NEW 40 ft CRUISERS: OCEANIS 40.1 VERSUS BAVARIA 42 C

Let's have a look at the new mass production 40ft sailboat offers:  the Bavaria 42 C and the Oceanis 40.1. Judging by the name the Bavaria is not a 40ft but a 42ft and that is misleading. In fact the Oceanis is 1
cm longer (hull length) than the Bavaria.
Both boats look good and very successfully manage to disguise the high freeboard and the big interior volume, not to call "fatness". I would say the Beneteau looks just a bit better, meaning more sportive than the Bavaria, but I admit that some will prefer the more sober and elegant Bavaria look.

Both boats have about the same length being the Bavaria in what regards hull length  1mm shorter (11.98m to 11,99) and about the same LOA, both boats with bowsprit(12.90 to 12.87). The Bavaria bowsprit is optional  it remains to be seen if the one of the Oceanis 40.1 will be standard or also optional.

The Bavaria is beamier (4.29 to 4.18m) being the Oceanis 40.1 slightly less beamier than the previous model, the 41.1, that notwithstanding the name is 1mm shorter in length. The Bavaria has a bigger displacement (9678kg to 8180). This is due partially to the bigger ballast (2698kg to 2007kg with a draft of 2.10m to 2.17).

I confess that this difference in weight is quite intriguing because due to hull building techniques the Bavaria should be lighter and stronger for the same weight. Bavaria uses  vacuum infusion and polyester resins on a sandwich hull having Divinycell foam as core and a structural grid bonded to the hull.

 Beneteau uses similar resins but on a monolithic hull with a structural inner moulding bonded to the hull. Only on deck the technologies are similar, using  both  a sandwich composite using injection technology.

For the same weight the Bavaria should be stronger and considerably more stiffer than the Oceanis so it is hard to explain why the Bavaria weights 807kg more  (already discounting the difference in ballast weight).

However sometimes there are considerably differences in the real weight (after building) and the projected weight, at expenses of the boat stability because the ballast is the same even if the boat weights more and that is translated in a lesser B/D on the real boat than on the project.

Anyway this Oceanis is built the same way and with about the same weight as the previous ones so it will not be less resistant than them. The recent Bavaria C series are designed differently than previous  boats specially in what regards boat structure. The engineer that designed that structure said to me that it was considerably stronger than the previous ones and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Above the 40.1, below the 42 C

It is also true that the first boats of the C series were plagued with a series of  annoying problems that pissed clients and influenced sales negatively. Probably those problems were due to the adaptation to new building methods and a new designer and I can only hope they are in the past but I have no information that allows me to say what is the present situation.

The keels of the two boats are nor very different, modern efficient ones with a torpedo but maintaining an L shape not to snag nets or ropes. The Bavaria has two available keels, standard with a 2.10m draft (27.9%B/D) and a shallower one with 1.70 draft (30.1% B/D). The Beneteau offers three different keels, a deep draft one with 2.27m (24.5%B/D), a standard one with 2.17 (24.5%B/D) and a shallow one with 1.68m (26.6% B/D).

This  means that while probably the Bavaria offers a similar stability with both keels the Beneteau offers more stability (RM) with the deep draft, that they call performance draft, and probably a smaller and identical stability between the standard and the shallow draft keel. Overall the Bavaria 42 C will offer an overall bigger stability due to bigger displacement, bigger beam (bigger hull form stability) and bigger RM generated by the keel (due to its bigger B/D on similarly designed keels).

Abobe the 40.1, below the 42 C

The AVS and safety stability are also probably better on the Bavaria even if close to the one of the Oceanis with a performance keel and this because it does not seem to me that the difference in draft (Oceanis has 17cm more) can compensate the superior Bavaria B/D (more 2.4%). That  difference in AVS and safety stability will be much bigger between the Bavaria and the standard Oceanis or the one with a shallow draft keel.

To put things in perspective if we look for instance at the Solaris 42, that has a bit less beam (3.99) but about the same LOA (12.36) and displacement (8 800 kg), we will see that for a more efficient keel (bulb in lead) with a much bigger draft (2.50) the B/D is 34.1%. This means not only a much more powerful boat, specially upwind, but also a boat with a much better safety stability (and AVS) than the Bavaria and an incomparable one regarding the standard Oceanis 40.1.

This has to do with boat design but also with price and a boat budget because one of the things that increases more the price of a boat is to increase B/D considerably . The bigger ballast (or more draft) will generate more efforts on the keel structure and hull and because the boat will gain in power (and weight) it will be able (and need) to carry a bigger mast and more sail area, generating again more efforts and contributing also for the need of a stronger boat. That's the real reason why main market mass production boats have a low B/D.

That and because making the boat lighter, using a low ballast (instead of  expensive high tech building technology and materials) if the boat is well designed, it is possible to have, on a beamy boat with lots of hull form stability,  a great performance downwind, a very good performance with light winds, a reasonable performance while beam reaching with medium low winds and even upwind if the waves are not big or too steep.

Of course, when more power is really needed , upwind with some waves or sailing in more demanding circumstances (except downwind) it will lack power and it will have a poor performance, but because these are circumstances very rarely experienced by most of the ones that will buy these boats, I have to say that they make all the sense for the ones they point to, allowing the lowest possible price for a sailing boat that will suit their needs.

Above 40.1, below 42 C

Why should those that never sail with more wind and waves and never sail in more demanding conditions, motoring always when going against the wind, need a better and much more expensive boat? Why to pay more for one? But if these boats will be enough in what concerns sailing they also have an average (not to call it mediocre) safety stability and AVS.

Anyway, it is not a bad one since they are designed to be certified class A and that gives warranties regarding a minimum safety stability for bluewater conditions. They are therefore suited for crossing oceans on the the right season when storms are very rare. But the fact is that most owners will never sail them bluewater and therefore will never really experience bad weather.

The problem here is for the few ones that buy these boats thinking they are what they are not and imagine that they have the seaworthiness of true bluewater boats and that is why it should be created a new certification for boats with a better bluewater potential than this type has (low B/D, a poor safety stability and AVS). I wrote an article about that:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/05/please-rcd-certification-for-bluewater.html

Coming back to the Bavaria/Oceanis comparison, there is a thing that I really don't like on the Oceanis and that is the way the rudder stock is hold: on the bottom, on the hull, it is like on the other boats but on top, instead of coming all the way up to the cockpit floor and be secured there, it is secured inside the boat on the top of a plywood box bonded to the hull.

Below and above  42 C

They have used this system for many years and there are a small number of cases where those boxes become loose (even in almost new boats) with the effects you can imagine.  I really don't understand why they persist with this system, it costs probably less but the number of cases, that are not more because these boats are used rarely in nasty conditions for a long time, should have lead already to changes on the system.

Both hulls seem very well designed and have many things in common and some differences: they are both "fat" boats with a  huge interior even if they disguise that very well. I particularly like  the  bow on the Bavaria, a rounded one that allows a big buoyancy there and also a big chain locker with space for some fenders and this without making the forward section be less finer than the one on the Oceanis.

The hulls have the same basic shape, using chines to diminish heeling and rolling while sailing and  they should perform in a very similar way. In what regards keels they are very similar, modern and efficient L keels with most of the ballast on a torpedo, but the rudders are very different: a two rudder system on the Oceanis, a single one for the Bavaria and here I have to say that I prefer the Oceanis set up.

It is not a question of efficiency, a single rudder can be as efficient or more than a double rudder and offers advantages in what regards maneuvering in a marina but on a very beamy boat like the Bavaria, with a large transom, to be efficient the single rudder has to be very deep and that creates not only additional problems in what regards the forces generated on a single shaft but also expose much more the rudder to possible ground contacts that can happen easily while med mooring, if one is not very careful.

The sailing hardware seems to be very similar on both boats being the main difference the position of the two cockpit winches.They are near the wheel on the Oceanis and in the middle of the cockpit on the Bavaria. The winches on the Oceanis allow the helmsman to operate them but make them hard to operate  by someone else and the opposite happens on the Bavaria even if in this case one wonders why they have put them in the middle of the cockpit and not a bit aft. This way they would be very difficult to operate without disturbing eventual "passengers".

There is another significant difference with the optional genoa traveler that is on the deck on the Bavaria and over the cabin on the Oceanis. At a first glance we would say that would allow the Oceanis to have a better regulation of the genoa to sail close upwind but then, even if there is probably a small difference, we notice that the necessity to have it over the cabin is because the deck lateral passage is much narrower on the Oceanis than on the Bavaria.

Below and above 40.1

One wonders if that would not pose some serious problems going forward with bad weather. Certainly it would make it not easier specially because the hand rails over the cabin on the Oceanis are much smaller than the ones on the Bavaria.

The Bavaria has as standard much more sail area than the Oceanis, even in what regards the more expensive sportive version with the 2,27m draft and a bigger mast: 106.2 m2 to 76.70. On its standard version the Oceanis has only 69.40 m2 sail area and a  17.4 SA/D while the Bavaria has 22.5 SA/D. On its more sportive version the Oceanis has a SA/D still considerably smaller than the one of the Bavaria (19.8).

Beneteau gives not the size of the geenaker but its code 0 is 61.2m2 while the one from Bavaria is 85m2 (geenaker with 140m2) and therefore I would say that the same proportion regarding upwind sail area between the two boats will be maintained downwind.

The Bavaria is a heavier boat with a 188.1 D/L versus 141.6 on the Oceanis but due to the much bigger SA/D probably the Bavaria will be faster on most occasions and only downwind with strong winds the Oceanis will be faster. A pity because the Oceanis with a much bigger ballast and more RM could be a very interesting and much faster sailboat.

Both boats are designed by NAs with experience designing fast boats being the Bavaria designed, as all boats from C series, by Maurizio Cossutti and the Oceanis by Marc Lombard. Beneteau has an odd policy in what regards the designers of their boats and keep changing them from boat to boat without apparent reason.

The previous boat, the Oceanis 41.1, a successful boat was designed by Finot/Conq as well as the  very successful new 46.1 while Racopeau has designed the 51.1 and now it is Marc Lombard that designs the 40.1. This policy of keeping changing designers is a peculiarity from Beneteau and I cannot imagine why they do this. It seems they are unable to find out what is the best cabinet to design the type of boats they want and keep rotating them.

On the Oceanis the cockpit table is huge when folded, so big that it has space to carry the life-raft inside. I don't like it. The one on the Bavaria is more reasonably sized when folded and gives more space to the legs while seated and circulating.

In what concerns the interior your opinion is as good as mine, you just need to visit both boats. The one of the Oceanis is still on the paper but I have already visited the Bavaria 42 C that, without having a remarkable interior, is well done and designed offering a big galley and a good saloon.

Maybe I should revise my opinion because when I visited the 42 C I was convinced I was looking at a 42ft boat and it is was in fact a 40ft boat and I had not noticed. That means that if it seemed to me an average space for a 42 ft boat, it is in fact a very good interior for a 40ft boat.

The finish is OK for a mass production boat and the design without looking spectacular is nice and functional, except  the shower in the main head that has a kind of odd (grey) material, the design of the chart table or its location and the design of the main saloon table.

Above Solaris 42, below 40.1 and 42 C

A chart table of that size with an uncomfortable seating position would serve for nothing and  it would be better transformed in a small table between the two seats. That small table could be provided with an extending/rotating part that allowed someone sitting comfortably to have a frontal support for a laptop and a place to work.

Most cruisers use a laptop to prepare navigation and it would be much more comfortable doing that  comfortably seated than using the set up that is provided. And that would have the added if not main advantage, to make that space must cozier and nicer.

And of course there is that disastrous attempt to put some art on the interior using odd and ugly plastic parts on the bulkhead that separates the saloon from the cabin. I hope they are an option, if not one can certainly ask not to install them.

The interior storage is good and the outside not bad, having space on the chain locker for some fenders, two cockpit lockers under the settee and one on the transom floor, one  that allows more storage than what it seems looking at the layout of the boat (where that space is smaller than the one on the Oceanis) because the rudder mechanism is higher than what it usually is, separated from the storage space and easily accessible from the cockpit.

Regarding the Oceanis I can only comment on the layout where it seems the solutions are very similar in what regards outside storage. In the interior the main difference is a much bigger main head with a real separate shower. The shower on the main head on Bavaria is also separated but it also has the sanitary in that space. That seems a good idea to me since for not wasting so much water most choose to take a bath seated there, or at least seated most of the time.

Bavaria 42 C bow.

The space needed for that big head conditions the saloon on the Oceanis. It has a big longitudinal galley with the main table and the seats on the other side. I believe the space is not going to look as comfortable or nice as the one on the Bavaria and the galley will be a bit less appropriate to use while sailing.

Both boats have several possible layouts maintaining the central space (galley, head, saloon table) always unchanged. The Bavaria can have one of the aft cabins transformed as storage space and a second small head inside the forward cabin and the Oceanis has the same options plus one, that is a  masterpiece of design considering charter work:  maintaining the head on the front cabin they manage to introduce there a small cabin with two superimposed bunks on that space.

All in all the design seems quite good with the disadvantage, that except for the small space over the main cabin, there is not any storage space for clothes inside both cabins and that makes them unpractical except for a week charter, with the clothes remaining in the bags or backpacks.

The prices are good and similar being the Bavaria slightly less expensive at 157 900 euros while the Oceanis will cost 161 650 euros, both boats without any tax and on the factory. To really compare the prices of the two boats it is necessary to have them equipped the same way and ready to sail. On the Bavaria case a well equipped boat ready to sail will cost about 230 000 euros without transport, commission or taxes.

It really looks like a very attractive price and I believe that after the bankruptcy and some problems with the new boats Bavaria is really betting everything on this boat making it as inexpensive as possible. The numbers are good, the design seems right, I do really hope that they have managed to solve all the youth problems on the C series boats and that this may be the boat that allows Bavaria to recover the position they once had on the market.

 This is far from being a complete review, obviously I have not visited the Oceanis 40.1 and there are no sail tests on any of the boats. Anyway I hope this will give you an idea of the diferences between the two sailboats, some of them invisible to the naked eye. When I have enough information from sail tests and after having visited the Oceanis 40.1, probably next year, I will complete this report.

Important note: Some of the information regarding the Bavaria C42 specifications have been altered by Bavaria, in what regards displacement, ballast and sail area, with relevance to boat safety stability, AVS and upwind performance. There is a new post about them (08/10/2021).

DUSSELDORF 2020: MORE IS HOLDING ON

I have said on previous posts that More yachts were doing the best quality for the money in what regards the yachts they offered, a 40ft and a 55ft, but at a certain point things didn't look right to me and I stop recommended them to the ones that reach me looking for help in choosing their yacht.

And I was right because they were in trouble, don't know if they went bankrupt but the production was affected and things went downhill. More was previously a charter company, a Swedish Croatian one and it was that company, specialized in offering boats for kind of friendly regatta events among groups or in offering faster and better charter boats to the public.

They used to have Salonas but at a certain point, with Salona already having problems with production, and wanting a 55ft boat without any positive response from Salona, they decided to produce it themselves, to equip their fleet and also sell it to the market and that's how the 55 was born.

Things went well, most of the specialized workers from Salona opted to moved to More, including their main engineer and the boat was built with Salona well known expertise and similar process and materials, using a stainless steel grid for hull structure and epoxy based vinylester resins on a sandwich with a foam core. The bulkheads are made also of GRP, laminated and glued to the hull.

Then a 40ft followed, but things did not went well on the charter company, probably because the brand was not well known and failed to attract the clientele they were hoping for, and ended up to bankrupt leaving the shipyard in very bad situation. The shipyard was then bought by Croatian investors and things seem to be going well, at least for a while since they came to Düsseldorf with a big stand showing both boats with nice black shinning hulls.

The boats looked good on the outside and inside there was some finish problems that I pointed to Abraham Rakuljic (head of development and production). He seemed genuinely surprised and he said that a boat would not be delivered with that kind of problems and if it was, it would be solved rapidly. For sure he has not the experience or technical knowledge of Leo Curin (that has been working for other companies including Bavaria), he is a  young man but he seems to listen to what one has to say, seems eager to solve problems and in some way to customize the boat to clients' needs and that is rare in boats of this price.

The quality of the interior is not bad, I would say average and good if we take into consideration the price, certainly comparable to the one of mass production main market boats in quality even if their design is generally better in small details.

I liked the engineer that seemed honest and competent ( the original engineer that came from Salona and developed the boats, Leo Curin, is not with them anymore having his own firm) but the fact is that I did not like what was visible there regarding the new management, a pretty lady in high heels that seemed not to understand anything about boats or boat business and that refused to give any detailed information about who had bought or invested on the shipyard making impossible to understand the solidity of the company, maintaining all the time a very arrogant atitude one that I did not find on any other stand.

By comparison Contest, Swan or Solaris were very humble, it looked like she was representing the more exclusive yachts on the market with a very solid reputation and a two year waiting list and not one of the cheapest, coming from an almost bankruptcy situation and trying to survive.

Well, she did not give me a good impression regarding management but I would say that at least for some time it will be safe to order More yachts. The investment of capital should allow that boats ordered now to be built without problems so if you want to have a well built fast boat for not much take the opportunity now, because I don't think it is going to last.

Regarding the boats, the basics are solid and light, meaning the hull, keel, rudders, cabin and even the interior. The boats come with six good quality winches and even if the blocks and other sail hardware are not top quality, as in many other boats, that's a thing you can change with time.

The yachts, specially the 55, have been around for some years, several crossed the Atlantic for several times (for doing charter on the Caribbean) one of the 55 has even raced with very reasonable results so I would say that they are a good solid investment, if we can call buying a sailboat an investment LOL.

But inexplicably (or maybe not) the 55 continues to have a layout more adapted to charter than to private ownership and the three cabin version, the version more adapted to private use, continues to have the same longitudinal galley that is a nonsense on a boat of that size, when one wants to give it a cozy and nice comfortable interior for private use.

The good thing is that the engineer from production and development was open and even interested in modifying the interior at the demand of a client. The bulkheads position makes it not easy to do another type of galley but it will be possible to have a proper comfortable saloon with two sofas on the opposite side of the table with a smaller (chart) table in between, at the cost of the smallest of the three heads.

The 40 has a better layout but an inexplicable error on the interior design, I mean one that has nothing to do with functionality but only with looks, but that they are willing to solve: The inserts that work as windows on the saloon are too low and give a disagreeable feeling, like if something was not right (and in fact it is not LOL). That can be easily solved doubling the inserts and putting one over the existing one, like it is done for example on the Azuree 40, or even better, substituting that insert for a much bigger "window" (in height).

Among the  more inexpensive boats of their size the More 55 and 40 are the best offers on the market for one that wants to have a fast solid cruising boat and has no money to buy a much more expensive one.

I would say that without a substancial change on the layout the 40 is a better offer than the 55 where, except for charter use, other luxury is to be expected on the saloon looks and comfort (unless they modify the saloon). The Layout of the 40 is a good one and that problem with the saloon "window" is easy and not expensive to solve. I have some difficulty in understanding why they have not done it already.
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/01/more-40-best-pricequality.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/02/more-55-more-40-too-good-to-be-true.html
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/01/more-40-best-quality-price.html

DUSSELDORF 2020 NEWS: FIRST 36

No,the picture above is not the new First 36, about that one, that was initially to be a 39ft, very few things are known except that it will be designed by Sam Manuard, the designer of the Class 40 above and one of the most successful racing boat designers in what regards mini racers and Class 40.

Sam Manuard is also a top solo/duo racer that started his career on the mini racers on the 2001 Transat with a boat made and designed by him, finishing 4th. He did it again in 2003 winning  the the first leg and again in 2007 being 2nd on the first leg. He has won many races, among them the 2003 mini-Fastnet and more recently, in 2011, he won with Yves Le Blevec, the Transat Jacques Vabre in Multi 50 and in 2014, on one of his class40, he was 2nd (with Maxime Sorel) on the Transat Jacques Vabre.

But since the first years of the minis his focus is on boat design, mostly racing boats but also cruising ones. One of his boats sailed by Douguet won the 2005 Mini Transat. His mini-racer designs won  over 33 races and the 40 Class designs won more than 20 times, including Transats.

And now a new chapter and the most important one as a designer, an IMOCA for the next Vendee Globe sailed by Armel Tripon, curiously the sailor that he beat on the first leg of the 2003 Mini Transat but that ended up beating him on the 2nd leg and won that race. The IMOCA has a revolutionary design, narrower than all the others but the one with the more rounded and strangely shaped bow, a bit scow like.

In what regards cruising boats he designed a great classic, the Seascape 27, the even faster Seascape 24, the Seascape 18 (all renamed First today), the Match 45, a fast cruiser-racer (more racer than cruiser) that won several races and designed several fast cruisers most of them for amateur boat building.

Looking at his later designs and knowing the way he thinks I would say that the new First would be a kind of more polyvalent Pogo, meaning a light boat with a simple but functional cruising interior, easy to be sailed fast solo, with the ocean potential of the Pogo but more narrow with a better upwind  and light wind potential and able to do better on IRC racing. 

It is good to remember that the Mach45 won on the CK division the 2015 Fastnet and other IRC races so, without being a specialist, he knows how to design winning boats for IRC offshore races and given his tendency to revolutionize, if they give him a free hand, something spectacular may be on the way.

The bow of the new IMOCA with Tripon on top.

I would not be surprised if the new First featured the type of cabin seen on the last class 40 designs (on the cover and above) with  a relatively rounded bow. His more recent designs leave us eager to know more about one of the most awaited boats this year, one that I hope will be as much a success as the First 53 was a flop.

DUSSELDORF 2020: GRAND SOLEIL 42 LC

I confess that this was one of the boats that has surprised me more positively on the boat show since this was a yacht that previously did not look particularly interesting to me. I mean the boat is on the water for some time and only the Italian magazines have cared to publish sail tests and the Grand Soleil 42 LC was nominated for boat of the year but was beaten by the Amel 60, that I don't think is an interesting sailboat.

The boat design looked mildly nice in a kind of classic way but with nothing new and resembling too much the GS 46 LC an already 5 year-old model. Nothing wrong with that but in the last 5 years yacht design has evolved faster then never and I am nor referring mostly to hull design but especially to aesthetics in what concerns shapes and boat looks and that makes the design of the GS 42 LC a bit deja vu.

The GS LC 42, even if it does not look bad, is nor sexy or trendy like the Solaris 44 and that is particularly remarkable in what concerns shapes of bow and transom. For what I have seen on the Italian boat tests the Grand Soleil 42LC sails remarkably well but Marco Lostuzzi, that certainly knows how to design a fast sailing boat, has been designing yachts with the same basic transom design for more than 10 years, first on the Sly and now on the Grand Soleil, and the same can be said regarding bow design.

That is too long not tho show an evolution on design and the look of the boat suffers with that even if the advantages in performance would be minimal in what regards cruising. I believe that the lack of interest from the main European sailing magazines about the new GS LC 42 has to do with this, a  deja vu sailboat, even if it is a very good one. And I have to confess that the fact I had not made yet a post about this boat had also to do with that.

But a boat is not only about how it looks, it is also about how it is built, about the layout and quality of the interior,  about finish, about safety and stability and last but not least, about how the boat sails. And if the boat can look too "classic" for some in what regards looks, it scores very high on all other points and that makes it a very good sailboat.

Regarding layout and storage for a 42ft sailboat this is one of the best sailboats I have ever seen and my wife, that for many years has accompanied me not only on visiting sailboats but also reviewing the blog  and is specially sensible to that aspect, was absolutely thrilled with the Grand Soleil 42 LC, I mean the two cabin version that was on exhibition.

In what concerns outside storage space, a necessity for all that cruise and live for any considerable time in a sailboat, specially if out of marinas, this boat has a decent one even if it does not have lockers on the cockpit under the main seats (only under the steering wheel seats).

This is more important than what it looks because outside storage space in cruising boat design has been diminished drastically in recent years, with the brands choosing to have an interior as big as possible at the expenses of this space. Even brands that are known to make excellent cruising boats went that way, like for instance Hallberg Rassy.

The GS 42 LC has a deep chain locker and annexed to it under the same hatch, it has a separate sail locker, not properly big but enough to store a gennaker, a storm jib and to store the garbage on top of it. On the aft part of the cockpit under the floor there is a big locker isolated from the steering. The space of the 3rd cabin is smartly used to do a bigger aft cabin, to prolong the galley that has a big vertical refrigerator/ freezer at the end and to create a technical and storage space that is accessed laterally by the aft cabin.

There is the option not to have that big vertical refrigerator and instead to have a door to access that space but that set up for the refrigerator is to good to throw away, instead I think that an access by the cockpit settee and a better detail of the space (between equipment to be installed and storage) could make it a lot more useful and less difficult space to access.

The Cruising version comes with lateral settees for the helmsman on both sides and there are lockers under them. There are also two dedicated lockers on the back of the main settees to have inside all the cables that come from the stoppers or winches and a dedicated space for the liferaft under the cockpit floor and accessed by the stern when the swim platform is down.

As you can see plenty of storage outside, and inside it is the same, the galley is simply huge with lots of storage. The two heads, one near the aft cabin other inside the front cabin are big with separate showers, the saloon is very agreeable with two distinct seating areas and if you have more guests the chart table can be reversed and transformed into another seat.

The interior is of high quality, I would say a bit better in finish than the one of the Solaris 44 (that is already very good) and about the same quality of an Halberg Rassy, even if the design is slightly more modern. Really impressive.

Above, the galley on the 3 cabin, below on the 2 cabin

On the outside the only thing I really don't like is a recess on the front of the boat to accommodate  a big cushion. Sure it looks very well with a cushion there but while sailing there will be lots of water on that area and the cushion will have to be stored inside (where?)...and without it the shape looks a bit odd.

I like the smart use of acrylic glass, on the back of the boat and on the side, on the cockpit seats' backs. Lot's of it that makes the interior a very luminous one but also creates some problems in blocking all that sun when the heat is too much and that will happen during all summers on the Caribbean or on the Med.

I like a lot the huge seats, long and much larger than the usual. They will provide very comfortable "beds" to lay around or for sleeping there on night passages or simply when the interior is too hot. I don't like the size of the cockpit table, too long and too large. I like the winch positions, don't like being only 4 and the lack of a mainsail traveler. 

The position of the winches allow the boat to be easily controlled from the steering wheel and provide a good winch working position.

There are two versions of the boat (besides two and three cabins) but they are pretty much interchangeable on their different components, one that they call Cruising that comes with a carbon arch (it was the one on the boat show) and the boom mainsheet goes from up there to a system with blocks that can give some control on mainsail shape, the other that they call Performance comes with a single point mainsheet block on the cockpit floor, aft, near the wheels and a german sheeting set up and will allow a better control of the mainsail, specially upwind.

Above, aft cabin on the 3 cabin version, below on the 2 cabin

The performance version comes with a bigger mast, more sail area and no seats for the helmsman, except the natural ones on the side of the boat that is where he should be seated anyway. The absence of these seats creates less storage but allows much more space to steer the boat standing, making it much more pleasant and comfortable.

Both versions come with an hydraulic bathing platform but while the one on the standard version is a bit bigger and closes just a bit the transom the other one is smaller and finishes at cockpit floor level allowing an open transom. The performance version has also an hydraulic system for the back-stay. Both have a nice carbon bowsprit with an integrated stand for the anchor.

With a 12.90m hull length and 4.16m beam the 42LC is a relatively beamy boat featuring fine entries for this type of boat. It displaces 9600kg and that makes it a light boat for a medium weight cruiser. 

The Hallberg Rassy 412 displaces 11100kg, the Solaris 42 displaces 8800kg, the XC 42 11400kg and the X4-3 8850kg so this puts it in between the XC 42 / Hallberg Rassy 415 and the X4-3 / Solaris 42, meaning between two true performance cruisers and two relatively fast cruisers.

However it should be said that the B/D of the GS, without being as low as the one of a mass production boat, is considerably smaller than all the other mentioned, for similar drafts. 30%B/D, 2.25m draft for the GS and respectively 36%, 1.99m for the HR, 34%, 2.50m for the Solaris, 44%, 2.10m for the XC 42 and 43%, 2.20m for the X4-3.Would I like the GS 42 LC to have more ballast? Yes, or better, more draft (2.50m) and a  high efficiency torpedo keel instead of the L bulbed keel but given the type of boat and the clients that it points to, more ballast would make more sense. I would say something like 500kg more.

That would give it a 34%B/D and would provide it with a final stability similar to the one of the HR 412, that has a smaller draft but much more ballast.The weight of the boat would be then around 10 100 kg, even so one ton less than the one of the Halberg Rassy.

If we compared a GS version with more ballast with the GS 42 LC, this one  will be faster on lighter conditions but slower on high medium and heavy ones (except downwind), will have a lesser safety stability, a smaller AVS and a bigger inverted stability.

But that safety stability, even if not as good as the one on the other mentioned boats is not as bad as it looks and to put things in perspective. If we compare it with the one of a main market cruiser, for instance the most popular now, the Oceanis 41.1, we will see that the one of the Oceanis is incomparably worst.

The Oceanis 41.1, that is smaller (11.98m), with more beam (4.20m), displacing 8777kg, having a similar keel with almost the same draft (2.19 to 2,25m) has a 26% B/D. And regarding weight, if we put on the Oceanis the same ballast than on the GS (600kg more) that would give it almost the same displacement as the GS (-223kg) and being the Oceanis one meter shorter, that would give both boats a similar displacement in what regards D/L.

Assuming that both boats are properly built and I am pretty sure of that, the GS is much stronger because the different building methods (the GS using Isophthalic instead of orthophthalic resins, infusion cored hull instead of a monolithic one and carbon reinforcements on the hull structure) would have allowed the GS to be much lighter...if they were equally strong.

All in all the Grand Soleil 42 LC is a great boat, certainly much safer than the Oceanis 41.1 as a bluewater boat, ideally suited for cruising on the Mediterranean, Baltic or Caribbean, with an extraordinary interior for living aboard and cruise extensively (2 cabin), with good storage outside and excellent inside, a fast cruising boat, specially with the performance package.

If we look at the numbers we will see that on 42 GS LC they are quite surprising for a cruiser (on its performance version). It has 157.3 Displacement /Length and a Sail Area/Displacement of 24.6 upwind and 48.3 downwind. Those numbers compared with the ones of the other sailboats we compared it to are not bad at all in what regards performance: HR 412 203, 19.1, 26.8; Solaris 42 162.4, 24.1, 45.4; XC42 214, 21.78, 41.7; X4-3 162,25.49,44.17.

Just for the ones that are less used to look at these numbers, the first one, D/L gives a relation between the length of the boat and displacement and a smaller number means that the boat is lighter. The SA/D, upwind or downwind, relates to the smaller or bigger amount of sail a boat can carry in relation with its displacement. Bigger numbers mean more sail area for the same displacement and normally say also that the boat has more power to be able to have more sail area, specially upwind.

Regarding sailboat performance there are more factors that are not being taken into account here, namely boat drag, that has to do with many things, and  wave drag, that can be variable with sea conditions, from boat to boat.

Generally speaking, considering well designed boats, the ones with proportionally less beam or finer entries, have a better performance upwind and less wave drag, needing less sail for the same performance, boats with less ballast (B/D) or smaller draft (for the same D/L)  have normally a worse performance in stronger conditions, beam reaching and upwind specially.

This is only a simplistic approach because the combination of all these factors on a sailboat is a delicate one because when we increase beam we will also increase hull form stability and that means that a beamy boat can carry more sail than a narrow boat with the same ballast and that is why normally narrow boats have more ballast.

It is the balance between drag, wave drag and boat power that defines the potencial performance of a sailboat and can make some better in some conditions and worst on others.

From the numbers we can see that the GS 42 LC  is a light boat for a cruiser D/L (157.3) but it is necessary not to forget that it is obtained partially at the cost of less ballast than any of the others and for instance, the X4-3 that has a not very different D/L and draft (but a more efficient keel), has  900kg more ballast and it is also considerably less beamier (3.95 to 4.16m) and all that would make it probably faster in all conditions.

The Hallberg Rassy 412 is considerably heavier (203 to 157.3) but most of that diference is due to a much bigger B/D, in fact the HR has 1100kg more ballast even if that is also partially due to a smaller draft (1.99 to 2,25). Anyway since the HR beam is similar to the one of the GS 42 LC (4.11 to 4.16) that will mean that only in strong conditions the HR will have the chance of being faster than the GS and downwind the GS will always be faster.

To know more about how the boat sails nothing like to listen to the ones that have sailed it and they only say good things about it. Unfortunately only Italian sail testers from Italian sail magazines tested it and if you don't understand Italian you can easily google translate it:

https://www.giornaledellavela.com/2019/09/27/grand-soleil-42-lc-cantiere-del-pardo-2/

https://www.velaemotore.it/gran-soleil-42-lc-come-naviga-pregi-difetti-18605

http://www.barchemagazine.com/grand-soleil-42-lc-2/

Above GS 42 LC, below XC 42

I hope you get the picture. In fact the GS 42LC has a good balance between interior space, weight and performance, a balance that will not be favorable only on really strong conditions that you will not probably ever find doing coastal cruising, but that are possible found on long passages specially if you are unlucky, assuming you make them on the right season. Anyway, as I have already mentioned in what regards sailing in strong conditions the GS 42 LC is way better than an Oceanis 46.1.

Regarding building quality there is nothing to say except good things. I saw once cut  parts of a GS 46LC hull , that allowed to see how the boat was built and I was impressed. Contrary to many other brands they also detail how the boat is built, something that is very important but that deserves normally only some brief lines, in fact the description is so explicit that I will quote it:

Above HR 412, below Solaris 44

"1.1 HULL & DECK 1| CONSTRUCTION: Hull and deck are constructed from a feminine mold in sandwich with multiaxial E-glass skins and isophthalic resin. Further reinforcements of biaxial and unidirectional fibers are positioned in areas with greater stress to optimize the resistance of the constructions and weights.

 The hull core in high density closed cell PVC is glued under a vacuum system with single-skin reinforcement in the areas of the keel, rudder, any equipment and seacocks.

The deck core closed cell PVC is glued under a vacuum system with marine plywood and brass reinforcement corresponding to the areas of the deck equipment. 

The hull-deck joint is made by a use of methacrylic bonding (derived from the aerospace industry) and mechanical fixing. Toerail integrated in the hull and deck lamination to ensure greater torsional rigidity. The carbon bowsprit is integrated into the deck lamination to obtain a clean line and made for a gennaker or code zero use. Rollbar is made of carbon.

Above X 4-3, below Oceanis 41.1

1.2 FINISHES: The hull is externally varnished with white neopentyl gelcoat followed by a skin-coat with epoxy vinylester resin against osmosis. Bilges and lockers are varnished with white gelcoat.

There are 3 planned waterlines, one high and two low in black color. The deck is externally varnished with white neopentyl gelcoat and white high sealing microspheres. Antiskid will be applied in the walkway areas and where teak is not present.

1.3 STRUCTURE & BULKHEADS: The internal structure consists of a composite grillage formed by a dense network of longitudinal girders and transverse floor with laminated Glass fabrics and platbands reinforced with unidirectional Carbon fibers, all clamped to the hull.

The structure is particularly reinforced in critical areas to support the loads of the keel, mast and chain plates. In the intersections between transverse floor and longitudinal girder the sides of the laminate are continuous to improve the structural strength. Structural bulkheads are made from marine plywood - thickness of 20 mm - are laminated to the hull.

1.4 KEEL: The keel in “L” shape has a torpedo made of cast lead and antimony while the blade is in spheroidal cast iron with high resistance to increase rigidity and improve the shape reducing the drag. This ensures excellent performance and high righting lowering the center of gravity, the keel shape eliminates snagging of ropes or other. The keel is fixed to the hull by 11 pins in high strength stainless steel of 27 mm with internal backplates directly coupled to the structural grillage. Inside the keel is provided a fiberglass tub to collect bilge water positioned with a suction pump to ensure that the bilges are always dry. The keel is applied with a particular epoxy protection against corrosion and is equipped with a sacrificial anode in zinc...."

More here (download the PDF):

https://www.diamond-yachts.de/grand-soleil/modelle/grand-soleil-42-lc.html

The price is what you would expect for a very well built and finished boat: the price starts at 309000 € at the factory without taxes or extras. A ready to sail boat with 20% European tax will cost between 500000 and 550000€, that is about the same a X4-3 will cost.

But less than the smaller HR 412 or the new HR 40C and this boat is bigger with a better layout, similar quality and finish, faster, better as a coastal cruiser even if not as good as a bluewater boat. However most don't really sail bluewater and even  most of the ones that do, do it rarely using the boat mainly for coastal sailing and cruising.