BEAUTIFUL RM 11.80

The RM 11.80 is much slicker than the first 40ft from RM, the 1200, that was at the time (2003) the biggest  RM to date. The 1200 looks amateurish by comparison, rude, much heavier and slower.

At the time I sailed the RM 1200 and in weak winds and it seemed to me slow and sluggish, but of course that was not what it was designed for, it was already a very good boat on a beam reach or downwind.

RM 1200

The new RM is not only more stylish but also the building techniques are different. The RM 1200, contrary to older models,  had already a cored fiberglass deck, being the hull made from marine plywood, a special grade, that was  later saturated with epoxy but on this one the fiberglass use went further:

To give more complex shapes to the upper part of the hull, on the RM 11.80 the sides  are also made of cored fiberglass. Only the submerged part of the hull is now made of saturated plywood and  mostly due to being easier to fix their traditional keel structure that is made of steel.

So much for the brand publicity about being a more ecological boat LOL. But maybe there are other reasons, out of aesthetics  to these changes?  Have they  allowed to make it lighter? or stronger?

 Surprisingly the RM 11.80 is heavier than the RM1200 (7000kg - 6800kg), smaller (HL: 11.80m - 11.99m) but beamier (4.37m -  4.22m). The RM 1200 was offered exclusively as a twin keel boat (1.80m draft) and while still being the twin keel the more popular version on the RM 11.80, it is also proposed standard with a traditional torpedo keel (two rudders on that version) and also an optional hydraulic swing keel with all ballast on the keel being the drafts respectively 1.95m, 2.25m and 1.3/3.20m.

Regarding ballast and B/D RM entered on the bad wave of not disclosing the ballast of their boats a thing I don't understand because I certainly would not buy a boat without knowing what the B/D is and without looking at the stability curve. 

Sure it is a certified class A boat but that is a minimum and there are huge differences in stability among boats certified on the class and I surely would not want a boat that makes it barely class A in what regards stability in any of the requirements including AVS.

But if they choose to do so, as some other brands, that means that most people that buy boats just don't care about that and trust they are providing very safe boats. The problem is that today for a boat to sail well, with yachts with a huge hull form stability, they don't need to have a good safety stability and that is really a temptation for boat builders (it is cheaper to have a low safety stability) and a problem to buyers.

If you did not read it have a look at this post that I made about the subject:
 https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/05/please-rcd-certification-for-bluewater.html

On the RM 1200 the ballast was 2700kg (B/D 39.7%) and that even with a draft of 1.80m gives a boat a decent final stability with an AVS a bit over 115º. I don't believe the AVS or the final stability of the new boat to be better than the one of the old one. The RM 10.88 is a beamier boat, needs less ballast to sail well and because it has more draft it needs less  ballast to have a similar stability. It has for sure less ballast.

 So we reach the surprising conclusion that the use of the fiberglass on the sides of the hull did in fact make the boat not lighter but heavier because even with less ballast and smaller than the RM 1200 the 11.80 is heavier. Will it be stronger? I doubt very much, I don't see how using two different materials it is possible to make a boat stronger than using  a single one that is already probably stronger than fiberglass.

Is it worth it? Well, that will depend how much you value the looks of the boat and certainly the new boat is gorgeous.

Comparing ratios between the two boats we will see that the older boat has a slightly better D/L (meaning lighter) 132.3 to 133.7 and that regarding SA/D the upwind values are very similar (19.8 to 20) and that downwind the new boat carries more sail (42.8 to 54.8). For the values of the ratios, not knowing the RM 11.88  LWL I had estimated a value of 11.35, a bigger one if compared with the one of the RM 1200 due to the inverted bow.

If we consider that the SA/D with the genoa is practically similar (26.2 to 26.1) and that the loaded weight on cruising mode will be very similar probably the two RM, the older and the new will have a very similar performance while using genoa or jib, being probably the older one a bit faster upwind due to a lesser beam. Only downwind and under geenaker (that is much bigger) the new one will be faster.

The RM 11.88 will be faster on most conditions, specially on a beam reach and downwind than mass production main market cruisers like Jeanneau, Beneteau or Hanse but they are sold as performance cruisers so the question is: will they be faster or comparable in speed with more traditional IRC based performance cruisers? Let´s see what we can find regarding race results (previous models) that are not many because few chose to race them and with good reason.

We can find a RM 1270 that in 2017 made 3 races on  the British two handed IRC championship with not good results. On the Fastnet was more than 13 hours slower than a Sun Fast 3600, more than 6 hours slower than a J109 and more than 2 hours slower than a Salona 380 (all boats two handed).

We can also find a RM 1260 that made the Middle Sea Race in 2016 with even worse results and that is not surprising if we consider that the Fastnet is mostly a beam reach race normally with medium to strong winds while on the Middle Sea Race the conditions are typically Mediterranean with mixed conditions but always with a fair part of upwind sailing and many times, besides medium to strong winds, a lot of weak winds.

The RM 1260, also double handed, did not complete the race but on his last timed passage, at Stromboli, it had already lost about 16 hours for a Solaris 42, more than 7 hours and a half for a Comet 41s and about 7 hours to a J109, all two handed.

They call it a performance cruiser but it is not certainly a cruiser-racer and if you want a boat to cruise and to race occasionally this is not the boat to have. If you want to sail on the med and want a boat with a good sailing performance, again, you can chose a better boat but if you want to voyage on the trade winds this is certainly a very adequate and a fast boat, faster than most other voyage boats on the market and also a very stable boat that will roll very little, sail with a low angle of heel and  that will allow an autopilot to work very efficiently at speeds that on other fast types of hulls you would have to steer manually.

There is one thing that almost all agree regarding this boat: it has a great interior one that was already very good on the RM 1200 and that has been improving along the years. Difficult to make better and nicer even if the quality and finish being good are more on the practical side than on the luxurious side.

The boat is already a success and before having the first one ready they had already 17 sold. Probably there is going to be a waiting list for this one that was also nominated for the European Yacht of the year contest. A very nice boat!