Tuesday, October 30, 2018


The Bente 39 is on the water, on schedule, and it is a very interesting boat. I had already talked about it on a previous post but I have to confess that I did not expect it to be so well finished and to have such a good looking interior.

I am judging by the photos, I hope to see it at Dusseldorf to confirm that. The elevated chart table and the inside steering position seem to be very interesting for the ones that sail in cold climates, out of season or for long passages even if all that “glass” area would turn to be a disadvantage for the ones that sail on the med or on the Caribbean.

On those regions (where most sail) the owners of boats with large “glass” surfaces have them covered for preventing the sun coming in for lowering the interior temperature. However there are several boats with lots of “glass”, like the RM, and this one has the advantage of having two small dedicated hatches for the aeration of the superior part of the cabin.

The data that has been provided regarding the boat weight and ballast, is scarce and strange. I tried for two times to contact the shipyard to have correct information but they didn't reply. Yacht.de refers that the ballast on the 2.65m keel version is 2500kg for a weight of 6575 kg. That gives a B/D of 38%, a high ratio for a boat with a big draft and a torpedo keel. A racing boat ratio.

Contrary to what would be expected the Bente 39 is not a very light boat if compared with fast performance cruisers of the same type. For instance the bigger Pogo 12.50 weights 1075kg less, the slightly smaller JPK 38 1175kg less Even if compared with tradicional performance cruisers we will see that the Salona 380 has 390kg less and the Comet 38s has 175kg less. Note that the Comet and the Salona have a much smaller draft (2.0 and 2.1m) and have less ballast (2300kg and 2200kg)

In fact the Bente 39, assuming that the 2500kg refered by Yacht. de are correct has an excellent B/D. With considerable more ballast than the Comet and the Salona with a much bigger draft and a hull with more form stability, the Bente 39 will be a very powerful boat.

However that is on the 2.65m draft version. On their site the version with a 1.95m draft weights only more 15kg??? (6590kg). This does not make sense unless the two versions have a very different RM. That huge difference in draft (70cm), considering the same type of keel, would need, on the boat with a smaller draft, about 400kg more ballast to maintain a similar RM curve.

With a difference of only 15 kg in ballast the two boats would be very different in what regards sailing. That is not a normal situation and probably one that  would demand two different RCD certifications and would make this boat a very strange one in what regards that. There is also the possibility of the 2500kg to be the ballast of the 1.95m version and not the one on the 2.65 m draft, I would say that it would seem more probable to me.

Unfortunately not a clear situation and one that casts a shadow over the shipyard in what regards transparency on the Bente 39 characteristics. It is impossible to make a correct boat assessment without knowing the ballast and weight of the two versions and that is specially important in what regards a performance boat. http://www.bente24.com/wp/39ben/

The designers (Judel&Vrolijk) say that the Bente 39 is inspired on a class 40 but if it has the same type of hull it has a more moderate beam, almost the same as a smaller Pogo 36 (4.05 to 4.00). That should make it less typified downwind even if broad reach and beam reach should be where its performance will shine.

The Bente 39 has a huge sail area, 96 m2 and that should make it a very fast sailboat, at least on lighter winds, even on the heavier version with the shallower draft (89m2). They offer it also with a swing keel version with 1.20/2.80m draft, that seems to me the most interesting and the interior layout seems to be designed just for that.

The price is quite good, they talk about a ready to sail boat for 145000 euros and a completely equipped boat for 210 000 euros (no taxes). I cannot wait to see it at Dusseldorf and for the first tests on the water.


  1. I can't wait to see what the sea trials reveal about this yacht. I suspect it's as fast as it looks. If only the interviews with Alex Vrolijk had English translation.

  2. Hi Paulo,

    Regarding the comparison with the Dehler on weight, they actually refer to the difference in displacement and not ballast. Unfortunately, they put it in a way that the reader can easily misinterpret this. On the Dehler webpage they state displacement to 7,5t. Anyway, very cool and different boat, I hope it´s as fast as one might expect and I look forward to reading some test reports!

    Best regards,

    1. I would say that it should be interpreted as ballast since it is about ballast they are talking about but you probably are right.

      Even so it does not make sense because the Dehler that has a weight of 7.4T is not the standard one but the one with the 1.6m keel. The standard one with a 2.0m keel weights 7.2T and the one with 2.20m keel 6.75T.

      On Yacht.de I cannot understand about what version of the Bente 39 they are talking about. They refer a 2500kg keel, a draft of 2.65m and a 6.6T weight on a place and 6.5T on another.

      If that weight is right regarding a 2.65m keel, a Dehler 38 with a 2.65m keel would be lighter, not heavier.

      Anyway I think the version that was presented is the one with the 1.95m keel and 6600kg of weight, comparable to the Dehler 38 version with a 2,00 keel and in that case the diference in weight would be 600kg, not 1T.

      Misinterpretation? I think they messed it up completely.


    2. Hi,

      Well, at least that is the way I read it, and to my defence I´m actually half German ;)

      I believe this is the official Dehler webpage and here they state standard displacement 7.5t:


      I think that unfortunately it is rather common to find differing information on different webpages. This might be because the manufacturer and designer make changes over the lifespan of a boat model, or if they make corrections for example to displacement when they notice that the boat is heavier than originally calculated.

      Anyway, looking at the Bente webpage, I think you got the numbers wrong? As far as I can see, the displacement for the performance version is 6575kg, not 5575kg as you mentioned in the blog post. And even though it seems a bit strange, it seems that both keels weigh about the same based on the fact that the displacement of the two different versions only differ by 15kg, 6575kg (deep draft, 2.65m) vs 6590kg (shallow draft, 1.95m). And I see that on one place on the Bente webpage they mention that deep draft (performance version) is 2.55m and on another place they say it´s in fact 2.65m. As mentioned, this lack of continuity regarding displacement/ballast/draft is a common problem among boat manufacturers and dealers. Mentioning both 6.5t and 6.6t in the same article by yacht.de I think is just a mistake due to negligence, and saying that the difference compared to the Dehler is 1t is probably just a rough or rounded off number given by the journalist, as the exact (theoretical) number should be 925kg for the Bente performance version vs Dehler 38 standard version, which to be fair is not very far off from 1t. Also for comparison, the competition version of the Dehler 38 has 2.24m draft, 7.0t displacement and 2.05t ballast according to the brochure that can be downloaded on the Dehler webpage that I linked to, and I agree that this is the version that they should compare with and would make for a significantly smaller difference.



    3. I agree that the numbers don't make sense and I am pretty sure there is some mistake. I can assure you that no designer will have on the same boat with drafts as different as 2.65 and 1.95 only a 15kg difference.

      That would not only translate in a big difference in RM as it would demand that the boat structure of the one with the deeper draft to be considerably stronger and also, because the two RM curves would be significantly different, that would result in two different RCD certification processes as if they were two different boats.

      The PDF that I posted is the official technical file of the Dehler 38. It was posted on internet by a Dehler dealer but its origin is Dehler.

      Yes, boats can change as well as the weight but the brochure you mention is just that, a brochure, not a technical file and on it you can see that there are obvious mistakes.

      You can see there that the difference in weight between de standard version, with a 2.03m keel and the Swallow draft version, with a 1.6m keel, is only 100kg but you can see that the difference in weight between the ballast of the two versions is 370kg!!!

      370 kg seems about right as the extra weight to compensate for that difference on the depth of the keel (63cm) for the same RM. The difference in depth between the two Bente 39 keels are 70cm and the extra ballast needed to compensate that difference should be around 400kg not 15kg.

  3. Hello Paulo, I like this boat that I did not know but I am also very attracted to azuree41. Could you give me your choice as to the strengths and weaknesses of each of them?
    I am considering changing my boat and my favorite was the azuree 41. But this seems very attractive.
    I would be interested if you would give me your opinion of each of them. Do you have any reference of owners of them?


    1. Hi,

      I did not have seen yet the Bente 39 interior and the data they have furnished is incomplete in what regards weight and ballast on the two versions. I asked them information regarding that but received nothing.

      They are very different boats, the Azuree 41 has a considerably overall bigger stability, it is heavier and it has more ballast. It is a fast boat but the Bente 39 is faster, specially on lighter winds and more nimble. They have about the same sail area but even on the version with the swallow keel it should be at least 1000kg lighter.

      The Azuree 41 is bigger and has a bigger interior the Bente 39 has an interior steering position and a lot of "glass" area making it more suitable for sailing in cold climates or out of season and less to sail on hot climates during the summer months.

      My advise to you is to visit both boats and if possible sail them if that visit to the interior is not decisive. The Bente 39 is a more sportive boat, the Azuree 41, even if not a slow boat, is less sportive and probably better as a cruising boat for most sailors.

      Of course, the Bente 39 can be a better option for more sportive sailors. I don't know how sportive are you as a sailors and how important is to you sailing fun versus cruising. The choice has to be yours.

  4. Hi all!

    Just to say that due to the discrepancies noted by Thomas I have modified the post and I added also a video. Have a new look at it, there are some significant and maybe interesting changes.

  5. I am driving over to Germany for a test sail of the Bente 39. I like this as well as the new RM 1180. Thoughts? I have read they also have a folding keel 1.2/2.3 meters. How hard will it be to do 200 mile days when in the trade winds?

  6. Well, the Bente should be faster, the RM a better cruising boat. Regarding price with similar equipment I doubt the Bente will be cheaper. A better match for the Bente would be the JPK38 FC.

    With the right conditions all those boats can do that but you have to be good, or have a good crew, to keep pushing through the night. Ask that to him: https://www.facebook.com/david.pogo.9615