The Oceanis Yacht 54 has the same hull as the First 53, a different cabin (a bit more raised one) and the proposed layouts are almost similar, with the exception of the saloon where the sitting area is slightly different with the introduction of a chart table.
The space in the salon is now nicer, cozier, and more comfortable due to those alterations and due to many panels that were white plastic on the First and are now wood (veneer).
I had already posted about the First 53, after having visited it at last year's Dusseldorf boat show, a visit that left me disappointed. You will see why reading the post below, but one of the things that did not convince me was the interior and also the fact that it was more of a performance cruiser than a cruiser-racer, at a price that seemed not justifiable for what it offered.
A pity they didn't take the opportunity to introduce, on the Oceanis, true cabinets in the galley, over the working space, instead of the shelves that seem to have little utility, with the boat sailing and heeling.
The interior has many of the parts used on the First and it is light, modern and "clean", giving an airy sensation, with good views to the outside due to big hull windows.
The storage interior space is not as big as it could be. There are no upper cabinets in the galley, saloon, neither in the main cabin, which seems to have little storage space for clothes, even if it offers a head with a separate shower on the other side of the cabin.
The standard version offers three cabins and two heads, with an option to have another head on the third cabin, which implies a significant shortening of the galley. Also as an option, at the cost of the bow locker, a tiny cabin for the crew, including a head, can be fit there.
These options make only sense if the yacht is used for charter, or if it is used only in small cruises where bigger storage space can be dismissed. On the standard version the interior storage space, even if not as big as in most 50ft cruising boats, may prove to be enough for long-range cruising, depending much on the type of sailors. A comfortable and relatively fast cruiser not for the ones that like to travel with a lot of stuff, but very far away from a spartan comfort.
On the outside, the storage is big enough, if we consider the big bow locker, but on aft part of the yacht things are not as well sorted out, starting with a garage for a 2.40-meter dinghy! If some considered small the 2.80m dinghy that fit in the Pegasus 50 garage, what will they say of a 2.40m dinghy, for a yacht that is designed to carry more people?
The good news is that if you can live with a 2.40-meter tender (that can have an aluminum bottom) the longitudinal storage makes it very easy to store it and deploy. A dingy of this size is good for two people and can carry four providing it does not carry a lot of provisions at the same time.
The available space for storage on the back of the boat is not detailed. There is a lot of lateral space on the garage that is not used by the dinghy, with very limited use. It would be much better if that non-used lateral space was incorporated on the two small aft lateral cockpit lockers, making them much bigger and usable.
On the cockpit, there are two big lockers under the cabin seats and a big central locker for a liferaft. The overall storage space is enough, but the bow locker is so deep that you need stairs to go down and it would be nicer if there was, on the cockpit, more available space that could more easily be reached.
Above First 53, below Oceanis Yacht 54
But even with these small inconveniences, I do think this boat is a lot more interesting than the First 53, a Yacht that has a less nice interior and will have not a big difference in performance or stability.
In fact, they have about a 1000kg difference in weight but I suspect that the First 15 599kg refers to the displacement of the non-standard First, with a carbon mast. The standard keel on the two boats is identical, in cast iron, with a torpedo, 2.50 meter draft, and the same ballast.
Only the First 53 with an optional lead torpedo with 3.02m draft, optional carbon rig, and slightly more ballast will have a significantly better performance (if the boats sail with the same sail area).
The Oceanis 54 comes equipped standard with a furling mast but it can have a bigger sail area with an optional single line furling system. In what regards mainsail control, the First comes with a single point block on the cockpit ( with no traveler) and the Oceanis comes with a mainsail control on top of an arch with two blocks. Better efficiency in the First system, but without a traveler, not that much.
All the rest is similar, with the exception of some small differences in height on the deck: the First has a single step aft the Oceanis has two smaller "steps" along the deck, possibly to give the lifelines a bigger height, increasing security.
The First has a clean and spacious transom while the Oceanis comes with seats for the steersman (besides the lateral ones), with ugly small cabinets below.
On top, First 53, above, Oceanis 54
The rigging for the main control is obviously different, with a german sheeting system on the First and a single line system on the Oceanis.
The First comes with 4 winches, being two of those optional on the Oceanis (same location). In what regards sail area they are not very different with 165.9m2 for the First and 157.0 m2 for the Oceanis, if the one line reefing system is chosen (instead of the furling mast), both with the 105% genoa.
With the furling mainsail, on the Oceanis 54, the sail area is substantially reduced to 133m2. The 105% genoa (used on the sail tests with the furling main) needs the optional genoa track and the two optional winches. The Yacht comes standard with a jib and a self-tacking rail.
With the standard jib track, the boat does not need the optional winches, but then the sail area upwind will be only 119m2. And if a code 0 is used those two extra winches will be necessary anyway, at least if we want to keep handling simple.
Only on the First with the carbon mast and 3.00 lead keel version the difference in sail area and power will be substantial, having then 173m2.
8m2 is the difference in sail from the First faster version to the std version, the same that separates the standard First from the Oceanis (with single line reefing). That represents 5.1% of the sail area.
Having the same hull Oceanis has the same dimensions, LOA 17.12; HL 15.98; LWL 15.40; Beam 5.0, same keel, twin rudders and ballast, same draft (2.50m) and a slightly different B/D due to the Oceanis bigger displacement. I believe that this better B/D, that has to do with the same ballast on a lighter boat, is the one of the carbon rig version. The Oceanis has a 27.1% B/D and the First 28.8% .
That gives the Oceanis a bigger overall stability and the First a slightly better safety stability and AVS. The stability on the two yachts is not proportional to the increase in the sail area and that makes the First a more demanding boat to sail.
Only on the 3.00 draft version, slightly more ballast and carbon spars, will the stiffness (sail power) be considerably bigger on the First 53 and with the exception of that version, considering the standard First, the overall performance between the two boats (Oceanis 54 with single line reefing) will not be very different except in very light wind situations where the First bigger sail area and slightly less displacement will make the difference.
But a 3.00m draft, even in places where there is no particular problem with draft, like the Mediterranean, is already limiting in what regards ports and marinas, even more in the Baltic and it makes this version far from ideal for a cruising yacht. The Oceanis can have, as an option, a keel with 2.00m draft and more ballast but the standard keel seems much better balanced for this size of yacht.
The standard First 53 version has a not very different sail performance, has an uninspired interior and costs 70 800 euros more. In fact that difference in price is considerably bigger because the Oceanis comes already with sails and that is not the case with the First. The First comes with 4 winches and the Oceanis with two (and two optional) but the difference of the two winches is probably smaller than the sails' price.
The Oceanis Yacht 54 was tested already by some sail magazines and all said well about the sailing potential, helm control and sensation. Among the magazines that tested the boat was Yacht, the German sail magazine that made the video I post below, and on that video, it is very curious to see the way the Oceanis 54 sails compared to the Contest 55 CS.
The images in the video say more than words, two different ways of sailing and cruising. It is up to you to choose the one you prefer.
Sailing Today tested also the Oceanis 54 and what they said (below the video) gives a good picture of how the boat sails. Note that they, and all other magazines, tested the boat on the version with in-mast furling, which has a considerably smaller sail area than the version with single line furling (less 20m2). The tested yacht was also equipped with the nonstandard 105% genoa (more 14m2 over the standard jib).
"She performed superbly... in 15-17kn of breeze. The steering was a joy; light and responsive with tons of grip and masses of control – even with once we’d hoisted the gennaker. The speed never dropped below 7.5kn and we were well into double digits off the breeze with the gennaker. The sail controls were also eminently sensible, and it’s easy to see how you could handle this boat single-handed without any great shakes." https://www.sailingtoday.co.uk/news/tested-beneteau-oceanis-yacht-54/
The Oceanis 54, like the Pegasus 50, offers as an option a very nice integrated cockpit cover, that can open to let the sun in. Some years ago, when there was none on offer, I said that this type of integrated well-designed sunshades was the logical way to go, in what regards cruising boats' cockpit design to replace biminis and cockpit covers...and it did not take long for them to appear. In some years they will be offered on many cruisers.
They are much nicer and integrated than the biminis that are used to offer shade and rain protection. The one on the Oceanis offers an option to be completely closed and will make for a very interesting solution for the ones that live full time on a yacht, and spend several months, in winter, on a marina, extending the living space in winter months.
Above, Oceanis 54, below, Solaris 55
Regarding building quality the Oceanis and First are about the same, with a balsa sandwich infused hull, vacuum infused structural inner liner, bonded to the hull, deck in infused glass fibre/balsa sandwich, with non-slip "diamond point" surface. In the interior, the First has many white plastic surfaces that on the Oceanis have a wood veneer.
It's a better building than on smaller Oceanis that do not use sandwich hulls (that offer much better resistance to flexing), but Beneteau still uses balsa as core, a material that has been substituted by top closed cell foams, on more expensive brands.
Balsa, as core material, offers great mechanical properties, it is less expensive, but can rot if there is a water intrusion in the sandwich, making a repair much more complicated. Not as big a problem as it seems. Many top brands used for decades balsa as core (before almost all changed) without problems.
Oceanis yacht 54
The Oceanis 54 is more elegant and beautiful than any other 55ft mass production main market cruiser, offering less windage, a hull with less freeboard, finer entries, it is lighter, and it offers a better sail performance. Besides, it offers an innovative cockpit cover, with the possibility of closing all that space allowing for a bigger living space in winter.
Solaris 55, below Solaris 50
The sail performance in light winds will not be very far from the one of the Solaris 55, which is heavier (17 600kg to 16 600kg). However, the lighter Oceanis displacement is obtained at the cost of weight in ballast (4500kg to 6500kg). The extra displacement is not only compensated by more sail area (178m2 to 157m2) but also by a narrower hull, with less drag.
The beamier Oceanis 54 hull will provide more hull form stability, however, that will be more than compensated by the Solaris 55 huge difference in B/D, keel efficiency, and less drag.
In all other conditions and points of sail (except maybe downwind) the Solaris will be considerably faster due to less drag and more power that comes from a huge difference in B/D and draft. Standard the Solaris comes with a more efficient torpedo keel with a lead bulb and 3.0m draft, and even with 50cm more draft, it offers a much bigger B/D, 36.9%, that has nothing to do with the one of the Oceanis, that has a 27.1%B/D.
On the Solaris, with the optional 2.70m keel, closer in draft to the one of the Oceanis (but still 20cm longer) the Solaris B/D increases to 40% (more ballast). That makes the difference to the Oceanis 27.1%B/D much bigger and that difference is even more meaningful due to the Oceanis less efficient keel, without a lead bulb, and due to the Solaris extra draft.
Other positive differences for the Solaris are the bigger size of the garage, that is able to take a 2.9m dinghy (2.4m on the Oceanis), the Solaris interior that is nicer, better finished, with more storage and the overall building quality, that is better, using the Solaris vinylester resins, sandwich bulkheads and structure are not only bonded but also laminated to the hull and deck.
Besides, the Solaris 55, because it is bigger, can offer three cabins with three good heads, without diminishing the galley size while on the Oceanis for having three cabins and three heads the galley becomes too small for a 55ft boat.
The Solaris saloon is also bigger and nicer with a better chart table. Hard to beat the Solaris 55 that is really an amazing boat and a very good design.
The Oceanis has however some advantages for cruising, namely the integrated cockpit cover and a bigger tankage, 700l of water/400l diesel to 520l / 380l. That tankage advantage is not so important because most owners on this type of boat have a watermaker and the difference in diesel is not much.
Another Oceanis advantage is the option of a joystick fully integrated control motion of the yacht, through a rotating saildrive and a forward bow thruster that makes putting the boat on a marina berth very easy. That comes with a high price, that joystick system is extra and will cost the price of a good car.
But even opting for that extra the Solaris will be considerably more expensive because the difference in price between the standard yachts are big: The Oceanis 54 costs 436 500 € euros and the Solaris 690 000 €, both without tax and in the factory.
But as usual, the prices are a bit misleading because the Oceanis 54 is not really a 54ft boat but a 52.4ft yacht while the Solaris 55 is a 54.8ft boat.
Maybe it would make more sense to compare the Oceanis 54 with the Solaris 50 because while the Solaris 54 is 72 cm longer than the Oceanis the Solaris 50 is only 58 cm shorter. The Solaris 50 is lighter (14200kg to 16600kg) has a bigger B/D (34.5/ to 27.1%) on a more efficient keel (with a lead torpedo), more draft (2.8 to 2.5m), less beam (4.55 to 5.00m) and more sail area (160 to 157m2).
The Solaris 50 would be faster in all points of sail and winds and all that was said regarding the advantages of the 55 towards the Oceanis 50 remain true, with the exception of the three cabins with three heads and the size of the tender that fits in the garage. The tender size will not be very different than the one on the Oceanis 55 even if the transversal position makes it easier to accommodate a bigger deflated one.
The biggest disadvantage of the Solaris 50 is the absence of space for a generator...unless it is fitted in the tender garage. For most that buy this size of yachts, a generator is indispensable because they want to use air conditioning when out of a marina. A watermaker can work while sailing with the power of a hydro generator, but not an AC.
Solaris 55
The absence of space for the generator behind the engine is a trade-off to make the aft cabins bigger, to compensate for the difference of beam between the Oceanis 54 and the Solaris 50 (45cm). The difference in tankage is also a positive factor on the Oceanis.
The tankage of the Solaris 50 is not very different than the one on the 55 but here without a generator and therefore a watermaker, that difference is more important. The Solaris 50 has 500l water tankage and 350l diesel (Oceanis - 700l- 400l).
Solaris 50
The absence of space for a generator makes this boat more suited to more sportive or ecologic sailors that will use solar panels and a hydro-generator (dispensing AC) or to those that will not use the garage for an inflated tender and will have the generator there. A pity because this boat is so elegant that a dinghy over the deck is an insult to beauty.
The Solaris 50 costs 480 000 euros, in fact less than the First 54, and it costs only 43 500 € more than the Oceanis 54 a difference that will grow if we consider that the Oceanis comes already with sails, and that is not the case with the Solaris (all prices regards standard yachts without VAT and transport).
I used Solaris for comparison purposes but I could have used X-Yachts, Grand Soleil, Italia Yachts, Ice Yachts, all of them are better built and more expensive yachts. It is not so much about comparing what is not comparable (quality and price) but about the type of yacht, and the type of yacht is what is comparable. And that is what makes the Oceanis Yacht 54 interesting.
The Oceanis 54 is more elegant, faster than the other big brand main market yachts, offers an innovative and well-designed cockpit cover, and is considerably less expensive than what would cost a similar-sized performance yacht from smaller, better quality production brands.
If you don't have the money or don't want to spend the extra cost for a top-quality brand yacht and need a true three-cabin cruiser, but don't dispense sail speed and elegance, this can be one of a kind. In fact two of a kind, if we consider the More 55...but I had not a positive impression last time I contacted them...and the last news on their site are from 2019.
A ver se a beneteau começa a produzir melhor que a geraçao oceanis anterior onde o riging estava mal dimensionado, o balastro demasiado reduzido, os interiores pobres e frageis,falta de personalidade, etc... O barco parece ser interessante,seria bom que as marcas generalistas começassem a pruduzir barcos onde o foco nao se concentra unicamente no mercado charter...
Well, what I said on the post regarding the Solaris is true regarding the 52 LC, except that the Oceanis 54, which is marginally than the 52 LC (15.98 to 16.10) is slower than the Solaris and also marginally slower than the Oceanis (with one line furling), in most conditions.
On the outside I find the Oceanis 54 more beautiful, and I like the airy interior but in what regards building construction, quality and storage in the interior, hull, deck and structure building quality, there are no comparison.
In what regards interior design the 52LC has a beautiful and cozy interior, more practical for cruising than the one of the Oceanis, even if a bit less modern, but modern is not necessarily better ore nicer and it is better finished.
The 52LC can carry a 2.7m tender on the garage while the Oceanis is limited to a 2.4m tender that I find too small for this size and type of yacht. Because of that and because if offers two aft cabins with heads without making the galley too small, the layout is better on the 52LC than on the Oceanis.
Regarding sailing the performances should be very similar, having both boats the same displacement and about the same sail area.
In what respects final stability and overall stability they should be not very different because the bigger ballast from the Grand Soleil is partially compensated by the more efficient keel design. Probably the AVS and final stability from the GS are slightly better (lead bulb) but in this case they should be close and I would have to look at the stability curve to be sure.
To the GS considerable superior build and finish quality corresponds a considerably bigger price, (617 000€ in 2019) and that price, contrary to the one of the Oceanis (419 040 €) does not include sails (prices without VAT, standard boats at the factory).
Assuming that the Swans are the top of the line, the Solaris are first on my value for money monohull list, Especially now that the X-Yachts are gone as crazy as Swans (+1 million for the new 56) But I am not sure if I want a monohull anymore. I still remember that looking curiously at the Fountaine Pajot, in the 80s, the main argument was that the price of the catamarans was twice as high.
Now for all of us who spent most of our time on the boat, I do not think there is any dilemma. With the SeaWind 1600 cost 850k, the Nautitech 54 1,1 mil, and with clear superiority in space, speed, comfort, storage, sailing in calm, what's left for the monohulls?
Only regattas, and sailing in conditions, over 45-50 knots of wind, which we all try to avoid anyway.
What do you mean with Solaris 56? I don't know any new project to replace the 55. They have a new 60. The prices I am referring are of standard boats at the shipyard without taxes. With European VAT and full equipment a Solaris 54 can cost or near or over 1 million €.
Swan 48 the top of the line? Certainly in prestige, and probably interior finish and quality, not in performance or overall building quality. Even the Solaris 50 is more powerful, lighter, and has more sail area.
Yachts like the Mylius 50 or Ice 52 have an overall better building, even if I like more the Swan 48 interior. Personally I would clearly prefer an Ice 52 to a Swan 48.
For better price for quality I would say that it is hard to beat the ICE 52 RS that costs less than the Swan48 , about the same as the Solaris 54 and is built with better materials and more advanced building techniques, not to mention that it is incomparably faster, even if a bit smaller in length.
A ver se a beneteau começa a produzir melhor que a geraçao oceanis anterior onde o riging estava mal dimensionado, o balastro demasiado reduzido, os interiores pobres e frageis,falta de personalidade, etc...
ReplyDeleteO barco parece ser interessante,seria bom que as marcas generalistas começassem a pruduzir barcos onde o foco nao se concentra unicamente no mercado charter...
A guy about why to big: https://youtu.be/0lxRC17hLfI
ReplyDeleteHey Paulo,
ReplyDeleteWould you consider posting comparison with rand soleil lc52?
Thank you
M
I guess you want to say Grand Soleil 52 LC?
DeleteWell, what I said on the post regarding the Solaris is true regarding the 52 LC, except that the Oceanis 54, which is marginally than the 52 LC (15.98 to 16.10) is slower than the Solaris and also marginally slower than the Oceanis (with one line furling), in most conditions.
On the outside I find the Oceanis 54 more beautiful, and I like the airy interior but in what regards building construction, quality and storage in the interior, hull, deck and structure building quality, there are no comparison.
In what regards interior design the 52LC has a beautiful and cozy interior, more practical for cruising than the one of the Oceanis, even if a bit less modern, but modern is not necessarily better ore nicer and it is better finished.
The 52LC can carry a 2.7m tender on the garage while the Oceanis is limited to a 2.4m tender that I find too small for this size and type of yacht. Because of that and because if offers two aft cabins with heads without making the galley too small, the layout is better on the 52LC than on the Oceanis.
Regarding sailing the performances should be very similar, having both boats the same displacement and about the same sail area.
In what respects final stability and overall stability they should be not very different because the bigger ballast from the Grand Soleil is partially compensated by the more efficient keel design. Probably the AVS and final stability from the GS are slightly better (lead bulb) but in this case they should be close and I would have to look at the stability curve to be sure.
To the GS considerable superior build and finish quality corresponds a considerably bigger price, (617 000€ in 2019) and that price, contrary to the one of the Oceanis (419 040 €) does not include sails (prices without VAT, standard boats at the factory).
Assuming that the Swans are the top of the line, the Solaris are first on my value for money monohull list,
ReplyDeleteEspecially now that the X-Yachts are gone as crazy as Swans (+1 million for the new 56)
But I am not sure if I want a monohull anymore.
I still remember that looking curiously at the Fountaine Pajot, in the 80s, the main argument was that the price of the catamarans was twice as high.
Now for all of us who spent most of our time on the boat, I do not think there is any dilemma.
With the SeaWind 1600 cost 850k, the Nautitech 54 1,1 mil, and with clear superiority in space, speed, comfort, storage, sailing in calm, what's left for the monohulls?
Only regattas, and sailing in conditions, over 45-50 knots of wind, which we all try to avoid anyway.
What do you mean with Solaris 56? I don't know any new project to replace the 55. They have a new 60. The prices I am referring are of standard boats at the shipyard without taxes. With European VAT and full equipment a Solaris 54 can cost or near or over 1 million €.
ReplyDeleteSwan 48 the top of the line? Certainly in prestige, and probably interior finish and quality, not in performance or overall building quality. Even the Solaris 50 is more powerful, lighter, and has more sail area.
Yachts like the Mylius 50 or Ice 52 have an overall better building, even if I like more the Swan 48 interior. Personally I would clearly prefer an Ice 52 to a Swan 48.
For better price for quality I would say that it is hard to beat the ICE 52 RS that costs less than the Swan48 , about the same as the Solaris 54 and is built with better materials and more advanced building techniques, not to mention that it is incomparably faster, even if a bit smaller in length.