They have nothing to do with the shipyard that makes Pogo, but they are to catamarans what Pogo are to monohulls. You get my drift? Meaning light, very fast and designed to offer maximum performance at the lowest cost while offering a simple but efficient cruising interior.
I made a post about the TS 42 when it arrived to the market 4 years ago, at the time they thought that a fast 42ft cat, much faster and less expensive than Outremer or Catana, would have a market, a bit like Pogo has regarding performance boats.
Well, to my disappointment and certainly to theirs, it was not the case. Very few boats were made but one of them become famous, used for extensive racing making almost all the big classics, on the two sides of the Atlantic, with very good results and I have to say, a bit to my surprise it never capsized and that says very well about the crew quality because a very light 42ft catamaran sailed near the limits is a tricky machine and for cruising it should be sailed very conservatively and even so it would be a very fast sailboat.
Now the builder, Marsuadon composites, more known as a racing boat shipyard, has also the TS 5, a big brother, a 50ft cat that I think is going to be more successful than the TS 42. The larger boat offers a much bigger stability and that makes it a less radical sailboat, more adapted to fast cruising.
I like a lot the design of both boats, by Cristophe Barreau, a specialist in cats, the designer of the several Outremer and Catana. He has a different approach on this design that is more performance oriented not only in what regards windage but in other parameters that are crucial for performance.
If we compare it with the Outremer 45 (same designer) we can see that the TS42 even if smaller (13.06 - 13.77) has more beam (7.39 - 7.1) and beam is fundamental for stability and sail power on a cat.
The difference in weight is just huge, the Outremer 45 displaces 8.7T and the TS42 5.8T, but it is not reflected on the sail area: 110m2 for the Outremer, 106nm2 for the TS 42. This means that the TS42 while being much lighter and having a not very different sail area is much more aggressive and faster. Think of Pogo in what regards monohulls.
Continuing to use the Outremer 45 as comparison, now with the larger TS5, we can see that it is much bigger (15.24 - 13.77), much beamier (8.6 - 7.1) that it has much more sail area (148m2 - 106m2) but less weight, displacing less 100kg (8.6T - 8.7T).
Got the picture? these boats are rockets, nothing to do with the performance of Outremer or Catana and the interiors are not similar, kind of Pogo like interiors, light, functional but nothing with the luxury (and weight) of Outremer or Catana interiors.
TS42
To get an idea about the comparative performance with other cats, namely Catana or Outremer, have a look at the post about this year ARC. Both, a TS42 and a TS5 made the ARC, the TS5 was the first boat to arrive beating a VOR 65 and the TS42 was the second cat to arrive beating all the bigger Outremer and Catana. The one that arrived closer but at a considerable distance was a new Outremer 5X (60ft).
Regarding price, think about Pogo again, fast performance boats are necessarily expensive because they have to be light and strong and that does not come cheap, but in this case they offer the best performance for the price and are as inexpensive as they can be. They are not carbon boats but infusion sandwich cored boats (PVC) built as race boats.
Of course the dilema of the catamarans is that they are length for length much more expensive than monohulls and while the TS42 at 418 000€, without VAT, is less expensive than the Pogo 594 000 the TS5 costs just a bit more, 649 000€, a price that I find amazing, just a bit more expensive than the Outremer 45 and much less than the Outremer 51.
As you know all these prices are standard without equipment, transport or taxes, so a normally equipped boat is considerably more expensive. If I someday win the lottery the TS5 will be on the short list of boats I would like to have. It is not only the out of this world performance it is a beautiful boat, a thing that I cannot say about most cats.
If you want to try one of these rockets you can find some of them for charter. It will be a different experience for sure one that can change the way you see cats or sailing 😎
When I saw the specifications and ballast of the new AC75 America's Cup monohull I had some doubts on whether a boat with those specifications would be able to right itself up but dismissed the doubts thinking that those guys knew what they are doing.
Well, maybe they do but racing the America's Cup with a 75ft monohull that tips like a dinghy and stays capsized unable to right itself up doesn't seem to me to make any sense. Why have they changed from the Catamarans?
Many still look at X-yachts as a shipyard that built essentially fast cruiser racers and they would be right if they looked at the brand origins, but not anymore. The change has been gradual, started in 2008 with the XC 45 and increased exponentially with the X6 in 2016, the first of the new line of comfortable performance cruisers.
In only 3 years we have seen the new X line of performance cruisers become the central core of X-yachts with 5 yachts available and two more to come briefly. Of course this means also that this is now the most popular line and one that turned X-yachts from a small company to a middle sized one.
10 years ago the company had only two lines, one of very fast cruiser-racers, the X-35 and X-41 club racers and another one of slightly heavier cruiser-racers with a good cruising interior, the XP line. Today the more sportive line has disappeared and the XP line, that does not see any new model since 2013 has only 4 models while the XC and X line have 9 with two more being designed.
The X4º, the last of the "new" X line is not an innovative sailboat but when one continues to build very good sailboats this is not a negative comment. The new X yacht is very beautiful in a kind of traditional way and by traditional I mean the type of boats that have a performance equally balanced regarding upwind and downwind sailing and this when all new mass production cruisers are more balanced for downwind and beam reaching sailing.
It comes as a surprise to find out that the X4º, contrary to what the name indicates is not a 40fter but a 38ft boat. This practice is common among mass production builders where the name never refers to hull length but to the the overall length, to make the boat look bigger than what it is, but it is not usual in more expensive brands were they tend to be less deceiving and if we look at the other 38 ft X-Yachts two lines we will see that they are called Xc38 and Xp38.
I really hope this to be an isolated case because it is bad enough mass production builders to call things for what they are not and I do not mean only the size of the boats. One of the things that distinguishes builders with more quality from mass production builders is that they are normally less misleading on the information they provide about the boats and I would like very much that it would remain so.
If someone has enough money not to buy only the cheapest sailboat there are three important considerations, the interior that one can chose in a big boat saloon like Dusseldorf, the building quality that normally is associated with price and the way the boat sails and I mean in a global way including seaworthiness.
Regarding the last one it is by far more important to understand the differences between different types of sailboat design than to chose between two well built sailboats with the same design criteria. That will be only very important if the boat is used mostly for racing but regarding most owners that buy boats for cruising and an occasional race, the type of design is much more important simply because the diferences in what regards sailing and seaworthiness are much bigger between two different types of designs than between two similar type designs.
Talking about the technical numbers of a sailboat, unless you are an expert, they give to most sailors very little information, so, taking into consideration what I said above I will make a comparison between the X4º and other well known sailboats, different and similar types, trying to explain the differences in sailing and seaworthiness between this particular model and type from other cruisers on the market. It is easier to understand better a sailboat looking at the diferences to others than the similarities.
So, I will compare the X4º not only with its 38 brothers (different types of sailboats) but with two performance cruisers, the Arcona 380 and the Grand Soleil 39 and other two main market cruisers but pointing to different market segments, the Hallberg Rassy 372 and the Dufour 390.
On top X38 then X4º and Xp38
The hulls of the three 38 from the three different X-Yacht lines are different even if they are all medium beam boats, (narrow if compared with the beamy standard of mass production boasts) and that the diference has mostly to do with rocker and the different weight of the sailboats. It has also to do with a difference of 9 years between the older design (XC38) and the newer one, the X4º. We can see this difference mostly on the transom design, but as we will see the main differences regard weight and sail power.
Not to be confusing with too much data, lets first compare the three X-yacht brothers and then the X4º with the others. The first data is from the X4º then from the Xp38 and finally from the Xc38 and the dimensions are in meters and kilograms.
To express what these numbers mean in what regards weight and to look at sail power we will use D/L, SA/D ratios and B/D ratio. Regarding B/D we can see that they are all high, 37.7% for the X4º, 40.7% on Xp38, 43.4%, on the Xc38 . But to access the meaning of these numbers in what regards lowering the CG we have to take into account draft and the type of keel and if the first two have a torpedo keel and a bigger draft (2.1 and 2.4)) the Xc 38 has a smaller draft (1.98) and a bulbed fin keel and that is why it has a bigger B/D.
The Xp38 is the one with better final stability even if the others have also a very good one. Regarding overall stability the Xc 38 has the bigger one due to its bigger displacement and the X4º will come next. These two boats have also more beam and that means more hull form stability than the Xp38 and that also contributes to a bigger overall stability.
Above Xc38, below Xp38
If we look together to the stability data and D/L (201.5, 170.8, 215.4) we will see not only that the XP38 is much lighter but that it is also a more powerful boat and we can see that on the amount of sail that he is able to carry (in proportion with displacement) that is expressed by the SA/D . It is much higher on the Xp38 than on the two other boats: X4º 19.7-44.7; Xp38 24.3-50.7; Xc38 19.3-42.1.
We can see also that in what regards weight and power the X4º is closer to the Xc 38 than to the Xp38 meaning that it will be faster than the Xc but much slower than the Xp38. While the Xc 38 can be considered, in what regards speed by modern parameters, an average sailboat the X4º can be considered a performance cruiser but only the Xp38 is a dual purpose boat, a cruiser-racer and in what regards that a very good one, with a great cruising interior and a good racing performance.
But speed is not all and it has not the same importance to all and if in what regards seaworthiness we can say that all the boats are very seaworthy, for the size, it is also true that the Xc38 weights 28% more than the Xp28 and that gives it an overall bigger stability that is partially compensated by the smaller immersed area, particularly the keel area, that will allow it to have a better dynamic stability.
The X4º will be in between, closer to the Xc 38 than from the Xp 38 except in what regards the keel in what concerns dynamic stability. Of course, the keel design of the Xc38 has also advantages namely to be stronger in case of grounding. Regarding that it is worth also to consider that while the Xc and the Xº have their keels fixed to a heavier galvanized steel frame the Xp has its own fixed to a lighter GRR carbon reinforced structure.
Above Arcona 380, below GS39
The movement over the water will be also different between the three boats. If we were talking about cars we would be talking between the different rides provided by a Bentley, a BMW and a Porsche and that has also to do basically with weight and power. The movements on the Xc38 are slower but will take more time and amplitude due to a bigger moment of inertia while on the Xp will be faster and sharper and upwind the boat will tend to slam a bit more due to a flatter hull (less rocker) even if these are all medium beam boats with fine entries (specially the Xp38) and this contributes to a lesser slamming.
Probably you will have more experience driving different types of cars and that is useful because in what regards dynamics and driving the similitude are even closer with the car comparison: while on a Bentley you will have a steering that will be firm but not very quick and that can be an advantage for relaxing driving, on the Porsche the steering is very sensitive and you fell the response to even a small touch on the wheel and you will be able to put the car exactly were you want at the cost of a more attentive driving.
In what concerns movement and dynamics, the X4º would be in between the Xc and the Xp, a bit closer to the Xc than to the Xp and it is not by accident that the more successful X-Yacht line in sales is the line to whom the X4º belongs because that is the type of boat more sailors prefer, the BMW style of speed with comfort. I prefer a Porsche and maybe you prefer a Bentley, for each one to choose but the important here is to know what one is choosing.
Arcona 380
If we compare the X4º with two performance cruisers of similar quality, the Grand Soleil 39 and the Arcona 380 we will see that they are lighter, D/L- 201.5, 181.4, 159.4, and carry more sail area, SA/D 19.7, 22.1, 24.4 for a beam similar or not very different (3.81, 3.70, 3.80) and a B/D that, considering that both the Arcona and the Grand Soleil have more 30cm of draft, it is not very different in effectiveness. It is also important to consider that the GS and the X4º have torpedo keels while the Arcona has a bulbed keel:B/D - X4º 37.7%, GS 33.3%, Arcona 35%.
This means that the Arcona and the Grand Soleil will be faster, being lighter and carrying proportionally more sail area while the X4º will have a bigger overall stability but an AVS and a safety stability close to the one of the other two sailboats, a good one.
Grand Soleil 39
In what regards dynamics and sea motion the differences between these three boats will not be as big as in between the yachts of the 3 different X-yacht lines of sailboats and they will between the X4º and the Xp38.
Finally lets compare the X4º with two apparently very different boats, the Hallberg Rassy 372 and the Dufour 390. The HR seems better if compared to the Xc38 and the 390 is a much more inexpensive mass production boat, a typical one among them.
First the X4º dimensions then the HR and then Dufour: HL 11.50, 11.35, 11.19, LWL 10.40, 10.25, 10.50; Beam 3.81, 3.60, 3.99, Displacement 8100, 7500, 7700; Ballast 3050, 2900, 2100; Draft 2.10, 1.99, 1.95; B/D 37.7%, 38.7%, 27.3%; D/L 201.5, 194.7, 186.0; SA/D 17.7, 19.3, 18.5.
Above HR 372 below Dufour 390
And it comes as a surprise that the Hallberg Rassy 372 is a direct competitor to the X4º not only in length (only less 15cm) but also in what regards boats with close performances. It is proportionally lighter, it carries proportionally more sail, it is narrower, even a bit narrower than the Xp38, and its keel (bulbed and with less draft, but with a bigger B/D) will contribute just a bit less than the keel of the X4º to lower the CG.
I would have liked to see that HR with the same ballast,a torpedo keel and 2.2m draft. It would be then probably faster than the X4º. As it is, probably the X4º is slightly slower in light winds but slightly faster on all other conditions, but not much and that will qualify both boats as performance cruisers.
And what about the Dufour 390, that serves as measure regarding mass production boats? Well the first observation is that it is a much beamier boat, that it is the lightest of the three, much because it carries little ballast with a B/D of only 27.3% and to makes things worth in what regards final stability and AVS it has the smaller draft among the three.
This means that the Dufour with a 3.99m beam has a huge hull form stability that allows the boat to sail well even with little ballast, unless the boat meets waves and stronger conditions, specially upwind where even with small waves the wave drag will be much bigger than on the other boats and where the little ballast will be noticed as lack of power to progress against the waves.
Hallberg Rassy 372
Also with light winds the Dufour will be slower due to all that beam. Donwind if well sailed it can be a fast sailboat, as fast as the X4º, but as fast means not as safe because the boat will broach more easily and if knocked down it will be much harder to recover.
Regarding sea motion due to the big beam and flattish hull the Dufour motion will have more to do with the one of the Xp38 than with the one of the Hallberg Rassy or the X4º, slamming more than the Xp upwind and reefing sooner than the X4º.
The much lower ballast will mean also that the Dufour will be easier to broach or knock down and it will be a less seaworthy boat with much less safety stability and a lower AVS, probably close to the minimum required to be approved as a class A boat (that will be around 115º). From the other boats I only know the AVS of the HR and the Arcona, both a bit up 125º but I can say from the stability data all the other boats mentioned should not be far from that.
Dufour 390
That big difference in AVS that implies also much less safety stability and a much bigger inverted stability will mean not only that the Dufour 390 is easier to knock down but also that after being knocked down it will take much more time to recover to its feet being exposed in a dangerous position, almost without stability to a wave that can invert it and if inverted, because it has a much bigger inverted stability than the others it will stay 3 or 4 times more time inverted than the others to find a wave big enough to be able to right it up.
By no means I want to say that the Dufour 390 is an unseaworthy boat, as I said it is a typical mass production sailboat and with some exceptions most of them have very similar safety stability and AVS characteristics. It is not the Dufour 390 that is particularly unseaworthy it is the others, much more expensive boats, that are more seaworthy.
So what can we conclude about all this?: that the X4º without being fast if compared with other performance cruisers or cruiser-racers is faster than main market mass production boats of about the same size, specially upwind or with rough conditions, being more seaworthy and offering a more comfortable sea motion.
Above X4º, below Xc38 and Xp38
As to sailing this is a boat equally balanced to all types of winds unlike mass production boats that are balanced mainly for beam reaching and sailing. Regarding this it is good to say that if one sails on a zone that has variable winds or even a dominant wind but has to sail up and down that wind, upwind sailing (less than 90º) is by far the most common wind one gets simply because a sailboat, especially a fast one, makes wind while sailing and therefore the apparent wind becomes more to the bow.
Very fast sailboats, like the ones of the America cup, sail always upwind because their speed is bigger than wind speed by a great margin. The only reason a boat maximized by downwind sailing only makes sense if it is for sailing on the trade winds and the only reason to have one is if that is what you do mostly.
The reason today mass production boats are downwind maximized has nothing to do with sailing on the trade winds, since most of them will sail most of the time on the Med, Caribbean or Baltic, it has to do with the fact that those boats offer more interior space and because they sail relatively well with a low ballast.
That allows the boat to be lighter needing less sail area, to have a smaller mast and smaller ballast on the keel generating less efforts and therefore allowing for a smaller interior structure and a lighter hull. All of that contributes to a much less expensive boat and that is hugely important on the market. Besides using mainly hull form stability for sailing and not so much RM from the keel, allows the boat to sail with less heel and that is also a nice feature for cruisers.
Above X4º, below Arcona 380 and GS39
To make the things even better many cruisers use the boat more as a mean to go cruising somewhere than as a sailing boat, for the sailing pleasure. They motor a lot, never sail the boat against the wind and never sail in anything than almost flat seas, so this type of boat is a win, win, win situation for the ones that build them and that can offer a product adapted to most cruisers at a lower price.
When on the magazine sail tests you hear test sailors saying the the X4º is a sailor's boat what they mean is that it is a sailboat for the ones that sail and do not use the sailboat only as a mean to go cruising, the ones that sail the boat whenever there is enough wind to sail it, upwind or downwind and on the X4º there is no need of much wind to glide over the water.
There are also other type of boats that use hulls not very different from the ones on mass production boats, like RM, JPK FC or Pogo. They are better built and lighter boats with much more B/D than mass production boats and that makes them very suited to sail fast on the trade winds (that is why they are called fast voyage boats).
They have a bigger seaworthiness than mass production boats but obviously not as suited as boats like the X4º or Xp38 to sail (in what regards performance and sea motion) on the med or in a balanced set of winds. You can see this quite clearly if you compare Transat racing results and med racing sailing results on the two types.
If you are a part of the minority that has as much fun sailing as cruising, then these type of sailboats, that unfortunately are always more expensive, are for you. If not stay with what mass production builders are offering and this is as valid as if you have the money for a new boat or only for an used one and the type of boat will depend where you are going to sail most.
Above X4º, below HR 372 and Dufour 390
The X4º offers a very interesting mixture of balanced sailing characteristics, overall stability, safety stability, seaworthiness, sea motion and speed characteristics that makes it a very interesting cruising sailboat for the main market in what regards overall sailing performance.
The X4º aims to the main market and that can be seen on the type of sail hardware offered as standard: it comes with four winches and a self tacking jib and if you want to have a performance set up you have to pay for it, two more winches and a genoa track over the cabin. The boat comes with a nice mainsail traveler ahead of the wheels but the integrated bowsprit is also optional.
The X4º complements the interesting sailing characteristics with a good taste interior, well finished and well dimensioned in what regards the layout and very suitable for a couple to cruise. The three cabin layout does not make sense unless one sails the boat only from marina to marina and does not cruise extensively because almost all the available space is used on the interior and that makes the storage inside and outside very limited and therefore one of the cabins will be needed for storage space.
Also the head on the three cabin layout is very small, while the one with the two cabin layout is a good one with separate shower space. Of course the "problem" with a 38 ft boat is that you don't have space for two heads layout and that makes the space less suited for two couples to cruise. This size makes all the sense for a couple, having this boat enough space and providing a good speed and seaworthiness, it will be much less expensive in what regards marinas, winter storage and even maintenance.
Many sail magazines have tested the sailboat and the ones I could read, in Italian, English and French were all quite enthusiastic about the way the boat sails, the felling at the wheel, boat quality, interior and exterior and boat details. Without doubt a great sailboat built with care using infusion techniques on a sandwich with a polyester foam as core and epoxy resins. The keel and the shroud are connected to a galvanized steel structure that takes all the efforts and distributes them by the hull.
There are very few things I do not to like on this boat being one of them the deep single rudder, that will be a lesser problem with the optional version with a 2.4 meter draft, but that, with the standard 2.1 m keel, being the rudder almost as deep as the keel, will be very exposed specially in what regards med mooring where the dept under the rudder is many times much smaller than the one under the keel when one goes backwards to a quay.
For the ones that sail on the med the 2,4 m keel will be a much safer option, for the ones that really need a 2.1m draft then a two rudder set up would have made much more sense for a performance cruising boat, taking almost nothing to the performance, solving this problem and giving the boat more reliability in case of loss of one of the rudders on a shock with marine debris that are always on the rise.
Other things I don't like is the misleading name and the misleading price for one that wants to buy a performance boat and a boat equipped as such. The announced basic price is 257 500 euros, " with valued x-yacht qualities valued in 48 700 euros" that one assumes will translate into a decent level of equipment as standard, but the well equipped boat tested by the sail magazines cost around 423 000 euros without tax (VAT).
This price included a carbon mast and boom and teak decks but out of that it was pretty much the basic for a performance cruiser. If we take the price of those two items it will cost around 350 120 euros without VAT, probably a bit less than the Hallberg Rassy 372 with similar equipment (304 000 euros standard) but the way one is deceived by the price announced on the site is not nice.
Sure if one wants just a fast cruising boat without the typical equipment of a performance cruiser like the bowsprit, the 6 winch layout or a genoa track and a genoa the boat can cost considerably less but then it should not be advertised as "the X4⁰, a forty-foot performance cruising yacht that is just as capable for some serious mileage as it is blasting around the cans at the weekend". It would make more sense and would be less misleading if they offered two versions of the boat with different prices.
The ARC, bigger every year, is now subdivided in three, the ARC+ that stops in Cabo Verde with 66 yachts, the ARC, a direct course to Santa Lucia on the Caribbean with 185 sailboats and a smaller one that also stops in Cabo Verde with only 22 boats.
Only on the the ARC there is a racing division with twenty five monohulls competing but quite
incomprehensibly there is not a racing division for multihulls even if clearly some of the ones that are making the transat are racing.
Stadtship 54ac
The truth is that there is a classification and prizes also on the cruising division and many of them are racing too, in a more kind of relaxed way and the main difference is that while on the racing division the use of the engine for propulsion is not allowed, on the cruising division the engine hours are later transformed in a time penalty.
This is a kind of amateurish and friendly race and even the racing division is not a high profile race.
CNB Bordeaux 60
Every year I look at the boats that are making a faster Transat as a way to gather information, on the principle that a fast boat can be sailed slow but a slow boat cannot be sailed fast and therefore I am only interested on the fastest boats of each type.
I will not look at the smallest of the ARCs, the ARC + St Vincent that has not enough sailboats to provide interesting information.
Catana 50
Starting with the ARC+, where many have already reached their destination in Santa Lucia, the fastest was a relatively new and very interesting trimaran, the Neel 47, fastest than a Catana 65. Impressive!
The Neel proves one more time that their boats are very fast on a Transat. Some years ago they have showed that with a special 45, lighter than the standard model, that managed to be faster than the several bigger Outremer doing the ARC in that year.
Nigel Irens 78
We know that Catana are very fast catamarans and does not surprise that a 65 and a 50 have arrived in 4th and 5th but it comes as a surprise that a Stadtship 54 AC, a fast aluminium voyage boat, arrived ahead of them as well as a very fast CNB Bordeaux 60 (2nd and 3rd) and the same can be said of a little Pogo 36 that arrived not far from the two Catanas and just behind a well sailed and fast Jeanneau 51.
The 8th boat to arrive was another Neel trimaran, a 51, but already about 7 hours from the Pogo. All these boats have something in common: they are all contemporary designs.
JP54
Looking at the bigger ARC,where the first boats are almost finishing, and particularly to the bigger and faster boats, the 78ft Nigel Irens catamaran will arrive first after making a fast Transat but I would say that I am more impressed by the much smaller TS5 catamaran (51ft) that is very close and the JP54 that are not far and battling with a VOR65! and a 85ft Frers designed fast yacht.
Of course all these boats are extremely well sailed and do a lot high profile of racing but even so their performance is quite impressive as it is the one of a smaller TS 42, the small sister of the TS5, that is fighting with a Mylius 60 (a very impressive performance for a luxury yacht) and both trying to keep behind a Swan 80!, a Swan 82s!, a Volvo 60 and a 60ft fast catamaran, an Outremer 5x.
Mylius 60
A bit behind a Shipman 63 and a Amel 64 are doing very well both ahead of all Oysters including three 825 and one 725. Of course we will have to look at the end at how much fuel they wasted and see if that is a significant factor or not.
Also doing well a X55, a "cheap" More 55 and a Jeanneau 57 but most of all an Azuree 40 and a Pogo 12.50, a First 45 and the 48ft Scarlet Oyster and its very good racing crew (they make all great classics on the two sides of the Atlantic).
TS42
Just to understand how fast these boats are sailing it is enough to say that they are sailing side by side with the second TS5 catamaran and a Swiss cat 55, also a performance catamaran.
Not far behind comes a First 40.7, a Grand Soleil 43. A bit behind a Hanse 420, another First 40.7 as well as a Hallberg Rassy 412, all going fast, as fast or faster than the second Outremer 51 and two big catamarans, a Sunreef 60 and a Graiger 60.
Azuree 40
Among the condocats that are going fast deserve mention, besides the ones mentioned above, a Lagoon 52S and a Bali 5.4 that go at about the same pace of the First 40.7 that I have mentioned above.
When they arrive and the fuel consumption is known I will post on the comments about any rectification those numbers will provide and you guys fell free to post any comment regarding any boat that you think that has done a fast Transat.
