NEW HALLBERG RASSY 400 VERSUS HR 40C

Well, half new, because it is not really a new sailboat but an aft-cockpit version of the 40C, which is a central cockpit boat. Except for the different cockpit position and interior layout, all is the same, the hull, sail area, tankage, engine, hull, rudders, keel ballast and draft.

I have done a comparison between the  HR 40C and the HR 412 here: 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-hallberg-rassy-40c-versus-hr-412.html

Now that the HR 412 has been retired and substituted by the HR 400, a 41.4ft boat being substituted by a slightly smaller yacht (40.4ft), but with a bigger waterline and more beam (4.18 to 4.11m), the comparison that matters now is between the HR 400 and the 40C.

The HR 400 has a bigger cockpit, even if not as big as it could have been. On the 40C the passage from the steering post to the rest of the cockpit is more difficult but all sailing controls are at the reach of the helmsman and are easier to use, while on the 400C only 2 of the four winches are at the direct reach of the helmsman even if the passage to the other two is facilitated by a two rudder setup.

Difficult to understand why the winches on the 400 are not more aft and why the second winch is not closer to the one near the wheel. The way it is, it does not only prevent the helmsman from reaching it from the wheel position as its operation intrudes with "passengers" sitting on the cockpit.

The mainsail control on the 40C is more intuitive, quicker and better, through a purchase system on a traveller at easy reach. On the 400 the traveller is over the cabin and for controlling the mainsail you will have to do it on the winches that are out of reach, as well as the lines for controlling the mainsail traveller.

On top of all this, the helmsman seating position is better on the 40C. Normally in this size of boat, I would prefer an AC cockpit to a CC one, but in this case, while the 40C is exceptionally well designed, the 400 leaves much to be desired, particularly the winch position and the treatment of the aft part of the cockpit.

The 400 has an odd transom with two transom small seats that will be uncomfortable with the boat heeled (and the boat is heeled most of the time). The only lateral possible sitting places are very narrow and high, so narrow and high that I doubt they would be of any use due to discomfort, even if most normally sit laterally when sailing the boat upwind, or with any considerable degree of heel.

I don't understand why the back seats don't start at the transom, allowing the wheels to come further aft, increasing the length of the cockpit seats, and allowing more space to lie down. Don't understand either why the swimming platform is not bigger, closing the cockpit. Saving money using the 40C swimming platform, on a boat this expensive should not be a reason.

One of the disadvantages of the 40C is having more difficult access to the swimming platform, and a small one, by limitations due to the type of design (CC). The 400 has not those limitations but it has a small swimming platform anyway, as if a bigger one was not an advantage.

Regarding outside storage, the 400, in the 3 cabin version, has little storage and should only be considered if small cruises or marina to marina cruising will be the owner's main program. The 40C offers more storage space, with two bigger stern sail lockers. The 400 two under the seat cockpit lockers (one on the 40C) will not compensate for the bigger overall outside storage space on the 40C.

But things will change radically if we consider the 400 two-cabin version (the 40C has only a two-cabin version) and in this case, the outside storage space is huge, with practically one of the aft cabins turned into storage, but being that storage space accessed exclusively from the cockpit. 

But huge is not the same thing as practical or usable and the only outside access and its huge deep size make it not as functional as it should be, and unnecessarily big. 

This approximate size and type of sailboat, rarely is used for charter, and with a bigger percentage of owners using it more often for extensive cruising should have ideally two heads, two good cabins, a big galley and good interior and exterior storage space.

Regarding this ideal, neither of the boats comes out with flying colours, and I believe either one could have a better layout: the 40C offers a great galley, one magnificent aft cabin, a good bow cabin but offers only one head, and the only head, weirdly, is far from the bigger cabin and almost integrated into the smaller one.

The 400 offers the same forward cabin and head, as on the 40C, a second and much bigger head but a smaller aft cabin. The aft cabin could be much bigger if transversal, with the technical space situated not behind the engine, but laterally, on part of the space that was occupied by the 2nd cabin, and that is now, a huge undivided storage space. 

The only disadvantage to this solution would be the impossibility to mount an optional stern thruster, but who needs a bow thruster and a stern thruster, on a boat of this size? The outside storage space would still be much increased regarding the three-cabin layout and could be turned into a more usable one.

The 40C galley is much bigger than the one in the 400. The 400 galley could also be made bigger if a transversal aft cabin was considered. On the 400 it is hard to understand the lack of interior access to the main storage space due to the head layout, which has the toilet where that passage could be made.

Both saloons have the same space and distribution both can have two individual armchairs, only the position of the chart table and size varies, being considerably bigger on the 40C. The 400 has in fact an interior that is not smaller than the one of the bigger 412, with the exception of the chart table that is smaller,  and that is no small feat.

Between the two, the 40C seems better designed, however, not having a second head and the only one being a relatively small one, is really a big negative point. Maybe the size is wrong, maybe they should have started without a pre-determined size and tried to have the smaller possible yacht with two heads, two good cabins and a good galley. I guess that they would have ended with a 41ft yacht even if I find that the 40C layout could be easily bettered. 

A pity that for so little extra length, and for a small difference in price, they were not able to offer the smallest, and yet perfect, two cabin/two head cruising yacht. If that is very hard to manage or impossible to manage on a 40ft CC yacht, in what regards a 40 AC, that seems not so difficult, with the right compromises between outside storage and interior space, but in this case, the aft cabin seems too small for perfection and the outside storage space unnecessarily big.

Both are beautiful yachts with great quality and design interior, well built and yachts that will make their owners proud. Test sails have been very positive (40C) and this is a great size to be sailed solo with confidence, and for not being overwhelmed when those automatic systems, that allow a solo sailor to sail bigger yachts, fail, or when things just go wrong.

HR 40C Sail Tests available on-line: https://marina.ch/fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-F.pdf 

 https://marina.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-D.pdf

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/reviews/yacht-reviews/hallberg-rassy-40c-the-best-sailing-boat-h-r-have-ever-built 

https://www.magzter.com/stories/Boating-Sailing/Yachting-Monthly/FIRST-TEST-HALLBERG-RASSY-40C

https://www.velaemotore.it/test-prova-hallberg-rassy-40c-navigazione-pregi-difetti-19187

 

The price, like the quality, is high and the difference in price between the two boats is negligible. The prices are originally in Swedish Crowns and have small variations due to money exchange, with both boats costing between 400 000 and 420 000 €, without VAT, standard at the shipyard.