I have already talked here about the 5.80, a new class of offshore racing sailboats designed by a Polish yacht designer, Janusz Maderski, sold in plans and home built by the racers. One wonders about the need for a class smaller than the mini-transat class (6.50 mini), but even if many of these 6.50 mini are built by the ones that are going to race them, the point is that some find them too expensive.
Well, the 5.80 is certainly not expensive, built with plywood, over plans that cost 300€. They say if it is entirely home-built a completely equipped boat would cost about 20 000€. It seems too optimistic to me, but it would be certainly much less expensive than a completely equipped mini 6.50 racer, even if home-built.
The design has nothing to do with the one of a mini transat racer, that follows the design line of other transat racers, like the 40class and IMOCA class, yachts designed to be easy on the autopilot, with a downwind maximized performance and a big hull form stability.
The 5.80 design is odd, I would describe it as outdated. If one looks at the boat sideways, it seems modern, but the side view is contradicted by a bird's view, or by the hull design. The design can have to do, at least partially, with the intention of having an easier boat to build and a less expensive one, and what counts in a racing boat is the performance not if the design seems outdated or not.
The 5.80 has a considerable ballast even if the draft is small (1,40m), compared to the 6.50 mini-transat racers, but even so, the 5.80 should be relatively seaworthy, considering the small size and displacement, but not as seaworthy as a 650 mini, that has a considerably superior overall stability.
Due to being a bit smaller ( less 70cm) and with a less technical building, the 5.80 is going to be slower, but how much slower is the question. On the mini racers, we have seen that the differences in performance between the Protos (much more technically developed) and the Series ( production boats) are many times small, notwithstanding the huge difference in complexity and price.
Will something similar happen between the 5.80 class and the 6.50 Series class? Will that outdated look be just a look, without a big influence on boat performance? Let's have a look:
As you probably know the last edition of the 6.50 mini Transat finished recently, without safety problems, even if many boats chose to take shelter on the Spanish coast due to 50kt winds. Anyway, the French Sailing Federation and the Mini Transat organizers, as usual, found it necessary to accompany the transat with several support boats, in case there were problems with the small racers, due to the possibility of heavy seas and winds.
The 5.80 Transat, that is being raced, has not that safety measure, that seems unnecessary to the organizers since the boats are supposedly designed for the Globe Race, a circumnavigation race that will happen in 2024, and will have far worse conditions than the benign ones that you will find in the South Atlantic at this time of the year.
This race is just a kind of preparation for the big event and the boats, contrary to the 6.50minis, are not specifically designed for a Transat, but for a circumnavigation race.
I will not repeat on this post what I think about the suitability of the 5.80 for a circumnavigation race (you can read it on the posts linked below).
In this post, besides calling attention to this Transat, which is a big adventure, I will try to compare the performance of the two mini-classes, the 5.80 and the 6.50, while racing a Transat. When the race finishes we will have more information, and I will post it in the comments, but by now we have already some information for making that comparison.
The 6.50 mini-Transat started with 90 racers, a number limited for safety reasons by the organization (there was a waiting list), and it was raced in two categories, the Protos (25), that as the name indicates are one-off, more technically developed and more expensive sailboats and the Series (65), that are boats made by shipyards, production sailboats.
From the Protos, 3 have abandoned the race, from the Series there was also 3 abandons, but due to the larger number of participants the finish rate was better, and 95.4% of the Series completed the race. That is an incredibly high rate for any race, much more for a Transat.
The 5.80 Transat started 23 days ago, sailing out of the South Portuguese Coast to the Canary Islands, with 6 racers, all having already finished the first leg, which serves also as qualification for the 2nd leg. The fastest boat took about 4 days 20 hours 55 minutes to make it, averaging a 4.85 kt speed. For this unexpected high speed contributed the last 36 hours were they got winds between 20 and 30kt gusting 40kt with the boats being able to plan, and making double-digit speeds.
On the Mini Transat first leg they sailed from the Atlantic coast of France to the Canary Islands, but almost all looked for shelter (due to 50kt winds) on the coats of Spain, for 24 hours or more, and, among the Series, the only one that has not done that was a single racer, not a top one, but that due to it was the first among them to arrive at the Canaries. As the 2nd leg showed, that racer was far from being among the fastest, in the Series class finishing 22nd.
If things had been normal, the 5.6kt average speed of the first among the Series would have been way higher. The first Proto averaged 7.80kt. On the 2nd leg, the differences between the average speed of the first Series and the first Proto were more "normal" (6.70kt to 7.70kt).
Looking at this data we can see that a 5.80 class for being as fast as a 650 mini proto would have to be 57% faster, and for being as fast as a 650 mini Series (production), would have to be 37% faster, and this for a 28% difference in hull length. It seems that the 5.80 are not only outdated in what regards looks but also in what regards performance.
If the 5.80, on the Transat, maintain an average of 4.85kt they will make the crossing in 20 days 9 hours and 30 minutes, but on the first 6 days of the 2nd leg, they averaged only 2.7kt of boat speed. I hope they can get a better average after passing Cabo Verde (they are midway), if not this is going to be a very long Transat and even if they can make a better average I don't know if the small boats have enough water and food for a 30 day passage and I am quite sure that some of the boats will take more than that.
At the final of the race, with more miles sailed, we can have a better idea about the relative performance between the two racers, the 5.80 and the 6.50. I will add that information to the post.
Certainly, this is an adventure and a race.....but even if the boats are not 40 years old designs, like on the Golden Globe Race, the comparative performance to modern boats is no better. We will see how many will manage to finish the race. One of them has already given up and is not doing the 2nd leg. They are now 5 boats racing this Transat:
Since Seascape was bought by Beneteau, and their yachts were renamed First, that there are rumors and announcements of a new First, designed by Sam Manuard (the designer of Seascapes), a yacht following the design criteria of the Seascape 27, but bigger, a fast ClassA cruiser-racer.
Since the time Manuard designed the Seascape 27 his career as a designer of a fast racing yacht grew a lot in relevance, and from a top designer of mini-racers, he became gradually a top 40class and a top IMOCA designer, so, it was with great interest that the new design was awaited. But it took several years to happen, and from a 30/33ft cruiser-racer, it ended up to be a 36ft yacht.
We all expected something as innovative as the Seascape 27 was 10 years ago, but things are complicated in a big company like Beneteau, with many deciding what to design and build, and the new boat, that after all was not designed only by him, ended up being quite a disappointment, for those that waited for a very innovative yacht.
In fact, the boat, due to high freeboards and classic lines looks like an Oceanis or a Dufour, a deja vu design. Beneteau wanted the new boat to be so many things at the same time, that the many mixed compromises ended up producing something that looks bland and not exciting.
In Beneteau's words this yacht is about "the pursuit of the ultimate balance", being this balance not about creating a cruiser-racer able to win offshore races, inshore races, solo or duo, "but about a perfect balance.....between comfort and performance, elegance, and utility..."
The word "elegance" is a bit tricky because it normally refers to past concepts of beauty and a continuing line of development, much as "in the tradition" and makes no sense on this type of performance yacht, where words like sexy, which refer to having contemporary radical racing lines, would be much more adequate.
But "elegance" was what they tried to achieve on the First 36, and therefore it is explained the deja vu look, and I would say that in what regards elegance, it was a failed attempt, since due to high freeboards it is impossible to give it the looks of a smaller First 53, and it ended up very far from Beneteau objective, that was a "classical and timeless aesthetic". As the one responsible for the First 36 design (Lorenzo Argento) says:
" First 36 is following the same design language of her larger sister – First Yacht 53, building on the timeless aesthetic of his work on Wally and Brenta."
Of course, what counts for them is sales, and I cannot say if they are right in what regards this boat to become a big success, it all depends on how the boat sells, and for that, besides the sailing performance, the price, the looks and the interior layout are very important.
In what regards price (more expensive than an Oceanis 40.1), it seems to me too high for a sailboat that is fast, but does not look like a very fast sailboat, with no visual references to top racing, and looks more like a much less expensive mass-production yacht.
The ones that buy this type of yacht want it to be very competitive in what regards IRC/ORC racing or want the looks of the sailboat to scream FAST and INNOVATIVE (not elegant) or both.
For the ones who want first and mostly to race competitively, and also do some cruising with the boat, the First 36, does not seem to have what it
First 36, Sunfast 3600, JPK 10.80, J122e
takes to be competitive in face of the competition, namely the JPK 10.80 and the Sunfast 3600.
For the ones who want to cruise and race (50%) the J112e offers a much better interior, much more elegance, that kind of "classical and timeless aesthetic", and for sure, much better results in IRC/ORC racing.
First36
I bet that over the water the JPK 10.80 and the Sunfast 3600 will be faster, The J112e will be probably only faster in light wind and maybe upwind, but on handicap should have no problem in beating the First 36, and that is not surprising because the J112e is designed by an expert in handicap racing, and the First 36 is designed by a specialist in offshore trade-wind racing designs, without a big experience designing for IRC/ORC racing.
Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on this evaluation, but it really pisses me off that after such a long waiting time, with so great expectations regarding a sexy innovative cruiser-racer by Sam Manuard, all we got was a supposedly elegant, fast cruiser, with a "timeless aesthetic", meaning a traditional design.
Let's see how the First 36 compares with the competition in regards to dimensions and technical characteristics: The First 36 has 11.00m hull length, the JPK 10.80 has 10.80m, the Sunfast 3600 10.80m, the J112e 10.99m. The First 36 has a 3.80m beam, the JPK 10.80 has 3.65m, the Sungfast 3600 3.55m, the J112e 3.60m.
Sunfast 3600
First 36 has a 32.3%BD, a torpedo keel with 2.25m draft, for a 4800kg displacement; the JPK 10.80 has 45.3%BD, a straight keel with 2.20m draft for a 4750kg displacement, the Sunfast 3600 has a 41.8%B/D, a bulbed keel with 2.13m for a 4950kg displacement; the J112e has 33.8%B/D, a bulbed keel for a 5125kg displacement, with 2.10m draft.
The First 36 has an upwind sail area of 80m2 and downwind 180m2; the JPK 10.80 has an upwind sail area of 73m2 and a downwind sail area of 160m2; the Sunfast 3600 has 69.8m2 upwind and 136.8 downwind and the J112e has 71m2 upwind and 180m2 downwind.
JPK 10.80
The First 36 is light and the beamier of the 4. Only the JPK is lighter, but regarding the JPK and the Sunfast, the First low displacement is obtained through less ballast weight (less 600kg than on the JPK, less 518kg than on the Sunfast, less 181kg than on the J112e). And this assuming they can build the First with that displacement, but even so, if we take out the extra ballast on the J112e, the First would be only 144kg lighter.
The First is the one with more sail area but also the one with more drag, especially wave drag, due to being much beamier than all the others and that means it needs more sail area to go at the same speed. It will have a very good performance downwind and it is possible that it will be as fast, or even slightly faster than the JPK and the Sunfast, in medium-strong to strong winds (and certainly easier), but it will lose to the two in all other circumstances and probably will lose for the J112e in lighter winds and upwind.
J122e
Certainly, a very nice hull (Sam Manuard) spoiled by the overall design (Lorenzo Argento), but a bit too much maximized for beam reaching and downwind sailing for being a winner in most sail races. I also doubt that the rating is going to be a good one for IRC/ORC racing.
The interior looks pretty much that of a cruiser-racer very much race-oriented, and it offers a more practical galley than the ones in theJPK and Sunfast, with a true stove. However, the JPK interior looks cozier and the J112e interior is uncomparably better and nicer, looking like the one of a good quality cruising boat.
Sunfast 3600
In the First, the worse is a truly a very small head, that they call innovative. When I visit the boat I will be very curious to see how small it really is, and where is the innovation (besides being too small).
So, just pretend that you have the money and tell me which one you would choose? knowing that regarding price the First is as expensive as the others, including the J112e, which has a much better interior finish.
It seems that the JPK and the Sunfast are slightly less expensive and that is quite surprising. But, of course, we are talking about prices at the factory and about standard boats, and on a fully equipped boat, the difference of price between any of these yachts should not be big.
Depending on the chosen equipment, more cruising, club racing, or top racing, the prices on these boats ready to sail should be between 230 and 280 000 euros, including around 20% European VAT. Expensive? Certainly regarding the amount but not regarding building costs.
JPK 10.80
That's the price of a well-built sailboat, and if they could make it for less money they would because less expensive boats sell better and the competition is strong.
The price of one of these boats is about the same price that would cost a mass production 40ft sailboat from one of the major brands, and it explains why mass production yachts are built the way they are, using polyester resins, non cored hulls, no vacuum infusion, a "contre-moule" as hull
structure, use plywood bulkheads and only bonding agents to secure all in place.
These fast cruiser-racers are built using vacuum infusion techniques (some of them in a single shoot), have cored hulls, most use only vinylester resins, have cored composite bulkheads, bonded and glassed to the hull and deck, the structure frame is glassed and bonded to the hull (and sometimes infused with it). That is why they can be light and strong. That's also why they are better sailing boats and much more expensive ones.
J112e
For the increased price it also counts bigger winches, 6 instead of 2 or 4, better and bigger sail hardware, and in what regards this the differences in price are sometimes 4 times more for same-sized and apparently similar material, but with completely different load capacity. The increased B/D of these boats also contributes to make them more expensive because that demands a stronger hull and a bigger structure to absorb bigger efforts.
You pay what you get and for many, a mass-production boat is enough for their needs, in what regards sail performance and build quality, so why pay for more that you don´t need?
For the ones who want a top sailing machine, they should know that the price would be much higher, the same way nobody expects to pay for a Dacia or a Fiat, the same one pays for an Alpine or a Lotus.
First 36
Saying that the Lotus or the Alpine are expensive, compared to a Dacia or a Fiat, makes so little sense, as saying the same comparing the price of an Oceanis 38.1 with the price of any of these fast cruiser racers.
In fact, they cost about 50% more than an Oceanis, of about the same size, and that is way less than the difference between a same-sized Fiat and a fast small sports car. For me, the problem with the First 36 is that being a sportive boat it looks like a Fiat, and who would like to have a Lotus that looked like a Fiat, even if it has good performance? OK, I am exaggerating, but you get my drift.
When this boat was being built I made a post about the JPK 39FC, the successor of a great
performance cruiser, the JPK 38FC. There is also a complete post about the 38FC:
But now that it was launched, and has even been tested
by a sailing magazine, a new post makes sense, even if not only to look at the
real thing, and not just the drawings.
And the
real thing looks much better than in the drawings, a beautiful boat, nicer than
the previous one, with a not very different hull, in fact in what regards
sailing performance it will be very close, but the 39FC is just a bit better in
everything, from sail area, to interior space and cruising amenities.
Valer (the NA) and JPK resisted the
temptation to increase volume increasing beam (as almost every brand is doing) and
this boat has about the same beam as the previous model (3.98m to 3.99m).
We
would be tempted to say that the 38 was even slightly beamier, taking into
account this one is longer, but it would not be fair to look at beam and
interior volume only in what regards maximum beam, especially in this case because
the 39 has fuller bow sections and fuller stern sections, allowing for a larger
front cabin but losing a bit in what regards bow finesse.
But if we
compare JPK 39FC with the Bavaria C42, two cruising boats with a not very
different hull length (11.72m to 11.99m) we will see that the difference in
beam is huge (3.98m to 4.30m). If we compare the JPK 39FC beam with the one of
a Pogo 12.50 (that contrary to what it looks has not a much bigger hull length
– 11.72m to 12.18m) we can see that the difference in beam is even bigger
(3.98m to 4.50m).
Of course,
the Pogo and the Bavaria are completely different sailboats, the Bavaria displacing
more than 10T, the Pogo 5.5T (the Pogo displacement similar to the one of the
JPK) and having bow entries much finer than the ones in Bavaria. In fact the
Pogo has the hull of an older Pogo Class40 racer and it is, like the JPK 39FC,
a very fast performance cruiser.
So, what does
that huge difference in beam between the JPK and the Pogo mean? It means that
the Pogo is very much maximized (like all 40class racers) for downwind sailing,
transats or trade wind sailing, that is what the 40class racers are all about,
while the JPK 39 has a much more all around balanced performance, even if in
the design of the transom does not diverge much from the one in the Pogo, a
design that increases rapidly hull form stability (and drag) with heeling,
making it a very stable platform for solo or short crew sailing and easier to
be steered by an autopilot especially when sailing fast.
There is a
common misconception, that has been serving to justify, performance-wise, the
huge increase of beam in cruising sailboats, and even in performance cruisers, the
brands stating that this huge increase in beam is favorable to sail performance and that the reason why racing boats are narrower is to make them competitive
in IRC/ORC handicap racing, implying that beamier boats, not being designed
specifically to be competitive under those rules, are faster. That’s a publicity stunt (considering overall sailing performance).
That misconception,
in what regards performance cruisers, is particularly strong in what regards
Pogo cruisers, that on the wind conditions for which they are maximized to
perform best (trade winds) are almost unbeatable (size by size), but that in
mixed conditions, even when they are strong ones, are not as fast as those performance
cruisers that supposedly where only fast on the paper (IRC /ORC), not on the
water.
Journalists
have been responsible for this misconception, even if I remember that on one of
the first test sails of the boat that would be called Pogo 12,50, a comparative
test with a Dufour 40p, they had made a simulated a race, upwind and downwind,
to find with surprise that even if on the water the Pogo speed was higher, both
boats ended showing a similar
performance, due to the Dufour better pointing and ability to sail downwind at
bigger angles….and the Dufour 40p it is not a particularly fast performance
cruiser, being considerably slower than a J122.
JPK 39FC
I have
posted many race results (in elapsed time) to show this, and the results in the
last Middle Sea Race, that was raced in medium and strong but variable winds,
show once more that the Pogo 12.50 is not as fast (in real time) as fast
cruiser-racers , when the wind conditions are varied.
In the last
Middle Sea Race there was a Pogo12.50 racing, and making it in 3days, 16 hours and 20 minutes, two JPK
11.80 made it in 3d 0h 22m and 3d 8h 21m, a First 40 (3d 9h 52m), 4 J122
(3d 10h 32m, 3d 10h 35m, 3d 10h 48m, 3d 12h 38m) and a JPK 45FC, that
made it in 3d 9h 19m, a surprisingly good result, especially because it is an
Australian boat, probably equipped for bluewater sailing.
JPK 11.80
A pity the
Pogo 50 from Fast Sailing did not race on this edition, it would be interesting
to compare the performance with the JPK 45FC, which I believe would not be very
different, even if the Pogo is a bigger boat. The JPK 45FC, like the smaller
sister, the 39FC, are not so maximized for downwind sailing, as the Pogo, and
that would translate in better results, size for size, in a race with mixed
winds.
Anyway, the
point here is that the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK 45FC and would be
certainly be faster than the JPK39FC. So let’s have a look at those two
designs to understand why the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK39C.
The JPK
11.80 is the most successful 39ft cruiser-racer in a long time, having won
this year the Fastnet and would have won
the Middle Sea Race, if they had not changed the finish line. It had won already
that race back in 2018, among many other races and regattas.
The JPK 11.80 is a cruiser-racer designed for racing and winning, and the hull is designed for maximizing performance, the JPK 39FC is a performance cruiser, designed to be fast but also to have a maximized interior space (and storage) and to be easy to sail, especially with a short crew.
Transom design: JPK 39FC and JPK 11.80
This comparison is very interesting because both boats have not only a close hull length and LWL (first the 39FC, then the 11.80): 11.72m-11.00/11.80-10.39m, but also a similar max beam, 3.98/3.95m.
What differs is the hull design, having the 11.80 finer entries, the beam not quite all pulled back, and a very different transom design, a less voluminous one that allows more heel, without increasing drag so much.
Surprisingly, even if the hull length of the 11.80 is bigger, the 39FC LWL is considerably bigger that the 11.80 one. This has probably to do with the 11.80 being designed for sailing with more heel, and while heeling the LWL will be considerably increased asymmetrically, between one of the rudders and the bow.
While the
JPK39FC hull has more hull form stability, the 11.80 hull assures a
better power/drag relation, and it is that what makes it a faster sailboat. The
11.80 has less hull form stability but more coming from the bigger ballast,
when the boat heels.
Curiously
the 39FC is the lightest of the two (5500kg/5900kg) probably due to the two boats
being built in a similar way and with similar materials and the 39FC, having considerably less ballast (1900kg/2650kg).
This
difference in ballast, that is translated in a 34.6% B/D versus a 44.9% one,
more than compensates the difference in hull form stability and that, and a
slimmer hull, are responsible for the considerable bigger Power/Drag ratio on
the 11.80.
Note that
the draft is also smaller on the 39FC, 2.15m/2.34m but the ballast on the 11.80
probably refers to the IRC keel, without torpedo (can have a torpedo as an option)
and the difference in draft probably roughly corresponds in RM to the
difference in efficiency of the two keels (with a torpedo and an IRC keel), in
lowering the CG.
First, JPK 39FC, then JPK 11.80
It is not
about the power, but about power/drag that fast sailboats are about. Beamy
hulls increase much drag, especially wave drag, and reduce light air
performance, while if the hull is too narrow, it will go more deeply in the
water and will make the boat more difficult to attain planning speeds.
To the hull
design you have to add the right ballast, knowing that, with too much ballast,
the boat will be slower with light winds and that with less than desirable
ballast, it will have less power upwind and on a beam reach.
To
complicate things, depending on points of sail and wind intensity the requirements
for maximizing performance are often contradictory, and when you improve on a
given performance, you lose on another.
JPK39FC
The different
compromises are today evaluated through computer programs (CFD) and many hull variations
are tested to try to get the better option for overall performance, but the
truth is that only through racing will we know for sure, if the computer got it
right or not, and the funny thing is that Jacques Valer, the magician that
designs the JPK, the most successful IRC racers of the last years, is known to
have come late to assisted computer design, and can be considered an old-timer,
in what concerns using a computer for sailboat design. Of course, what counts are results and nobody designs boats that win more races than Valer.
JPK 11.80
I use to
post SA/D and D/L as a measure of boat
performance, but the comparison of those ratios, between these two boats,
serves mostly to show that those ratios have to be seen with caution, because
they exclude a very important piece of information, the power/drag relation.
The SA/D
gives you an approximate measure of sail power, but displacement, even if important as a measure of drag, excludes the shape of the
hull, and hulls with the same displacement, but with less beam, finer entries, and less full
transoms, has, for the same displacement, a lot less drag than beamier hulls, especially
if wave drag is considered. They need a lot more sail for the same performance.
JPK 11.80
D/L gives
you a measure of the boat lightness but does not give you a measure of how much
of the weight is used on ballast to increase boat power.
If we consider these two ratios as an absolute measure of boat
performance we will be surprised to find out that according to them the JPK39FC
is faster than the JPK 11.80, when we know that it is not the case, quite the
contrary and by a large margin. The 39FC has an upwind 26.8 SA/D, a downwind
45.1 SA/D for a 115D/L and the 11.80 has an upwind 24.9 SA/D, a downwind
43.0 SA/D for a 146.5 D/L.
What makes
the design of the 11.80 truly amazing is the success in combining these
different requirements and different compromises in a way that makes the boat
really fast in a very variable set of conditions, from the low middle to high
winds, downwind, and upwind.
The weakest sailing condition regards very light winds,
but the performance is not so weak as it would be expected, due to the very good performance with medium and stronger winds, obtained through the maximization for those conditions. That’s the overall balance
that makes it a winner. JPK 11.80
JPK 39FC
What makes
the 39FC an amazing design is the ability to offer an excellent spacious
cruising interior without compromising too much sail performance, a balanced
performance, having in weak winds the weakest spot (worse than the 11.80). As strong
points, the easiness in sailing fast with medium to strong winds (due mostly to
hull transom design that limits heeling, making it a steady sailing platform),
and the easiness in sailing fast on autopilot.
Both boats
are very well built, using vacuum infusion, cored hulls with and airex core,
vinylester resin on the 11.80, vinylester and polyester on the 39FC, both have
a hull structure integrated on the infusion process (and becoming part of the
hull), both have cored composite bulkheads stratified and bonded to the hull
and deck.
I bet the
JPK 39C, that allies cruising sailing performance to a very nice spacious
interior with all-around views (and manages that without becoming ugly), is
going to be elected by the European sail press as European Yacht of the year,
probably on the performance cruiser category.
The price
is fair for the quality and without VAT, standard, at the shipyard the 11.80
costs 209958€ and the 39FC costs with the standard keel 196887€ and 216748€
with the swing keel, with all ballast on the keel.
