Friday, January 5, 2024

RM 1080, A WORTHY SUCCESSOR TO A GREAT CRUISER?

RM yachts used to be very innovative boats and great yachts, but for several years I have not made a single post about them, even if they continue on the market, after a bankruptcy and subsequent recovery by Grand Large Group, that owns several brands: Allures, Garcia, Outremer and Gunboat, besides RM.

RM 1180, the boat that has led to RM bankruptcy. It is beautiful but
its hull shape with that cosmetic superior chine demanded a hull made
 not only of epoxy-saturated plywood but also made of fiberglass.
The last post was made almost 4 years ago at the time of bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition by Grand Large. It was an odd bankruptcy because they had a large number of orders, but due to the bankruptcy of a sub-contractor, that made the fiberglass parts for them, they could not make the boats at the prices that were agreed on the contracts. You can read more about that here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/rm-yachts-bankruptcy-and-shameful.html

RM 1380 and the  ugly graphic work
The new management did not bring anything new to the brand or to the sailboats. The 1180 continued to be oddly made with a hull partially in fiberglass and partially in epoxy-saturated plywood. The only new model was a remake of the RM 1370, now renamed 1380, that finished with the nonsense of a two-material hull, and like the 1380 before, it has a hull made of epoxy-saturated plywood, a deck made of cored fiberglass, being the boat also fiberglassed over the plywood on the interior.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/11/beautiful-rm-1180.html

RM 1380 at the 2023 Dusseldorf boat show. You can notice the
boat finish, with a lacquered blue over an uneven surface. 
I saw the RM 1380 last year at Dusseldorf, it looked huge, beamy, with a big freeboard and a beautiful and big interior. It was also a bit on the expensive side, costing at the shipyard without VAT 393,550 euros, and about 550 000 with VAT, decently equipped.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/02/new-rm-1380-looking-good.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-french-wooden-voyage-boat-rm-1370.html

Oceanis 46.1
As a comparison, we can look at the Oceanis 46.1 price, without VAT at the shipyard costs 74,000 euros less, and the difference will be bigger on two similarly equipped boats with VAT paid, I would say around a 125,000 euros difference. 

The RM 1380 is a better boat but I would say that most who will spend more than half a million on a boat will also want that boat to look nicer than a much cheaper boat, and the hull finish of the RM was quite deceiving. 

Not only due to ugly graphics that look inappropriate in an expensive boat but also due to a lacquered blue painted hull, that you could see clearly did not have a perfect finish. All this contributed to an amateurish look, where class was absent. A functional yacht but not one you would fall in love with. You can see what I am talking about, as well as the big and well-finished interior in this "Yacht.de" presentation:

 

The problem with RM yachts has to do with the plywood building technique, which is suitable for small yachts, but not really adapted for big unities like this one. Just because RM made its name and reputation by building small epoxy plywood-saturated yachts does not mean it has to use the same technique to build bigger yachts.


The first RM were entirely made of epoxy-saturated plywood, then they started to use fiberglass for the cabins and decks. On the 1180 significant parts of the hull are made of fiberglass. On the 13.80 they abandoned the nonsense of having a hull with fiberglass parts and plywood parts and made it again all in saturated epoxy plywood, with a fiberglass cabin and deck. 

I wonder if the RM 1380 would not be a better boat if it was all made in fiberglass. But it is a plywood shipyard (all the fiberglass parts are outsourced) and making the boat in fiberglass would have implied a big investment. I don't know if it would make sense, because epoxy-plywood is a perfect construction method for the smaller boats that constitute the RM line. Maybe RM should stick to smaller boats having 36 to 40ft as its upper limit.


Probably what makes sense is to return to the origins, I mean, RM yachts were about inexpensive small fast plywood boats that offered a huge interior space, and good seaworthiness that allowed sailors to cruise to faraway places with a little budget.

1998 RM 1035
They started to build yachts 35 years ago and for many years they built small yachts for sailors who wanted to sail and cruise differently. Their first 40ft was only built in 2004 and it was not a big success, being their most successful boat the 35fter, which was first named as 1050, then as 1060, 1070, and now 1080.



Above, RM 1380 interior space, below,
Dufour 470 home-like interior space.
But the yacht cruising market demanded bigger and bigger cruising sailboats. This is linked partially to the increase in the cost of sailboats and the lack of places in marinas near big European towns. This led to most cruising boats being bought near, or at retirement age, in many cases by sailors who had not sailed extensively during their lives and whose wifes wanted to live, even if only for some months in the summer, in a house-like sailboat and therefore wanted the biggest possible cruising interior at the minimum possible cost.

Well, RM is not about that, and even if the 1380 can offer the accommodations that satisfy those requirements, the price is substantially higher than other options in the market, and puts the RM 1380 out of the main market, competing on the much smaller market for bluewater cruisers, a very limited one in numbers, where I have doubts plywood is really the best option, making it a boat that will be bought by very few.

The true RM best seller is the 35/36fter, in a size where epoxy-impregnated plywood makes sense and where the option for very beamy boats has given  RM the possibility of offering a small voyage boat with two decent cabins, lots of storage space, fast and with good seaworthiness.



RM 1070, above and below
And curiously they had maintained for 9 years, practically without changes, their last boat in this range, which is a huge period if we take into account the average time for changing a model, or at least for launching a true MKII. The RM 1070 is a great boat, very modern for its time, and escaped the nonsense introduction of a hull that was part plywood, part fiberglass and it sold well.

Some years back they introduced the 1370+, but it was not an MKII, just the same boat with some small improvements. The RM1080 is close to the RM 1070 but we can talk about a new boat, with a slightly different hull, basically the same interior, but with a new cockpit concept.

The cockpit proposal seems to me like the beginning of a good idea that got stuck somewhere. On a boat like the 10.80 the priority on the evolution should be to offer a bigger amount of living space to the sailors, without compromising speed and seaworthiness, while offering in the cockpit added protection and a better-adapted space for the cockpit's main functions: sailing the boat and living in the boat, while sailing and while at anchor.

For RM shipyard this should be a revolutionary boat to relance the brand, now under the Grand Large ownership, but with the original owner as CEO. Well, it is not, but it could and should have been.
Above the new 1080. It looks beamier even if they announce the same beam
(4.0m), that is a huge one for a 35.4ft sailboat. The max beam on the 1080
is reached at almost midship, and that makes the bow entries less fine.

The previous design is already a great one, the fruit of the continuous development of a concept over several models. This one should be the continuation of that evolution, and given the 9 years that separate it from the previous model, it should be considerably improved.

Knowing well what the type of cruiser that wants this type of boat is, it should be easy for them to provide this one with solutions that would make it a choice, not only for those cruisers but for the ones that would find that the bigger main brand 40fters (that are in reality 39fters), that cost about the same price, are not a better solution for a couple that wants to live in the boat for considerable periods and to cruise around, in the Med or doing the Atlantic circuit: Med-Caribbean-Med.


Above, RM 1070, below RM 1080
Providing the previous design already a great living space and very good performance, the improvements on this design should have to do with the shortcomings of the RM1070 towards main brands 40fters and in offering important features that are needed for cruising and that are absent on those boats and have to be customized later.

A virtual visit to the 1070 interior:


Being the RM 1070 interior space amazing, one of the shortcomings towards a 40fter is the smaller space to carry a dinghy forward to the cabin, which implies the use of a small dinghy. Everybody who cruises and likes to be at anchor will tell you that a dinghy, with at least 2.50/2.60m and a 4/6 hp engine is very important for autonomy, while at anchor. 

Initially, drawings were more radical, and the new model
looked even better, but the choice of not using a hull made 
partially in fiberglass limited design possibilities.
It allows one to be on anchor in less crowded places, having the possibility to go safely to villages some miles away for bread, restaurants, and provisions.

Not having space for it forward to the cabin, the obvious solution is to have it in an arch structure on the back of the boat, which would also provide space for the installation of solar panels and a wind generator. 

RM 1070 with a custom-made arch for carrying
 the dinghy and for solar panels
Solar panels are indispensable for cruising life and all cruisers have to customize a solution. If such a solution, for having the dinghy suspended and for solar panels, was an RM 1080 option, many sailors would have it, so many that probably it would make sense to have a version called "bluewater" with all that equipment. If produced in bigger quantities it would be less expensive than if customized, not to mention, better designed.

RM potential buyers tend to sail more and farther away than buyers of main brands 40fters, so another improvement that would be much appreciated would be better protection for sailing at night or with rainy weather, but the cockpit modifications they propose have nothing to do with that, but just with the possibility of having more space to be reclined, half laying, while at anchor. 

The new cockpit has the disadvantage of not allowing mounting a winch near the helmsman, for a genoa or a gennaker, putting all the winches far away, over the cabin, with the access made difficult by a fixed table. And it does not allow a good seated position at the wheel. They propose for it a kind of ridiculous seats behind the wheels, that are not comfortable or suited to steer the boat when it is heeled.


Above, RM 1080, below RM 1070. Note the absence of space on the
 1080 to seat comfortably at the wheel, as well as the impossibility of
having a genoa winch near the wheels. Imagine those seats brought to
the transom and a tiller. There are several options to modify the
 traveler to allow that.
.

A disadvantage of the previous cockpit solution versus a longer 40ft cockpit, that is not bettered on this one, is the length of cockpit seats that do not allow for laying down on them, sleeping from time to time, during a night watch solo, or with a wife who refuses to make night watches, and they are many.

While on a 40ft sailboat, there is enough length on the cockpit seats for laying at night, on a 36ft boat with a two-wheel setup you do not have enough space. But if you change from two wheels to a single tiller or single wheel, you can bring those seats all the way to the transom, not only allowing for space to lay down but also increasing the interior aft cabin space and the space for storage, inside and outside. Space in a small boat is precious, especially when you want to give it the same or better-cruising potential of a bigger boat, with the same price.
 
If well-designed the longer cockpit seats will provide space for a bigger sprayhood, one that can be easily put up and down, leaving half the cockpit covered and half in the sun, providing good shelter when it rains, or the sea is rough, and the tiller with a pole extension will provide better access to the winches over the cabin, with the possibility of having a winch on the side for the second head sail.

Probably it implies bringing the rudder a bit forward or moving the boom traveler aft the rudder. No big deal. Eventually, even if the tiller makes a lot more sense, an option with a single wheel can be used, one of those that tilts to make the access forward easier.


Above, on the 1080, you can sit but there is no space for lying on
 those big cockpit "beds. You can see that the seat for helming
disappeared substituted by narrow and uncomfortable seats.
One thing they should have done on this boat was to mount one of those cockpit tables that hide under the cockpit floor. It is especially important because it relies on winches over the cabin for maneuvering, and due to being a 35.4ft boat, does not have a wide cockpit that allows easy passage forward, with a cockpit table in the middle.

I don't know if I am wrong. I am thinking as a cruiser that likes fast boats, but it is possible that the RM would sell better with the 1070 looks, just because it looks more like a race boat, and some are not bought for extended living aboard. About looks, the 10.80 is improved by a continuous plexiglass window that makes the boat look longer, and the bowsprit is longer, even if the 1080 has less fine bow entries than the 1070.


RM 1070, seating position at the wheel, with a winch nearby.
They did not pursue that crazy solution they tried in the 1180 of a hull part plywood, part fiberglass, and that is a very positive thing. 

The 1080 may not look as good as the 1180, but it looks good, and the building is much more rational and problem-free.

The 1080, as its name indicates, is slightly longer than the 1070 (cm), it has the same big beam (4.0m) with a hull with the beam brought aft. The difference is that in the new boat max beam is almost at the midships, while on the previous model, it was more aft and it was not all brought back to the transom, like in the 1080. This allowed for finer entries on the previous model.
 
The RM 1080 is heavier (5200 to 4900kg), and it has similar keels (twin keel, single keel, or swing keel) with a similar draft (2.04/2.05 for the single keel, 1.72 for the twin keel). Like on previous models they don't announce ballast, which on the version with the twin keels, on the 1070, is 1600kg. That gives a 32.7%B/D on a keel with 1.72m. 

That is not much and it will give it a safety stability and an AVS probably not better than the one on a Jeanneau SO 410 (that has good values for a main brand 40fter), and smaller than for instance the one on a Pogo 36, that has a smaller 30.3%B/D, but on a swing keel with 2.8m draft. 


Above, RM 1080, below RM 1070
However, it should be pointed out that the RM 1080, being heavier than the Pogo (5200 to 3600kg) will have a bigger overall stability. I hope that on the TM 1080 they have resisted the temptation of not increasing the ballast, otherwise the AVS and the safety stability will be worse than on the RM 1070. For having a similar AVS and safety stability the new boat should have at least around 100kg more ballast.

The new boat will have the advantage of a bigger standard tankage, water 2x150L to 186L (on the 1070) and fuel, 130L to 80L. In regards to sailing it is the opposite having, both boats with genoa, 72.0m2 for the 1080 and 77.2m2 for RM1070. 


Above and below, RM1070
Being the 1070 300kg lighter, having a bigger SA/D, with finer entries, it is a faster sailing boat. Not having the 1080 the possibility of having a gennaker winch (that can also be used to sail the boat solo with a genoa) contributes to the smaller sportiveness. Both have a 30hp engine.

Bottom point, if I had to choose, I would choose the 1070 over the 1080. Sure, the 1080 looks slightly better if we don't look at the cockpit, but I find that solution bad. If it offers some advantages while at anchor, it offers big disadvantages while sailing the boat...and it makes the boat uglier.

It displeases me to say that I find that the 1080 is not the evolution I hoped for to give a new life to RM yachts, and to continue the innovation path that had characterized RM yachts, before having derailed.

The new boat will cost at the shipyard without taxes 250,000€, and the Jeanneau costs 228,672€. 

21,000 euros less but the RM has better sail hardware and you will have to spend more on the Jeanneau to have the same quality, not to mention there is not a cutter rig option for the Jeanneau, that is an option on the RM.

Above Jeanneau SO 410, below, Pogo 36
Both boats with taxes and fully equipped should cost in Europe a bit more than 300 000€ (VAT between 19 and 23%) and being different boats can be a choice for a sailor that has a budget of less than 350,000€ and wants a relatively fast cruising boat.

Being the Jeanneau SO 410 the fastest among 39/40ft main brands mass-produced sailboats, and offering also an option for a swing keel (that is also possible on the RM1080) it is a natural competitor.

We could also consider the Pogo 36, which can also have a swing keel and will fit the same budget, but it is a much faster and radical sailboat, not offering the same interior comfort, offering more fun while sailing, provided you cruise in a spartan way, carrying very little personal stuff. 

A different type of cruising, less pointed for family cruising and more for solo or a very sportive couple. 

 But no doubt, some of the ones who will consider choosing the RM1080 as a cruising boat will also consider the Pogo 36, but not the same that will consider a choice between the RM 1080 and the Jeanneau SO 410.


Wednesday, December 27, 2023

MOJITO VIRGIN 650 VERSUS OCEANIS 30.1 AND DJANGO 770

I talked about this sailboat when it was at the project stage, back in 2020, and failed to give any more information. It could have seemed that the Virgin Mojito 650 had not passed to the production stage, but that is not the case, and till April this year 6 boats have been launched, probably more at this time.

The Mojito 650 is the cruising version of the Maxi 650 racer,
the boat that won more times the Transat in the Series class.
For more information about this boat and its technical characteristics look here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/11/virgin-mojito-650.html 

I raised some reservations regarding safety stability because the boat is only certified as a Class C sailboat (inshore use) while there are older Mini racers certified as Class A sailboats. It turns out that the demands have changed and today to be certified as a Class B a boat needs to have at least 1500kg, and the mini-racers displace only about 900kg.

However, mini racers have to pass the stability substantial requirements that the class demands, namely "the boat lying at 90° must have a positive righting moment with a load of 55 Kg at the maximum air draft" and that is a high demand in what regards safety stability and implies a big AVS.

That's the case with the racing mini built by IDB (Maxi 650), the same shipyard that builds the Mojito. 

The Maxi 650 is the most successful racer in the Production class, with 50 sailboats already built and many victories in the Mini Transat. Even if its safety stability would allow it to be certified as a Class B, it can only be certified as a Class C (2 meters waves and 6 Beaufort) because it weighs only 900kgs, far away from the needed 1500kg for a Class B certification.

For a 900kg boat to be able to make 55kg of positive force at the point of the mast lying at 90º, a big safety stability is required as well as a big AVS, and if the 900kg of displacement means that the overall stability is not big, the big safety stability means that the dynamic stability is excellent.

Being the Mojito Virgin 650 derived from the racing boat and displacing only 1200kg they chose not to weigh the boat unnecessarily with 300kg more, just to certify it as a Class B sailboat.



Oceanis 30.1
On their site, they don't inform us about the ballast. I asked them but I did not receive any reply. Voile et Moteur magazine talks about 416kg on a swing keel (0.80m and 1.85m), not a bulbed one, even if slightly larger at the bottom. That gives a 34.7% ballast which is not exceptional for this type of keel and draft, but that is way more than the 21.2% of an Oceanis 30.1, with a swing keel, even if with more draft (1.20-2.30m). A bigger B/D is also important for more stiffness (sail power).

Not saying that the First Oceanis 30.1, which is certified as class B, is less seaworthy than this boat, but certainly has worse dynamic stability, much worse safety stability, and a higher AVS, while having a much bigger overall stability due to having a  displacement 3.4 times bigger. The Oceanis 30.1 has the same beam and a bigger hull length (6.50 to 8.66m).

Dynamic stability is very important to sailboat safety and is linked with the ability to dissipate the energy of a breaking wave while skidding (instead of converting it in a rolling movement) and the ability to righten itself up very quickly after a knockdown, not allowing the boat to be caught by the next wave still lying or deeply heeled, and without almost no positive stability.



Django 770
If we look at the sail area we will see that the 3.4 times heavier Oceanis 30.1 has a standard 39.5m2 sail area, and the Virgin Mojito 650 has 38m2. The difference in stiffness/sail power is huge, the polar speeds are quite impressive, all that showing clearly what the Mojito 650 is about. 

Why am I talking about these two very different cruising boats? Because the prices of a sailaway boat should not be that different and that counts a lot when choosing a cruising boat. 

Both, in standard condition, cost respectively 75500€ (Mojito) and 102200€ (Oceanis), without VAT at the shipyard, but the Oceanis comes with sails, a kitchen, a WC, and lights, and the Mojito comes with nothing but cushions, being all cruising equipment optional. In the end, if both boats were equipped the same way, I would not be surprised if the Mojito (that cannot have a separate WC, or a marine one) would be more expensive.

More about the Oceanis 30.1 here:

These boats represent, for a similar cost, opposite perspectives regarding cruising. The Mojito gives top priority to the sailing part of cruising and to sailing as a sport, while the Oceanis gives priority to the living aboard functionality, which is part of cruising in a sailboat.

You can make a virtual visit to the Mojito 650 here: 

https://www.idbmarine.fr/3D/Visite%20Mojito%20650.html

The Mojito sailing fun is without parallel for the cost and available interior space, but as a cruising boat, even a camping spartan one, the Mojito leaves much to be desired, and even if it offers a big cockpit locker for storage, it does not have an anchor locker to store the anchor, chain, and cable rod, and worse, it has not even a dedicated mooring cleat.

A racing Maxi 650 doing the Mini Transat:


Oceanis 30.1 interieur
As a fast pocket cruiser (even if not as fast) the Django 770 seems a much better proposition: it costs just 4,000 euros more but it has much more standard equipment, including sails, engine, kitchen, electricity and a chemical toilet (as an option can have a sea toilet). 

It offers also bigger seaworthiness, with a Class B standard certification, bigger overall stability (1750 kg displacement) for a not-very-different safety and dynamic stability, having several keel options, including a swing keel with 1.90m draft and 600kg ballast (34.3%B/D).

A Django 770 doing a circumnavigation:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-never-ending-circumnavigation-on-25ft.html

But if you want to cruise, sailing in a boat with an almost racing performance, with about the same sensations, the  Mojito Virgin 650 offers the cheapest way to do it. It all depends on how important sailing pleasure is for you in comparison to living comfort.

On top Django 770, Directly above, Virgin Mojito 650
Top performance is never cheap, the boats have to be built with top materials and techniques, the same ones used in racing boats, to allow for a lighter but strong sailboat and the same happens with sail hardware.

A radical sailboat for radical cruisers and sometimes being radical about something is not a bad thing and makes us enjoy life with undiluted pleasure.

Today I am old and that affects my perspective but I remember all the joy I had cruising each year for a month in a boat about the size of that one, equally devoid of any interior, with a much smaller interior volume and much less standing height. There is a remarkable pleasure in living simply, keeping only the important things in mind, and for me, sailing and traveling, are the most important parts of cruising, and I love having fun while sailing.

Thursday, December 14, 2023

TWO BEAUTIFUL YACHTS: ARCONA 50 VERSUS X-YACHT 4-9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Arcona 50

The Arcona 50 looks like an X-Yacht, and if it was not built by Arcona, it could be an X-yacht. That is one of the few things that could be said negatively about the Arcona 50.


Above the Arcona 50, below the X4.9 MKII
 version. The resemblances are clear.
I had already talked extensively about the Arcona 50 designed by Jeppesen and Pons, the ones that used to design X-yachts:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/03/surprising-arcona-50.html

Niels Jeppesen, one of the founders of X-yachts left the company, but X-Yachts that are designed now by an X-yacht design team, continue to be designed along the same lines used by Jeppesen and Pons, which created a distinctive image brand. Nothing wrong with that, it is their brand's image.

The same used to happen with Arcona which managed to create a strong image identity under the designs of Stefan Qviberg (who passed away), but contrary to X-Yachts lost that identity on the new Arcona 50, which is now indistinguishable from an X-yacht.

It is as if Porsche used a Ferrari designer and the new Porsche looked like the new Ferrari. I don't know about Arcona fans but I am quite sure Porsche fans would have hated it, and as far as I am concerned I think the same way. Instead of going along with the lines of the Arcona 435 ( the last Qviberg design), and slightly modernizing them, Jeppesen and Pons opted to continue the work they were doing for X-yachts here, and obviously, the new Arcona looks like an X-Yacht.

Above Arcona 40, below X4-9 (MKI). You can see the different transom
designs. The one on the Arcona, without limiting heel is more progressive.
The X4.9 one works like a chine, creating more RM at a given heel angle.
The new Arcona 50 sails very well, it is not about that, it is about having an Arcona that appears to be an X-yacht, a bit beamier maybe. It does not seem right to me. But maybe the market proves me wrong, and I would not be surprised: even in big fast sailboats, that apparently have all the space one needs, people are buying and wanting beamier and beamier sailboats.

Look for instance at the new Solaris 50 and the previous model, being the new one a lot beamier and slower than the previous model. 

I would have preferred the older model but it is obvious that the new one sells better, and that the criteria I value most in a performance cruiser are not the same that are preferred by most.

Regarding Arcona versus X-Yacht as boat builders, I have heard some complaints about the quality of X-Yachts, but to be honest I don't know if it is just one or two random cases, or, if like somebody has said to me, their quality is not what it used to be, due to a much larger production and the need to maximize manufacturing speed and to minimize costs. What cannot be denied is that they have a very clear difference regarding shipyard size and boats and the number of produced yachts.


Above Arcona 50, below, X4-9 (MKI)
If I had to choose between an Arcona 50 and a similar-sized X-yacht, I would take that into consideration, because being built in much smaller numbers by a reputable and experienced boat builder, basically the same way as X-Yachts, the chances are that Arconas are built with bigger attention to details and better quality control. 

Arcona cannot get it wrong with this one while for X-Yacht it would be just one more yacht among the considerable number they build.

Arcona 50 natural competitor is the new MKII version of the 2018 X4-9, which is basically the old boat with some small modifications: the same hull, bigger bowsprit, redesigned single rudder, revised small winch relocation, and some small cosmetic touches to make it look more like the new X5-6 (that looks like the Arcona 50, just a bit bigger). 

The bigger differences between the Arcona and the X4-9 regards the hull, with the Arcona 50 having the beam slightly more brought aft (being more similar to the X5-9), having two rudders instead of one, being a foot longer (HL 14.99 to 14.65m) and most of all, considerably more beamier (4.60 to 4.49m). 


Above Arcona 50, below the X4-9 (MKI)

By modern standards, the Arcona 50 is not very beamy and its 4.60m beam is a lot smaller than the one of the smaller Hanse 460 (4.79m beam), it is smaller than the one of the new Solaris 50 (4.78m beam) and much smaller than the one of the Hallberg Rassy 50 (4.99 beam), the one than the new Contest 50 (4.90m) or even smaller than the Pegasus 50 beam ( 4.83m).

Curiously it has the same beam as the X-yacht C50 (that has a very different hull), and it is bigger than the sportier and much faster XP 50 (4.43m beam). 

If we want to look at really fast all-around performance cruisers or cruiser racers, the Mylius 50 has a 4.48m beam, the Swan 50 has a 4.20m and the Shogun 50 has 3.88m, being the only one that can be considered to have a narrow hull. A very beamy fast performance cruiser maximized for downwind sailing, like the Pogo 50, has a 5.15m beam.

Above, the two Arcona 50 layouts, below,
 the two X4-9 layouts.
 They are very similar.
Arcona 50 and X4-9 have similar lead torpedo keels and while the B/D is big on both boats, it is way bigger on the X4-9 (42.5% to 35.8%) even if we have to give some compensation to Arcona due to having more 10cm draft.

If on the Arcona that B/D will give good safety stability and AVS, on the X4-9 it will give much better values. In regards to sailing power (stiffness), the bigger Arcona 50 compensates for the much bigger X4-9 B/D with a bigger hull form stability and the performances should not be very different, except upwind with waves, where the X4-9 will have a better performance.

The B/D was calculated with the X4-9 standard (2.40m) draft and the Arcona with the optional 2.50m draft. As standard, the Arcona 50 has a 2.95m draft with  600kg less ballast. With these configurations the X4-9 displaces in light condition 12900kg and the Arcona 14500kg.

Even considering the difference in size (the Arcona is one foot longer, 11 cm wider), the difference in displacement seems too big for two boats built the same way and with about the same materials.

Arcona announced that this boat was more intended for bluewater sailing than the others, maybe Arcona is built in a beefier way, or maybe the X-yacht displacement is too optimistic.  Sailboat displacement remains in many cases the one that is used for certifying the sailboat project, an estimated displacement. The displacement should be mandatorily corrected after the boat is built and weighted, but that is not the case.

 
Above Arcona, below X4-9. Both garages have small
height and that makes it not easy to store a dinghy inside,
 especially if you are raising it from the water
I know of boats of this size that missed the forecasted weight for over a ton. Anyway, if these values are correct then Arcona has a substantially bigger overall stability, but a smaller AVS and a smaller safety stability.

To put these displacements in perspective a Hallberg Rassy 50 displaces 21000 kg, a Contest 50 22900kg, a Solaris 50 15900kg, an ICE 52 12500kg, and a Pogo 50  8900kg. 

Regarding SA/D both the X4-9 and the Arcona 50 have very similar very high SA/D. Both boats have standard jib on a self-tacking rail and can optionally have instead a small genoa. 

Both with jib, the X4-9 has a SA/D of 22.3 and the Arcona 24.3.  Both with a small genoa, the X4-9 has 23.9 and the Arcona 25.8. The smaller X4-9 SA/D has to do with the X-yacht being less beamy. Less beamy sailboats generally need less sail area to sail upwind and less sail area to sail in weak wind.

They do not only look very similar, as they have very similar performances, with the X4-9 being just a bit better upwind (and probably in light wind) and the Arcona 50 sailing with a bit less heel and probably being just a bit faster beam reaching with medium-strong to strong winds and just a bit easier downwind with strong winds.

Both boats offer excellent space for whelming the boat, the cabin seats
are about the same length, but the Arcona cockpit is much wider,
allowing for a passage between the two tables, but keeping people apart.
However, let me point out that in regards to transom design (and sailing with more or less heel) the two transom designs are different but not necessarily one better than the other. 

The beam is much more brought back on the Arcona, but it is not one of those transoms that limit heel at a relatively low angle, quite the contrary, it allows progressively high angles of heel, increasing RM and trying to limit the increase in drag. It is a design more centered on allowing a very good performance than on making it easier to sail the yacht, and I see it as a positive thing on a performance cruiser.

The one on the X4-9 is less progressive and it is designed to increase RM at a given heel angle, minimizing drag, partially compensating the smaller hull form stability (due to the smaller X4-9 beam) and giving a better performance at the angle the designer considered that the hull works better, taking into account the increase in drag and the more substantial B/D, that demands heel, to be fully exploited.

The sail hardware, the running rigging, the winches location, and even the optional genoa tracks are very similar being the main difference a single-point attachment for the main line control (boom) on the X-yacht, versus an electric-operated traveler, a very expensive piece of equipment, on the Arcona.

Arcona longitudinal galley is not as in the layouts. It is better.

Regarding layout, both boats are very similar and you can even tell that they were designed by the same designer, both have a  good space aft the engine for technical equipment, both have a good sail locker at the bow and a dinghy garage, being the one of the Arcona wider due to the extra beam.

But the dinghy garage, when is not complemented with a decent storage space in the cockpit has its own problems because it is a wet storage space, and it is impossible to maintain it dry. 


Above and below, Arcona 50 interior is nice, with lots of
storage, even if a bit cold for my taste.
Besides it is not subdivided and that means that anything you put there will be moving around, and will stay wet. It is not a suitable space to mount any electronic equipment not designed to be in wet places, and most of them are not.

Arcona, being much wider should have much more storage space than the X4-9, especially aft, but while the X4-9 has storage space under both cockpit seats (one of them for the liferaft), Arcona, besides the garage, has only a small cockpit central locker for the liferaft. 

Arcona's garage is wider but does not have dedicated storage spaces at the sides (subdivided), nor a way to access that lateral space from the cockpit (only central hatch access), and that makes that extra space of little use, in what regards storage. It allows only a slightly bigger dinghy, even so, too small for a boat of this size.

The absence of practical storage in the cockpit can make a big difference in regards to cruising, with Arcona lacking the space to store all that stuff that all that cruise know needs to be at hand. Not having an easy storage dry space,  with easy access on the cockpit makes no sense because such space is needed for cruising, and even for sailing, to store equipment frequently used.

Anyway, those two garages will be of little use in regards to storing a dinghy while cruising a cruising ground, which implies using it almost every day. The dinghy has to be a small one, for a boat this size, and due to the need to store cruising material in the garage, and the small height of the compartment, it will give a lot of work to put it in and out, much more than if it is stored on davits or over the deck.


Above and below X4-9 interior. The Arcona 50 galley in 
the layout with the longitudinal galley is bigger than the
 one of the X4-9. On the layout with the L galley, the one
 from Arcona is slightly bigger due to the bigger beam.

For an oceangoing cruiser, it makes sense to have a storage space where a dinghy could be stored, even half deflated, on a several days ocean passage, but for that, the best design would be to reserve the central part for storage of a folded dinghy, while reserving the two lateral parts for two dry storage compartments, accessed from the cockpit. But of course, that would diminish the space of the aft cabins and these days interior space is the most valuable commodity in cruising sailboats.

The interior layout is very similar but due to the bigger beam, the interior volume is bigger on the Arcona, with special relevance for the two aft cabins that are not only wider but higher because they include the space under the cockpit seats. 


The X4-9 interior is less imposing, with a smaller height but also

 with lots of storage. I find it more cozy and with enough space:
a boat-like interior versus a more house-like interior.
The Arcona 50 interior is also a bit higher due to higher freeboards.

The standard engines are similar with around 60hp (both with an option for 80hp), the diesel tankage is bigger on the Arcona (375L to 265L) as well as the water tankage (375L to 310L). Both can have optionally more tankage.

The Arcona 50 costs standard at the shipyard, without VAT, 844240 €, and the X4-9 MKII  costs  696000 euros, as announced by Yacht.de, even if the price seems too low, if compared to Arcona. 

Of course, it all depends on the standard equipment that comes with each boat, but traditionally both brands include standard much material that is optional on other brands.

I bet some of you will be asking what would be the one I would prefer. I would have to say I don't know exactly, there are things I prefer on the X-yacht and others on the Arcona. 

On the X-yacht, I like the smaller beam, the smaller freeboard, the bigger B/D, the cozier, and warmer interior, the cockpit storage space, and being built with epoxy resin. 

Above, Arcona 50, below X4-9
On the Arcona I like more the transom design, the electric mainsheet traveller and the idea of being built in smaller numbers, presumably with more attention to finish and detail. 

I don´t like the aluminum rudder stocks on X-yacht, but being the designer the same, I don't know if the new Arcona has them (I hope not). 

I prefer the twin rudders of the Arcona, not because they are more effective, but because they pose fewer problems while docking in the med.

About the advantages and disadvantages of twin rudders:
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/11/best-type-of-rudder-skeg-rudder-spade.html

If those prices are right and correspond to boats equipped similarly, I like a lot more X-yacht price, even if I doubt both boats equipped the same way have a difference of price over 178 000 € (with VAT), but if so, I would clearly prefer the X-Yacht, but it is not up to me to decide, it is up to you.

Other performance cruisers around 50ft that may interest you:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-ice-52-had-bad-luck-last-year-it.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/12/new-solaris-50-beautiful-but.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/12/italia-1498-fast-beautiful-and.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/shogun-50-and-shogun-426.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/07/mylius-50-carbon-rocket-cruiser-racer.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/02/grand-soleil-48-performance-and-race.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/10/swan-48-perfect-performance-cruiser.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/03/kraken-50-versus-pegasus-50-comparison.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/pegasus-50-perfect-long-range-voyage.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/10/oceantec-50-what-looker.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/12/another-dream-boat-fc3-53.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/11/fc3-53-dream-come-true.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/eleva-50-different-and-not-only-in-what.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/01/new-first-53-kind-of-disappointment.html