version) and in this case, the outside storage space is huge, with practically one of the aft cabins turned into storage, but being that storage space accessed exclusively from the cockpit. 

But huge is not the same thing as practical or usable and the only outside access and its huge deep size make it not as functional as it should be, and unnecessarily big. 

This approximate size and type of sailboat, rarely is used for charter, and with a bigger percentage of owners using it more often for extensive cruising should have ideally two heads, two good cabins, a big galley and good interior and exterior storage space.

Regarding this ideal, neither of the boats comes out with flying colours, and I believe either one could have a better layout: the 40C offers a great galley, one magnificent aft cabin, a good bow cabin but offers only one head, and the only head, weirdly, is far from the bigger cabin and almost integrated into the smaller one.

The 400 offers the same forward cabin and head, as on the 40C, a second and much bigger head but a smaller aft cabin. The aft cabin could be much bigger if transversal, with the technical space situated not behind the engine, but laterally, on part of the space that was occupied by the 2nd cabin, and that is now, a huge undivided storage space. 

The only disadvantage to this solution would be the impossibility to mount an optional stern thruster, but who needs a bow thruster and a stern thruster, on a boat of this size? The outside storage space would still be much increased regarding the three-cabin layout and could be turned into a more usable one.

The 40C galley is much bigger than the one in the 400. The 400 galley could also be made bigger if a transversal aft cabin was considered. On the 400 it is hard to understand the lack of interior access to the main storage space due to the head layout, which has the toilet where that passage could be made.

Both saloons have the same space and distribution both can have two individual armchairs, only the position of the chart table and size varies, being considerably bigger on the 40C. The 400 has in fact an interior that is not smaller than the one of the bigger 412, with the exception of the chart table that is smaller,  and that is no small feat.

Between the two, the 40C seems better designed, however, not having a second head and the only one being a relatively small one, is really a big negative point. Maybe the size is wrong, maybe they should have started without a pre-determined size and tried to have the smaller possible yacht with two heads, two good cabins and a good galley. I guess that they would have ended with a 41ft yacht even if I find that the 40C layout could be easily bettered. 

A pity that for so little extra length, and for a small difference in price, they were not able to offer the smallest, and yet perfect, two cabin/two head cruising yacht. If that is very hard to manage or impossible to manage on a 40ft CC yacht, in what regards a 40 AC, that seems not so difficult, with the right compromises between outside storage and interior space, but in this case, the aft cabin seems too small for perfection and the outside storage space unnecessarily big.

Both are beautiful yachts with great quality and design interior, well built and yachts that will make their owners proud. Test sails have been very positive (40C) and this is a great size to be sailed solo with confidence, and for not being overwhelmed when those automatic systems, that allow a solo sailor to sail bigger yachts, fail, or when things just go wrong.

HR 40C Sail Tests available on-line: https://marina.ch/fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-F.pdf 

 https://marina.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-D.pdf

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/reviews/yacht-reviews/hallberg-rassy-40c-the-best-sailing-boat-h-r-have-ever-built 

https://www.magzter.com/stories/Boating-Sailing/Yachting-Monthly/FIRST-TEST-HALLBERG-RASSY-40C

https://www.velaemotore.it/test-prova-hallberg-rassy-40c-navigazione-pregi-difetti-19187

 

The price, like the quality, is high and the difference in price between the two boats is negligible. The prices are originally in Swedish Crowns and have small variations due to money exchange, with both boats costing between 400 000 and 420 000 €, without VAT, standard at the shipyard. 

THE EXPLOSIVE RISE OF DUO AND SOLO OFFSHORE AMATEUR SAIL RACING

Solo and duo offshore professional racing have become not only mainstream but the more popular type of sailing, the one that has created more interest, has a bigger audience. That means more sponsors, more professional sailors, more top racers and a more rapid design evolution towards faster boats.

I guess that many are having doubts about this statement, but look at the racing boat panorama: in handicap racing new top racing boats have become a rarity. Boats like Comanche or Rambler 88, both built 7 years ago, are still the top of the crop, while a top 7-year-old boat for solo or duo races, an IMOCA, with 7 years is already outdated and if not modified, it will only win a top race if more recent boats have problems.

Dehler 30 OD

Some would point out that VOR, now Ocean Race (new name), has a big audience, but that audience is considerably smaller than the one of the Vendée Globe. And not only the boats used in the last VOR edition were outdated, as the crews, having some top sailors, were constituted mostly by middle-level professional sailors and many that were top sailors on those crews had come from solo or duo racing. That was the case with the skipper, navigator and several other crew members of Dongfeng, the yacht that won the last edition.

JPK 1030

On the last Vendee Globe there were thirty-five yachts racing, while on the last VOR (now Ocean Race) there were only seven.  And while on the Vendee there were eight new boats racing, with many from the previous generations modified to be more competitive, all the boats that raced the last VOR were refitted yachts that had raced the previous edition, that had also only seven yachts racing.

The Vendée Globe is the more popular event regarding professional offshore solo/duo racing, but there are several other races with big popularity, like the Route du Rhum, Transat Jacques Vabre or the Barcelona Race, all raced in IMOCA. 

It does not happen the same with top-crewed offshore races for professionals, where the VOR is the only big race. There are no more races sailed exclusively with the VOR 65, and they compete in IRC races, many times chartered to amateur or semi-amateur crews. Unlike the Vendee Globe, the Ocean Race was postponed due to Covid. Instead of starting this year, it will only start in 2022, and this edition will be not only raced in the old VOR65 but also in IMOCA. 

This allowed a much bigger interest from professional solo/duo racers and the number of entries is already much bigger than in previous editions, 14 in IMOCA and 8 on the older VOR65.

The much bigger interest on the Ocean Race is not only due to the introduction of a more modern racing boat, one that has already a large fleet, but also due to the spectacular footage provided in the last edition by professional cameramen. Those great videos were responsible for a bigger audience and that means more potential advertising revenues, and all that allowed for a much bigger number of teams to be able to find sponsors for doing the next edition, 3 times more than on the two previous ones.

Sun Fast 3300

Unfortunately, the organization did not keep up with the increased sportive interest of this race, that would have the potential to be a sort of top World Offshore Championship for crewed racing, if the organization hadn't imposed ridiculous and numerous limitations on the crew composition, especially on the VOR65 crews, with limitations in what regards age and sex, allowing also frequent changes in the crew composition. On the IMOCA crews, the only crew limitation is that one of the five crew members has to be a woman, God knows why.

Obviously, if this were to be a more serious competition, crews could be formed freely, with the best sailors available,  old or young, men or women. If they want to give opportunities to all types of sailors no matter their age or sex, creating quotas, they obviously forgot one for sailors older than 60. LOL

But even so, on the Ocean Race, we see the same tendency in what regards downsizing crews and if the VOR65 still has a crew of 10, the IMOCA has 5, which is still unnecessarily big due to the type of boat and rigging (that will be different than the one used in solo/duo races).

Assuming they are top professional sailors that crew could be easily reduced to 4, without having a significant loss in performance.

J99

Long introduction, to point out what is now top professional offshore racing, and also to point out the disproportionate percentage of solo/duo racing sailors among the top sailors on top crewed racing professionals teams. On the last three editions of the Volvo Ocean Race, two were won by crews that had a skipper and several top team crew members that were top solo sailors.

The amateur offshore racing panorama has mostly to do with handicap racing and one-design series, but contrary to professional offshore top races the percentage of  "full" crewed racing is much bigger than solo or duo racing, maybe because it is much easier to sail with a crew than solo or duo. But that percentage has been rising sharply in the last years and not only the number of races for solo or duo has increased dramatically, as well as a duo-handed class was created on the main IRC races.

 

Probably the turning point was in 2013, when the Loison family ( a father and son duo) won overall, for the first time, a major IRC race, the Fastnet, obviously winning also the duo crewed class. A feat that was not repeated even if it was close to happening again in 2019: the son (Alexis Loison), sailing in duo with the boat builder, Jean Pierre Kleber, finished 5th overall, winning the two-handed class and their "full" crewed class, IRC 3. If the weather conditions had not favored big yachts (the overall winner was a VOR70) they would have probably won overall too.

https://www.sailing.org/news/1908.php#.YHh0OehKhhE

 

In France, offshore solo and duo racing have been popular among amateurs already for many years, but what is really new is the last years' increasing popularity in the UK, North of Europe and Italy. On the next Fastnet (August 2021) edition, we will have 89 duo crews, almost doubling the number that raced the 2013 edition! And more would be racing if the number of yachts allowed to participate was not limited.

https://www.rolexfastnetrace.com/en/videos/1015-rolex-fastnet-race-doublehanding-goes-supernova

 

On the most popular amateur Nordic offshore solo race, the Silverruder, this year's entries beat all previous records, and like on the Fastnet, they are not more because they are limited to 451 yachts, while the waiting list is much bigger than that. For the 2021 Mini Transat they have 126 pre-enrolled for 86 possible entries and for this year's Transquadra (amateur solo and duo racing Transat) there are 96 entries.

 

This increase of interest in amateur solo/duo offshore racing is very relevant to boat design, especially because we know that for each one doing these races, there are two or three others dreaming of doing them. And it is important because while on top professionals the size of the yacht that can be mastered solo, while racing, can go to 60ft, the same does not happen in amateur racing, not to mention that smaller yachts are much less expensive.

Aeolos P30

Medium-level professionals are not able to master solo 60ft boats (IMOCAS), and to master, I do not mean not being able to race them but to be truly competitive in them. Entry-level offshore solo professionals start with much less powerful sailboats, with 6.50 mini-racers (21.3ft) before passing to the Figaro class (32ft) and 40Class (40ft). Normally only good Figaro racers or 40class racers will be able to do a successful transition to the 60ft class, and even so most will need some years sailing them before being competitive.

Farr X2

A full amateur crew of good level can be competitive racing a 40 to 50 ft cruiser-racer (or racer)  but the same does not happen if the boat is sailed solo or duo. Besides, because cruiser-racers and race yachts are designed to race with a big crew seating on the side acting as ballast, they are underpowered, without the human moving ballast, while racing solo or duo.

The market for an offshore racing yacht, including cruiser racers, was for many years dominated by yachts between 37ft and 50ft, but now, with the increase of duo and solo amateur offshore racing interest, we can observe an unparalleled increase in the offer of small cruiser-racers and racing boats, yachts between 21.3ft and 35ft, with running rigging adapted to solo or duo racing, many with water ballast, to take the place of the crew seated on the rail, or with a big B/D, that provides the upwind extra power to sail upwind or beam reaching, the extra power that was generated by the crew weight, acting as ballast.

Dehler 30 OD

That is why in what regards racing boats and cruiser-racers this market niche is probably the one with more interesting and innovative racing sailboats (including cruiser-racers) and with more new production boats. Sensing this "revolution" I started this article more than a year ago, but I decided to wait till the tendency was more clear to all, and it was a good move because since then several new boats have appeared.

Great new times are coming not only in what regards sail racing but also in what regards sportive spartan cruising associated with a boat's dual-use. Of course, all this started many years ago with the 6.50 mini-racer (44 years ago) and many years later with two pioneering cruiser-racers, the Figaro I (31 years ago) and the Pogo 8.50 (22 years ago). 

JPK 1030

But then it was exclusively a French thing. Now you have just to look at the many nationalities that will race this year's Mini Transat to understand that solo/duo racing has become an international affair. The majority of racers are still French but now there are racers of other 13 nationalities, many of them with several sailors competing.

There are actually 3 Mini-Racers that are production yachts (Wevo 6.5, Maxi 650, Pogo 3) and like those many other small sailboats are designed having as focus solo offshore sailing and solo/duo racing among them the Django 6.70, 7.70, 9.80 (one 7.70 is circumnavigating), Seascape 27 /First 27 (10 years ago), JPK 10.10 (10 years ago), A27, A31 (11 years ago), A35, Figaro 2 (18 years ago) and the Sunfast  3200 (13 years ago).

Sun Fast 3300

Recently a new generation of racers and cruiser-racers, pointed to solo or duo racing, come to the market, and are already dominating not only the solo/duo amateur racing but crewed IRC offshore racing (on their division and also winning overall): The JPK 10.80, JPK 10.30, J99, Sunfast 3300, Sunfast 3600, that were joined recently by even more recent designs, some still on the building phase, the Dehler 30 OD, Aeolos P30 and the Farr X2.

This new generation of small cruiser racers and racing boats, their variety and market vitality, are a response to the explosive rise of interest for amateur solo/duo offshore sail racing, not only in France, but everywhere. This type of racing allows having great fun with small costs, and allows to have great sportive results, not only in dedicated races, but in IRC major offshore races, where a good duo crew can win, not only the two-handed division but also the crewed division, and even the race overall.

J99

Recently this interest in solo/duo amateur racing was recognized by the World Sailing federation that proposed a duo-handed World Championship and the creation of an Olympic offshore duo category for the 2024 Olympic Games. Unfortunately with a new Chinese President on the World Sailing federation, all these projects went backward, as well as the official recognition of the international growing interest in this type of sailing.

But I would say that it is only a question of time because it is not the President of WS that decides the routes of sailing as a competitive sport, but the sailors that race and that choose in what type of sail racing they are more interested in, and they do that by racing the way they like more.

 

To the growing interest will correspond a bigger number of racers, more boats designed for those races, more public interest, more sponsors and that's the way things work, and not the other way around, with someone on top deciding what should be, and what should not be, the future of sail racing.

https://voilesetvoiliers.ouest-france.fr/regate/jeux-olympiques/exclusif-il-n-y-aura-probablement-pas-de-course-au-large-aux-jo-de-2024-421643de-9db4-11eb-bdb9-ce8e92ef2801?fbclid=IwAR1jq4qeTVUOf-CbSDz9sEmBQY77VH5EPGEndo1GOfLuHCtPqUPWwzUSMjU