THE STRANGE CHANGE OF WINNER IN THE 2021 MIDDLE SEA RACE

For the ones who don't know it, the Middle Sea Race is the most important of all Med races, an IRC race that started more than 50 years ago and that on this edition counted well over 100 entries, and boats like Comanche, Rambler, the new Swan 125ft racer and 3 trimarans MOD 70.

This edition was great, with varied and strong winds, and, when all the yachts that had potentially the possibility of winning the race had arrived, the victory was provisorily attributed to Sunrise, a relatively small JPK 11.80, that had made a fantastic race and an incredible final part.

Mysteriously, several hours after the victory be provisionally attributed to the JPK 11.80, they changed the classification and the victory was now attributed to Comanche, the maxi yacht that now is owned by the Australian millionaire Jim Cooney.

 

For several days no explanation for this change was given by the organization, till they come out with an unbelievable one: Sunrise, the JPK 11.89 would have in fact won the race if they had not shortened it to an alternative finish line, one that was never used in the 53 years of this race, not even in editions with far worse weather conditions.

To make all this even more strange, the finish line was changed after almost all racers have finished the race, and only 19 yachts finished the race on the alternative finish line (that shortened the race) and probably all, or almost all would not have any problem in finishing the race because the conditions were disagreeable (wind on the nose) but far from being dangerous or impossible.

 

What really surprises me is that this very strange abnormal "situation" did not deserve any special comment from the nautical press, as if this was all normal, as well as an official explanation is given only 3 days after they have changed the leader from Sunrise (JPK 11.80) to Comanche.

They said on 20/09: "Despite a tricky final few miles to and through the South Comino Channel, the JPK 1180 has squeezed into the overall lead of the 2021 Rolex Middle Sea Race and is on the cusp of a remarkable double. Needing to finish by 1338 CEST on Tuesday to beat Comanche, nearly three times her waterline length and rating almost twice as high, the British yacht passed Race Control at Tigné Point at 1323 CEST, to grab a 16-minute lead in the overall standings."

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617835b8e2f080000080d4d8?year=2021&month=October#

 

 

And 3 days later: The 30.48m/100ft Maxi Comanche (CAY) has been confirmed as the overall winner of the 42nd Rolex Middle Sea Race....Comanche finished the race on the morning of Monday 25 October and was in pole position until the arrival of the JPK 1180 Sunrise on the afternoon of Tuesday 26 October. The race narrative then altered in the early hours of Wednesday 27 October, with some 23 boats still on the racecourse. A serious and adverse change to the weather forecast led the Royal Malta Yacht Club Race Committee to invoke the alternative finish line, as per the sailing instructions.

....“ SI 11.3 enables the Race Committee to use an alternative finish line in the South Comino Channel if severe weather conditions make it unsafe to enter Marsamxett Harbour. The rule was written specifically in anticipation of the forecast severe north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter. For that reason, we made the call, which was announced to all competitors whether finished or racing, in accordance with rules.”

 

According to available records, this is the first time in the 53-year history of the Rolex Middle Sea Race that the alternative finish line has had to be used. 19 yachts have been able to finish the race using this line. As a consequence of the decision, all yachts taking part have been scored for the purposes of time correction using the alternative finish line. Competing in IRC Class One, Comanche’s corrected time to the alternative finish line of three days six hours 30 minutes and 20 seconds has proved just over an hour faster than second-placed Sunrise (IRC Class Five).....

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617be0ea6d1ecd0000cda403?year=2021&month=October#

You can see here on the race tracker the conditions that supported the shortening of the race for safety reasons, that "north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter", mostly 25kt on the nose, and you can see that ALL YACHTS, except one, entered the Marsamxett harbour (after having finished the race). They all passed Comino Channel, did not enter Gozo port (that is on the Channel), and all entered Marsamxett harbour. 

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/tracker?

CONTEST 49/50CS, A NEW YACHT FROM A GREAT BRAND

A new Contest is always good news, a sign that the biggest Dutch shipyard is well and that the Dutch continue making great quality cruising boats. The first yachts, several centuries ago, were Dutch, (as well as the origin of the word Yacht) and the Dutch always had a big tradition in what regards builders and yacht designers.

49CS

But in the last decades many Dutch brands disappeared and even the Contest, once designed by a Dutch designer, are now designed by Judel & Vrolijk, a German cabinet (even if Rolf Vrolijk was born in Nederland).

This design comes in the same line as the 42CS, a good sailing boat with a very high-quality cruising interior, but I don't like this design as much as the one of the 42CS, even if I understand what makes Contest propose a design with these characteristics:  a very beamy boat, with a huge freeboard, huge interior volume and very high interior standing height.

50CS

In fact, it is ridiculous talking about standing height because those heights have nothing to do with standing, and are more typical of a house than a boat, even if I miss the point of having a Yacht interior that looks like an apartment interior, especially in what regards huge standing heights.

The reason why they seem to have opted for a lower B/D than the one in the other Contest is less understandable.  They tried to hide that with a published stability curve that, unlike all the others for the other yachts, has an interval between 90º and 135º (instead of 100º to 150º) to try to make it less evident that the AVS is lower than on the other Contest, that generally have it around 125º.

50CS

The 49/50CS AVS seems to be a bit less than 120º. A smaller AVS seems to be today a tendency in sailboat yachts over 45ft, much due to RCD that allows smaller AVS on a bigger yacht. High-quality brands resisted that, but they are now doing the same to lower costs. The Halberg Rassy 50 has an AVS of about 115º and the Amel 50 does not disclose it, but it should be much less than that.

49CS

Contest announced the 49CS as a new yacht, but it is basically the 50CS with a different interior layout and a slightly different cockpit arrangement. The 50CS offers a huge aft cabin, typical in center cockpits (even if this boat is a hybrid), while the 49CS offers two smaller aft cabins and a dinghy garage.

There is also a small aesthetical difference on the transom inclination, that results in the 50ft being slightly longer, but having the same deck length and LWL as the 49. The extra cms don't result in any significant useful interior space gain.

Above, the 50CS, below, the 49CS

I find the 49CS layout flawed by the lack of storage under the cockpit and by the lack of space for technical equipment (generator, water-maker, and so on). There is a big space for a dinghy garage but that space is necessarily a semi-wet compartment, not suitable for this type of equipment, and besides, if you have a dinghy there you will have space for little else.

This can be solved by having a single aft cabin on the 49CS, that can be bigger than any of the two, and by reserving the rest of the space, now occupied by the other cabin, for technical equipment.

On the cockpit, both boats have a similar solution with a deep protected central cockpit, separated from the helming station by two steps. This gives an unusually high helming position, offering little protection, and worst, very low uncomfortable side seats for helming the boat. The seats behind the wheels on the 50CS are also low and uncomfortable.

I don’t see any need of helming central seats on a boat that will be used almost all the time in auto-pilot, but I don’t like the low uncomfortable lateral seats, that are more useful than the central ones, and, without those, it is created a very nice aft deck space, very well suited for deck chairs and relaxation near the swimming platform. 

The yacht is built with the traditional Contest high quality, with a sandwich hull with monolithic, where it offers an advantage. They use vinylester resins on all laminates and an infusion vacuum process. The structural bulkheads are in sandwich composite, stratified to the hull and deck, and they use carbon fibers to reinforce the boat structure.

From the top: 50CS, 49CS, Swan 48,
 Swan 50 Club Racer, TP 52

Contest is one of the few traditional high-quality brands that have fully accompanied technical building yacht evolution, and the yachts are built with the best techniques available. If we compare with Hallberg-Rassy we will see that while HR still uses hand laminate while Contest uses vacuum infusion (and they started using it more than 20 years ago!).

Contest uses vinylster for all lamination, HR only on the outer layers, Contest uses sandwich structural bulkheads, HR does not say, and probably they are made of high-quality plywood, Contest uses Carbon for structural reinforcement, HR doesn't.

The only thing I prefer about the HR building is the PVC core. Contest does not say, on this, and other yachts, what is used as a core, but I suppose it is balsa, as it was before. Balsa has very good mechanical properties but it is prone to rot, if there is a water intrusion on the core, and in the last years almost all quality builders changed balsa for high-quality polyester foam.

Above 50CS, below 49CS

But it is also true that many boats still use balsa as core without problems, and that Contest has a very advanced building system: unlike in most yachts, the infusion system is a single shot one, including the outer layer, the core, and the inside layer. That allows for a more integral and better waterproof sandwich, not to mention the use of vinylester (a water-proof resin) everywhere.

Regarding interior quality, it is as good, or better, as the one on HR, but with a different style.

 Let’s look at what many here want to know, how about sailing performance?

Well, this is one of those very beamy boats with high freeboards and, from what I saw in the Hanse 460 comments, some think that does not have a negative impact on the sail performance, but it has.

Above HR 50, Below Amel 50

Just look at the shape (beam/length) of a Transpac 52, which was initially drawn for sailing mostly downwind (and that was considered beamy) and that proved to be a very fast racer, in almost all conditions. Look at the beam/length of a Swam 50, which has proven to be very fast (in real-time) while racing, and compare it with the B/L of the swan 48, which is a compromise between interior space and performance.

The Contest 49CS, the Halberg Rassy 50, and the Amel 50, are also a compromise between interior space and performance, but a much BIGGER compromise.

The Contest 49/50CS is not the only fat boat among these types of high-quality cruisers. Unfortunately, it seems to be a strong tendency. Amel and Halberg Rassy went for the same type of very beamy hulls with a high, or very high freeboard, to have the biggest possible interior. I am not saying that those sailboats sail badly, they are all designed by very competent NAs, but they have their sailing potential limited by the hull choice, especially in regards to light wind sailing and upwind sailing.

Halberg Rassy 44

These three yachts have similar hull lengths, being the longest the Amel (15.51m), and the smallest the C49CS (15.20). The HR and the Contest have not very different beams ( 4.90 - 5.00m), while the Amel 50, is narrower,  4.79m.

They have similar displacements, 21500kg for the Contest, 21000 for the HR, 20555 for the Amel, and they have similar SA/D, respectively 17.5, 17.6 and 17.1, offering the HR a sail maximized version with a substantial bigger 20 SA/D.

Amel 50

Apparently,  Amel, due to a smaller beam, should sail better upwind and in light wind (considering the HR with similar SA/D), but it is handicapped by the smallest B/D of them all (by far) 26%, and that with the shortest keel and the less beamy hull. 

The HR with a 35% B/D  (or the Contest) will be able to get much more power from heeling and will be more stiff, due to a bigger hull form stability.

Swan 48

With medium to stronger winds, the HR and the Contest, will sail better upwind than the Amel, and also better downwind with strong winds, while with light winds the Amel should be faster, but not faster than the HR version with a bigger SA/D. The Contest has also the stiffness that allows it to carry more sail area, but a version with maximized sail area is not announced.

On the Contest, sadly, they don’t give the ballast, but we can see on the published stability curve, that the AVS is a bit less than 120º, while the HR one is about 115º. Having both yachts similar keels, with similar drafts, the Contest B/D should not be less than the one on the HR.

Contest 49/50CS

If the HR with a 35% B/D has a 115º AVS we can only guess what would be the AVS on the Amel 50, which has much less draft and a much lower 26% B/D. Probably it would not be as low as we can imagine, because the very high freeboard and the high superstructure will contribute to increasing the AVS, but will not increase the RM at 80/90º, which will be much lower than on the HR or Contest. And the RM at big heel angles is as important or more than the AVS, in what regards to safety stability.

Surprisingly, the Contest 49CS at 1.053 million €, seems to cost a bit less than the HR 50 (1.160 million €) and understandably more than the Amel 50 (0.9 million €), all boats at the shipyard without taxes.

Contest 49/50CS

Of course, boat prices, equipped and with taxes, will be much higher and it is impossible to know the real price, and who will be more or less expensive, without having them equipped the same way because the standard equipment and prices of extras are different.

If you like sailing fast and want a quality luxury cruiser from a prestigious brand, for about the same price, have a Swan 48 instead, I mean, if your wife can live in a yacht with a beautiful high-quality boat-like interior.

Swan 48

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/10/swan-48-perfect-performance-cruiser.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/swan-48-dusseldorf-2020.html

If she requires a house-like interior, with the biggest possible interior volume and a huge standing height, then you will have to sacrifice sailing potential, and have one of these. I would then choose between the Contest and the Halberg Rassy.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/hallberg-rassy-50-most-beautifull-hr.html

NEW 460, A HANSE THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A HANSE

And with good reason. The Hanse were designed by Judel/Vrolijk, this one is designed by Berret/Racopeau, and the previous 458 now becomes the 460.

The 460 is slightly longer (HL 13.87 – 13.55m) much more beamier (4.79 – 4.38m),  fatter, with less finer entries,  considerably higher freeboards, heavier (12,560 – 11.700kg) and with less B/D (26.7% - 28.9%), for a similar L keel with the same draft (2.25m).

Obviously, the objective was increasing the interior volume and cockpit space and that was surely attained: not only is the boat much beamier as it has all beam pulled aft, not to mention the bigger freeboard, that will give it a superior interior height.

Of course, these substantial alterations are reflected in sail performance: the new boat will sail worse with light winds, will go slower upwind and probably will go faster downwind with strong winds, will roll a bit less, and will sail with slightly less heel.

Above the 460, below the 458

SA/D shows this, especially on the version with a classic mast where the 458 has upwind a 20.3 SA/D while the 460 has 19.9 SA/D (both with self-tacking jib). With the in-furling mast the difference is not so big because the new furling mast has considerably more sail area (if they don’t change the data like Bavaria did on the C42) than the one on the 458. In this case, the 458 has 18.0 SA/D and the 460 has 19.0.

But this does not mean that the 460, compared with this version, will have a better upwind performance, because it has less fine entries, a much bigger beam and a transom with all beam pulled back and a design that limits heeling. All this will add a lot of drag if compared with the 458 that has a considerably bigger B/D (28.9% to 26.7%). The two things put together will give a much better upwind power to drag on the 458, in light wind, and even more with stronger winds and waves.

Downwind the 458 has respectively  43.4 SA/D and 40.1 SA/D (classic and furling mast) and the 460 will have 44.0 SA/D and 43.0 SA/D. Here, especially on the classic mast version the increase in downwind sail area will not be enough to make the 458 faster in light winds. Only in stronger winds will the 460  be faster due to its huge hull form stability.

A big freeboard does not contribute to a sailboat beauty (quite the contrary) but in this case that increase is well disguised and will only be apparent in some positions. A modern slightly inverted bow and a well-designed integrated bowsprit as well as a nice transom design contribute to making the boat look contemporary, and disguises well the increase in beam and the higher freeboards.

However, the design created a cut with traditional Hanse shapes that allowed to recognize a Hanse from  other yachts. This Hanse lost identity and even if it is nice, it looks now more like an Oceanis than a Hanse.

The Solent rig, which appears on the first images,  is a positive introduction and it makes a lot of sense because this boat does need a lot more sail area to sail with weak winds than the 458. 

In situations where the self-tacking jib was enough on the 458, the 460, having more drag, will need a bigger sail to sail effectively. That is why a big genoa will be much more needed on the 460. and therefore the need of the Solent alongside with the self-tacking jib.

However the Solent rig increases the yacht price, and in this case, the small distance between the two furlers, will make it mandatory to roll the genoa when tacking, deploying it again on the other tack. If this looks easy with light winds, with medium winds (where the genoa can be used advantageously), it will not be so easy and will imply a lot of work in coastal sailing, where tacks are frequent.

On the positive side of things, it seems that this boat will have a cored hull. The 458 was announced with one (foam core) but later they changed to a monolithic hull. A cored hull will increase the boat rigidity, but the core of this one will be balsa, which has very good mechanical properties, it is cheaper than other good cores but can rot if there is water intrusion.

Also positive is the increase in interior volume. The most interesting alterations and use of the extra space are especially interesting for charter use. Regarding an owner’s use, the most interesting alteration is the possibility of having three good cabins, with three heads.

But this option, which I am sure will be the one that will sell more among owners, will only be suited for short-range cruising, or marina to marina use because the storage space aft (that is bigger than on the 458) will be necessary as technical space for the generator and other equipment.

The forward cabin is much bigger, especially the bed as well as the aft cabins, and I am sure that this will make this yacht much more successful than the 458.

But what is good for charter many times does not suit other uses and in what regards aft cabins I would have preferred the aft cabins to be slightly smaller (that would still make them as big as in the 458) and to create behind the engine a technical space for generator, water maker and other technical equipment.

Having the technical equipment in the aft cockpit locker is not a good idea in what regards accessibility and mixing storage space with technical space.

The galley on the 3 cabin/three-head version, is slightly smaller than the one on the 458 but much worse for using while sailing. On the other version, the galley is huge but even less adapted to be used while sailing. That is not necessarily bad, it depends on the use that it is given to the boat.

If the boat is used in relatively short jumps between marinas or anchorages the galley will not be used while in navigation and at anchor or in the marina that huge galley will be very much appreciated by the ones that cook or wash the dishes. Anyway, that is the way that most that cruise use their boats, including charter use, so I would say it makes sense for many, probably the majority.

First the 460, above, the 458

The interior 460 style and design seem more modern and pleasant, but I do not like that big "door" from the saloon to the cabin, cut on the main bulkhead. They are going to say that is all controlled, but it seems obvious that the bulkhead resistance will not be the same. Sure, there are ways to make the bulkhead stronger, but all that I know imply very expensive reinforcements and different, more expensive materials, and I don’t believe it is the case with the Hanse 460.

The 460 will be more expensive than the 458. Standard on the shipyard, without VAT, the 460 will cost 237.022€ (the 458 costs 212.925€). That was to be expected because the 460 is a bigger yacht, beamier and slightly longer, including a fixed bowsprit.

BAVARIA C42: THE CHANGES YOU DON’T SEE

I posted very positive information regarding the Bavaria C42, and it was not only me; the press followed with very flattering test sails and electing it the Family European yacht  2021.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/09/bavara-c42-it-sails-very-well.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/02/new-40-ft-cruisers-oceanis-401-versus.html

Because I was one of the first to point some very interesting features on C42 design and specifications, when compared to the competition, it is fair to be the one to point some unnoticed modifications that diminish that difference to almost nothing. The C42 specification file, which was used till mid 2021 (that included the price list), gave a 9678kg displacement on a torpedo keel with 2698kg of ballast, the data from the Cossutti boat project.

https://www.cossutti.it/en/portfolio-item/bavaria-c42-the-cossutti-yacht-design-project/

Now the specifications have changed and for displacement instead of 9678kg they give 10.070 kg and for ballast instead of 2698kg they changed it for 2622kg. The increase in weight should not be a normal thing, but it, unfortunately, is among boat builders. Almost all brands refer to the projected displacement and even if in some cases there are huge differences they never rectify the numbers and this is particularly true regarding French brands.

https://www.kiriacoulis.com/sales/BavariaC42_price.pdf

The diminishing of the projected ballast ( Cossutti says 2700kg bulb weight) to a keel weight of 2622kg is just odd, and I ask myself what was the data used to certify the boat, because even not considering a 2700kg bulb, but the previously released keel weight of 2698kg, the new data has significant repercussions on the boat stability and AVS.

The B/D, with the same draft and keel design, passed from 28% to 26% and that’s probably due to the diminution of the RM that it implies, that they changed the sail area upwind, shortening the mast. The mast has half a meter less and the sail area upwind, less 2.6m2 on the traditional mast (more sportive version), and 10.3m2 on the in-mast furling version. On the last version, the more popular, it is a huge difference.

Probably the excess in weight has to do with Bavaria having discontinued on the C42 the positive innovations that they had brought to the C-line. Contrary to what happens on the C45 they don’t use vacuum infusion (they use hand-laid), even if they still use a cored hull. That makes the boat considerably heavier.

Cossutti has projected the boat for using, like the others in C-line, the “Modutech” assembly system, a system developed by him based on a strong grid where all furniture and bulkheads were integrated, a system also used on Italia Yachts and on the Swan 48. Instead, Bavaria used on C42 the old system, with all furniture glassed or bonded to the hull.

So, the Bavaria 42 is still an interesting sailing boat, with an innovative bow that will increase hull form stability allowing it a better performance downwind, and on a beam reach, but in what regards the projected boat leaves much to be desired, namely with a not so good performance upwind, especially with medium to high wind, with worse safety stability and AVS, that are now similar with what the competition offers.

J/45 IN DETAIL

I had already made an extensive and detailed comparison, in what regards design characteristics and dimensions, between the J45 and the competition, giving some information about their meaning in what regards sail performance. You can access it here: https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/12/j-45e-new-performance-cruiser-by-jboats.html 

Now we have images of the boat sailing, a description of its sailing characteristics by Benjamin Dutreux, a French professional racer (9th on the Vendee Globe), that after having sailed the J/45 for 400 miles (a weekend) pretty much confirms what I was expecting and said, taking into account the design parameters.

We have also images from the interior that looks great for a cruising sailboat. I would have chosen other woods and Corian (colors), but certainly, they will be available on-demand or as options. 

As it is, it is already a beautiful sailboat and one that will be very hard to beat for sailing on the Med, Baltic, or in any other place with variable winds. Not the boat that I would choose to sail on the trade winds, but unless you are going to make a circumnavigation from West to East, or crossing many times the Atlantic, those are not the winds that are more common while cruising, and the ability of this boat to sail with very weak winds will give it a great sailing potential and will make rare the need to use the engine.

Ok, I am biased, this is a sailboat very similar in sailing characteristics with my own (Comet 41S): https://www.yachtsandyachting.co.uk/equipment/boat-tests/comet-41s-review/ 

This year I sailed directly from Marmaris, in Turkey to Siracusa, in Sicily and it was all the time upwind, sometimes with strong wind, sometimes with very weak wind and I rarely had to use the engine. 

I filled the tank in Marmaris and then again in Sciacca, near the end of the South coast of Sicily, and wasted 60L of diesel. Take into consideration that I use the engine for supplementing the energy from the solar panels when needed (no generator) and that I practically didn't charge the batteries in marinas (because I rarely go there). 

Considering that many times it was beating against the wind the sailing distance was well over 1000 nm. I know that most cruisers don't sail this way and prefer to use the engine instead of beating (that by the way, if the sea and wind are strong, is not faster than sailing, and certainly more uncomfortable), that many choose days without wind to have flat seas for motoring and that some will motor most of the time anyway (each year I overtake several sailboats that were motoring, while I was sailing). 

For all that use the engine a lot while cruising this is the wrong sailboat (why pay more for a better sailing boat if you are not using its potential?), but for the ones that really like sailing, that want to motor as little as possible, that go upwind sailing and sail mostly out of the trade winds, this is certainly one of the best options on the market, and I don't need to wait for the test sails to know that. This boat will be particularly good in light and strong winds (in strong winds particularly sailing upwind).

But for the ones that want to use it for cruising and racing or just for racing, we will have to wait for racing results. I have no doubt that the J/45 is fast, but how fast and how well it will sail to the handicap, or in real-time against boats like the Solaris 44, the X 4-6 or the Grand Soleil 44, we will have to wait and see, even if I think that in most conditions it will be slightly faster than most of them, or all of them.

The price is proportional to the quality and should be about the same as the one of the X4-6, that notwithstanding the designation, is a slightly smaller yacht. An expensive yacht (it has to be) but one that I am sure will make any owner proud.