SOLARIS 40, ON THE WATER

I confess to being a bit surprised by how good the boat looks on the water. It is a beamy boat with a considerable freeboard and the way it was disguised is truly amazing. I guess it has to do with the size of the portholes that are huge and also with that big chine.

Solaris 40 makes a lot of sense as a performance cruiser, maximizing interior space without making the boat ugly, maximizing downwind and beam reaching performance as well as the ability to sail fast with an auto-pilot with a limited heel, providing a more comfortable ride.

Of, course these maximizations make it also less suitable as a cruiser-racer, especially if upwind and weak wind sailing is involved. You cannot have everything, but for the majority that will buy this boat, this is by far the best compromise. 

Sure, the boat can sail upwind, it will have a better performance than mass-production cruisers (due to a bigger B/D and more RM), but going upwind with waves and medium winds will not be its strongest point, and you will have to open up for not slamming, due to the wide bow sections and will be slowed down by a big wave drag.

The increased drag is not only due to those wide bow sections but also due to the max beam, which at 4.10m is big for a fast performance cruiser, with a good overall sailing ability. But many that will sail this boat rarely will sail in difficult conditions, neither with big waves and much more will sail downwind than upwind. Anyway, the Solaris 40 has as an option a very powerful 60hp engine that will be used by many to sail upwind when the conditions are not perfect.

No wonder that in the first test on a Swiss lake, where there are no waves, the yacht performed brilliantly, impressing strongly the sail testers of Yacht.de magazine, that found it very good, in what concerns sailing performance, interior quality and storage.

Regarding performance Michalis, from FastSailing, where they have already a Solaris 40 doing charter, confirms the Yacht.de impression, saying that the clients have been impressed with the performance, that I would say, regards mostly to beam reaching with medium winds, where 9 knots seem not too difficult to reach.

Due to Covid limitations, I have not yet seen this Solaris, but I am quite sure we can trust the opinion of Yacht.de about interior quality and, it would be strange to be otherwise, because the other Solaris, even the 37 (out of production now) have a very good quality interior and finish. You can read the full Yacht.de test here: https://www.yacht.de/heft/test-solaris-40-teaser

You can also learn more about this yacht's design, dimensions, hull shape and how it compares with other fast sailboats looking here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/10/solaris-40-much-awaited-yacht.html

Talking about quality, it is not only in the interior that you can find it, the hull and deck are built using vacuum infusion, a sandwich composite with airex foam core, using vinylester resin, main and aft bulkheads in composite resined to the hull and deck, a structure laminated to the hull and a keel in cast iron, with a lead torpedo, to maximize the lowering of the CG.

I find the interior layout very well designed and the style looks very nice and comfortable. For a 40ft boat, it is one of the best cruising interiors I have seen, in everything, from the side and storage of galley to the size of the heads, one of them offering a bath cabin (on the two cabin version).

If someone will only cruise occasionally and does not use a gennaker or a code 0, the three-cabin version may have enough outside storage space for that type of use, but for more extensive cruising and for storing a gennaker and a code 0, not to mention storm sails and other cruising equipment, the two cabin version it is much more suited because any way you will be using one of the aft cabins for storage, without the added benefit of a separated bath cabin.

Maybe the only thing that does not make much sense is the standard draft of 2.40m, which is a lot for a 40ft boat that is not a cruiser-racer. They offer also a 2.00m optional draft, that will bring the boat displacement well over 10T. I would say that it would make much more sense for a standard draft 2.20m with a 2.50 and a 1.90/2.00  draft options.

Talking about market competition, this is a very clever design and competition is hard to find, because we cannot find any fast boat of this size with such a nicer interior.

I would say that in what regards sailing characteristics the closer will be the Grand Soleil 42LC (319 000€), which has a not very different displacement and a not very different hull, but it has not the sportive Solaris looks and will be slightly slower, especially in what regards downwind and beam reaching.

In the X-yacht range, we will have the X 4-0  (307900€) that is in fact a smaller boat (38ft) with a much smaller interior and the X4-3 (358500 €), that is bigger (42ft), faster upwind, faster with light wind and as fast or faster downwind and beam reaching, with a comparable interior (plus a sail locker), but considerably more expensive.

You will have also the new Arcona 415 (but with the old hull), a boat too classical for many, faster upwind, with weak wind, and probably slower beam reaching and downwind, but with a smaller interior and probably more expensive. You can also consider boats like the Salona 41, or the Elan E5, lighter, more sportive, but with a smaller interior, with a less quality finish, and I would say, also an overall inferior built quality, at a lower price.

Bottom point, the Solaris 40 has not really a direct competition at this point and, even if I don't like the direction the performance cruiser design is going, I have to say that commercially it makes sense, because it is this type of boat most sailors want, even the ones that look for performance boats, and in what regards designing a boat that will remain fast in many conditions, with the best and bigger cruising interior of any 40ft performance cruiser, at a price lower than 300 000 euros (without VAT), this yacht has no competition in what regards price for quality, interior space and performance.

SHAMEFUL VICTORY IN THE SYDNEY-HOBART

Celestial, Sam Haynes's yacht, had the IRC time to win the Sydney-Hobart, and was given as provisional winner, when it was protested by the boat that had the second-best time, Ichi Ban, Matt Allen's yacht (and later also by the RC), for not being able to be reached on VHF, for a 90 minute period, during the race.

I thought the protest would be dismissed, many boats suffered the same radio problems along a long stretch of shore that not always has good VHF coverage, and that situation had not given Celestial any advantage.

Sure, the contact with more than a dozen boats that had the same problem as Celestial, the accidental deployment of a Personal Locator Beacon, took less time but it was far from being immediate, as the rules optimistically demand (constant VHF watch), taking in average 15 minutes, but in some cases it took 25 minutes. In the case of Celestial the RC asked the nearest boat, Ichi Ban, for, without altering course to deploy flares to call the attention of Celestial, and that had a positive result being Ichi Ban contacted by Celestial by a handheld radio.

Being contacted by a portable VHF radio probably means that Celestial had some problem on the main radio or antenna that they were not aware, but regarding the safety problem, that the RC makes a big fuss around, if Celestial did not change course or speed, if it did not deploy flares (and they would know that, being Ichi Ban close), neither attempted to call the RC with his satellite phone (that the RC knew they had), it was obvious with 99% certainty that it was a false alarm. That does not dispense confirmation by radio contact but changes the degree of urgency, namely deploying an aircraft without that verification.

The race committee decided to consider the protest valid, give a big penalization to Celestial and a redress to Ichi Ban, transforming this one into the provisional leader. Later this decision was confirmed by the international jury.

The 3-minute redress to Ichi Ban, taking into consideration that it did not change course or speed, seems excessive to me, the 40 minutes penalization for "breaking race communication rules", namely a permanent VHF watch seem arbitrary because many other boats were contacted and almost none replied in a manner compatible with a permanent VHF watch, being the average response time 15 minutes, but with some taking 25 minutes to reply.

If a penalization was given to Celestial, other boats should have been penalized too, even if in a lesser extent, but Celestial was the only one penalized.

I would not have believed this was possible. How can Matt Allen feel any satisfaction with this "paper" victory? and not be ashamed by the way it was managed? 

Quite cynically he said after arrival: "We'd always prefer to win on the water, there's no doubt about that. But obviously the race committee protested the same protest (after his protest). It is what it is. Sailing has many rules attached to it and they're important to abide by, especially the ones related to safety."

After what happened on the last Middle Sea Race, where a change of finish line dictated another winner, it is a case to wonder if the World Sailing Federation should not have a more pro-active role on the last word in what regards protests, nominating the appeal jury for the main events.

A BEAUTIFUL AND FAST 43FT YACHT, THE NEW ITALIA 12.98

I have already been contacted by some sailors regarding counsel about this boat, that did not go unnoticed, even if it is not yet listed on the Italia Yacht site, where the older 12.98 still remains in the offer, with the same name, and that is a bit odd on two counts: the delay (several months) in presenting the new boat and to give it the same name as the previous one. Maybe they have intended to upgrade the older version, keeping the hull, and ended up making a new boat.

This yacht, although with the same denomination,  is not a MKII, a new version of the older one with the same hull, but a completely different boat. This is a new yacht, faster and more sportive than the older 12.98 and I would say also a nicer one.

While the previous 12.98 has that length in meters, the new one is bigger, with 13.16m hull length (14.3m LOA), but has a smaller beam (3.95/4.16m), a bigger draft (Bellissima - 2.20/1.90, Fuoriserie -  2.46/2.25m), a bigger B/D (32.8%/30,2%) and a bigger displacement (8500kg/7950kg), due mostly to more ballast on the new boat (2790 to 2400kg).

The hull has also a different design, narrower, with the max beam pulled aft, but maintaining a rounded transom shape, without chines, for a very good performance in light winds and upwind. Both boats have similar torpedo keels (deeper on the new one) and a single spade deep rudder with a twin wheel set-up.

The new 12.98 has considerably more sail area: upwind 114/103m2 (with a jib), downwind 222/197m2. The difference is not as big as it seems because the new boat is heavier, but even so, the new one has a bigger SA/D, upwind (27.9/26.3) and downwind (54.2/50.3). 

The D/L is close but in this case, the new boat is proportionally slightly heavier due to a similar LWL (11.1/11.2m) and bigger displacement (167.4/161.6). However, I suspect that this hull design will make the LWL increase considerably more with heel than the previous one. 

Regarding RM, and comparing with the previous model, this one has a bit less hull form stability (less drag too), but more RM coming from the ballast (lower CG). The slightly superior B/D does not really show to what point this boat has a bigger RM "coming" from the keel/ballast. The relatively small difference in B/D (32.8% to 30,2%) would have to be a much bigger one if both boats had the same draft and RM of the new boat was maintained. I would say that the new boat, in this scenario, would need around 37%B/D and that is already a big difference for a 30%B/D.

In fact, the new 12.98 has 7% more RM than the previous one. That can seem a small difference, but if you take into consideration that the new boat has considerably less beam and finer entries, meaning less drag, that 7% represents way more in what regards the power to drag relation.

All in all, the new boat will have not only a superior power/drag relation as it will probably have a more favorable handicap, one easier to reach. Compared with the previous model it will be, not only a faster yacht, but also a more competitive yacht in ORC/IRC races, excelling in upwind and with lighter winds, but with overall good performance. 

Based on what the designer says, I would say that the previous boat was designed taking into consideration 20% racing and 80% cruising, while this one will be a 50%/50%, while the 11.98 is an 80%/20%, being the last one designed more for racing than cruising, a bit like a JPK 11.80 in what regards racing and cruising design criteria. 

The new 12.98 will not have the best design for the Caribbean 600, or a Transat, but will be probably very competitive in the European and World ORC championship (Fuoriserie with the higher specs) and in Med and Baltic races, even offshore ones, like the Middle sea Race, the Giraglia or the Aegean 600, as well as in any race "around the cans" with a  balanced downwind/upwind course. 

Even the Belissima should be able to obtain good results at club racing level and will be a very fast performance cruiser.

In the middle, the old 12.98....and the new 12.98

Regarding cruising, that can be made in any of the two versions, the Bellissima bigger difference (besides teak decks that can be mounted or not) is a more simplified running rigging, with only 4 winches, having the Fuoriserie 6 standard (with the possibility of having 8). The cruising version has a single point mainsail attachment, the more sportive version has a traveler. 

Also, while the Bellissima comes standard with 6 portholes, the more sportive version comes without them.

The standard equipment of the two versions is not still well defined, but any of the boats can be equipped with pretty much anything. 

It comes standard with a genoa traveler, but optionally it can have a self-tacking jib on a rail, a 3D sail control system, a carbon rig, or a bigger main with a square top.

The 12.98 is offered with two different layouts, being the difference an extra head in the forward cabin, versus more storage space. The forward cabin is not small but the berth, due to the bow fine entries is way too narrow (bow side) to be comfortable for a couple. 

And I don't understand why, because in both versions (with or without the head) there is space to bring the berth aft 50cm (changing the head door to the side). Those 50 cms at the bow would not only allow a considerably wider and more comfortable berth as they would permit to have a decent sail locker (enlarging the existing one), or if that is not possible due to a bulkhead, it would allow for a cabinet and more interior storage space, that, especially on the version with the head, would always be welcome.

The other main objection is the lack of a 2 cabin version. For long-range or extensive cruising the storage space and the space for equipment is not enough. The ones that cruise extensively in a boat with this size now that if they have a 3 cabin boat, the third cabin is full with cruising stuff, from the bicycles or scooters to deck chairs, extra shades for the forward part of the boat, an extra sail, spars and so on. If the boat is used also for serious racing, it would be needed a space to store the several sails, that while racing will be in the saloon area.

So, in fact, for many, one of the aft cabins will be used as storage space, and so, why not propose a two cabin version with the added bonus of a bigger galley (that is always a must for cruising) and a smaller port aft cabin remade as a big storage space? That would be easy to make and the added cost would not be big, and certainly you would gladly pay for a better cruising or cruiser-racer boat.

In what regards to equipment storage, there is a relatively large space in the transom (let's see if the access by the cockpit is good) and a relatively narrow space (maybe 35/40cm) between the two cabins, a space that will be too narrow to mount most equipment, but that in the case of two cabin version can be enlarged at a small cost on the storage cabin size.

If on the storage space compartment the dividing panel follows the outer motor box panel, having as advantage enlarging a bit the engine compartment making the sail drive accessibility better, the central space will be 60cm wide and will be wide enough to mount a small generator and a small watermaker, as well as other electrical equipment, reserving the outside transom locker for the dinghy and other wet or semi-wet equipment.

There is also a large chain locker that will provide some space for fenders or garbage, but only if it is enlarged by bringing the berths aft, will it be able to have adequate space for sails.

The tankage is normal for this type of boat, where a watermaker will be used in ocean crossings, to not add too much weight to the boat. Like, on the previous 12.98, it has as standard tankage 360L  water and 220L diesel. It will come with a 50hp engine, which will be more than enough, even for cruising if one chooses to motor.

The battery bank with AGM batteries is good if a 3rd optional battery is mounted: 3x130 Ah plus a starter AGM battery with 55Ah.

Regarding interior quality and design, we have to base ourselves only on the drawings, that are not final, and on what is offered in previous models. I remember that 10 years ago when I saw the interior of the first "big" Italia yacht, the 13.98, I was truly impressed with the quality, design, and functionality. Near perfection in what concerns my taste and functionality.

In the last models, the quality remains high but the desire to innovate, and to make stylish interiors, led on some occasions, to cutting on the functionality over design style. The forward cabin, one of the designs that are provided, is a good example: great looking drawing, but at the cost of a too narrow berth (bow side)? The first function of a cabin is to offer the best possible place to sleep and to rest and if that is compromised due to a not sufficient, or comfortable width, then it can look great but will never be a good cabin, and it seems to me that it is the case.

Also, that profusion of floating decorative wooden slats that we can see in the drawings, similar to what is used in the 14.98, will create a nightmare in what regards cleaning, accumulating dust, not to mention finding and killing mosquitos, that are frequent in many med regions and in other places.

I have seen a 14.98 without those wooden slats, so, if you want the shipyard can take them away, but if you take something away from a design, something that was part of a whole concept, it will rarely look good without that part, and I didn't like the interior of the 14.98 without the wooden slats. Anyway, we can only speculate about how the interior will be and will have to wait to see what comes up. 

The hull/deck and structural building quality of Italia yachts are also high, and in what regards that this boat will be built the same way as the older model: hull and deck built in sandwich using infusion and vinyl ester resin, with PVC cores with different densities according to the structural needs. Monolithic laminate to improve resistance to concentrated efforts and avoid delamination is used when needed, mostly along the central part of the hull. 

The older 12.98 and the new one

The bulkheads are made with 15 to 18 mm marine plywood, bonded and laminated to the hull, internal structure and deck. The deck is not only bonded with structural adhesive but also laminated internally. The structure frame has carbon reinforcements, it is laminated on a female mold, bonded and laminated to the hull for distribution of mast and shroud loads. 

Bulkheads and furniture are placed directly into the structural frame, a method that was perfected by Cossutti, and is now not only used by Italia yachts but also on the Bavaria C45 and the Swan 48.

In the last years, Italia yachts were designed by Matteo Polli, the one that was responsible for the designs that have won several World and European ORC championships, but he is now working for Grand Soleil, and his designs continue to win World ORC championships, now with the GS 44, probably the biggest competitor for the Italia 12.98 in the market and on the race track.

Grand Soleil 44P

The Italia 12.98 is designed by Cossuti, who designed the first Italia yachts, which never obtained the racing success of the Matteo-designed boats. Cossutti has also designed yachts that have won the ORC world and European championship, but it was almost a decade ago. Let's see if he can do it again.

It is going to be very interesting to see how the Italia 12.98 and the Grand Soleil 44 perform at high-level in ORC/IRC handicap racing and in real-time.

Compared to the Grand Soleil 44, the 12.98 is slightly smaller (13.16 to 13.40m) but considerably narrower (3.95 to 4.27m) with a  not very different B/D (32.8% to 33.3%), but having the GS  13cm more draft. With more hull form stability, more B/D and more draft the GS 44 is a more powerful boat, but it is still to be seen if the lesser drag on the 12. 98 more than compensates (or not) for the lesser power. 

Probably the 12.98 will be faster in light wind and upwind while the GS 44 will be faster downwind and beam reaching, with medium to strong winds. 

Regarding handicap racing, it will be all about the easiness they reach the target speeds, and sail to their rating, and it will be this that will determine who will be the best ORC/IRC racer. 

That is something that only racing will tell even if Cossutti says that he made CFD simulations of the performance of the 12.98 against the racing competition and that the results were good and certainly the GS44 was included.

I asked the shipyard for more information over a number of points, including prices. If they answer back with meaningful information I will complete this post with more data.

THE FIRST TRAILERABLE CLASS A IS NOT A DREAM ANYMORE: SARCH S8

It seemed too good to be true, but the fact is that the boat is on the water and certified as Class A. That does not make it properly a bluewater boat but gives you the assurance the sailboat has passed the stability requirements that are needed for that certification, and they are, for a small sailboat, so high, that very few sailboats this size are able to have them. 

It is even more difficult when the beam is limited due to the need for road transport in a trailer. Sailing this boat you will know you are sailing in an extraordinarily seaworthy boat for its size.

To my knowledge, this is the only class A that is trailerable and to understand how that is difficult to achieve it suffices to say that the bigger Oceanis 30.1 is only certified as class B, and can only dream to achieve the seaworthiness and safety stability of the smaller S8 (26.3ft).

And the differences between the two are not only about safety stability, because the superior ballast,  draft and the much lower D/L (due to a high tech building) will give a lot more stiffness to the S8, and stiffness equals power to carry sails. That big overall stability will make the S8 uncomparably faster, a very fast yacht, by any parameters.

There is a reason for the Oceanis to be a Class B, and that reason is money: to have considerable more B/D in a sailboat is expensive due to the need for bigger hull reinforcements and bigger hull structure as well as the need of using superior quality materials, for assuring that the superior B/D does not translate also in an increase of the boat displacement, and therefore in a lower performance with lighter winds.

In fact, in what regards sailing, the S8 has nothing to do with the Oceanis 30.1, but more with the First 27 (Seascape 27), and that means a racing performance. The First 27 is a very fast sailboat, but, contrary to the Sarch S8, it is not a Class A sailboat, and the cruising interior has nothing to do with the cruising version of the S8, more like the S8 daysailing version.

The S8 is proposed in two different versions, the DS8 and the CS8, a daysailer and a cruising yacht, having the same hull (immersed part), keels, but a different cabin, one more voluminous, offering the space for a good cruising interior, and a sleeker and lighter one. The less voluminous interior makes the S8 look absolutely gorgeous.

Both versions can be offered certified in Class A or Class B, depending on different keels, with more or less ballast, more or less draft. This has not only influence in what regards the boat stability, price, but also in what regards the easiness in putting the boat in and out of the water and in the trailer, but contrary to the First 27 all versions are easily trailerable. On the First 27 that only happens with the considerably more expensive version with a swing keel, which was the original one on the Seascape, but now is a marginal one, due to price.

The first sailboats (from both versions) have already been exhaustively sail-tested by the builder, Axel Sarch, and the results are very good, upwind and downwind. With 17kts of wind, gusting over 25kt the S8 was able to sail at over 7kt upwind and at 12.5kt downwind.

This performance, particularly the upwind performance, looked too good to be true, and many doubted that the S8 could be so fast upwind, but the doubts disappeared when the DS8 was tested by Nacho Braquehais, a top Spanish sail racer (Americas's cup, TP52), that said that the overall performance was similar, if not better, than the one of a J70, and that upwind the performance was no doubt better!

All the Sarch are built the same way, a high quality built: the hull is made with a carbon/glass sandwich with a core of marine grade okume plywood, using epoxy resin. The inside sandwich layer is glass, the outside carbon, with a single layer of glass, for cosmetic purposes.

On the boat structure, and bulkheads, marine plywood is used, and bonded with epoxy, and laminated to the hull and deck. The deck is made using vacuum infusion in an epoxy glass sandwich that has closed-cell PVC foam as a core. All furniture is included in the boat structure and in the end hull, deck, bulkheads, and furniture end up forming a monoblock, giving a great rigidity to the yacht.

This high-tech building allows for a light and strong boat. The DS8 has 1218kg displacement with the standard keel without a bulb (class B), even less with the bulbed keel (1118kg - ClassB) and 1338kg with the heavier bulbed keel (Class A).  The cruising version (CS8 Class A) will be about 150kg heavier if an outboard is used and, if the inboard engine is mounted, it will be about 300kg heavier. 

The S8 hull is 7.95m long, 2.49 wide and can have three different keels: a swing not bulbed one with 420kg ballast, with 0.50/2.00m draft and two torpedo lifting ones, with 350kg and 570kg ballast, for 0,5/1.75m draft and 0.5/1.95m draft. 

In the class A configuration the S8 has between 42.6% and 33.8%B/D (depending on the version and equipment),  in the Class B version it has between 31.3% and 23.8%B/D (and less 20cm draft). The standard keel (Class B) is not comparable to the others in what regards B/D because it is not bulbed, and it is all in cast iron, while the other two have lead torpedos, but probably, being heavier and having more draft, it has a performance similar to the lighter torpedo keel. The class A keel is a high-tech keel made with a composite fin, and that allows the lead bulb to be heavier (a great part of the 570kg of ballast) lowering the keel CG and increasing RM.

With so many options you should be thinking about which one I would choose. Well, it depends on the use I would give to the boat: if for racing and weekend cruising I would choose the daysailer (DS8), that I find gorgeous, and would have it with an outboard. Regarding the keel, it depends on the type of racing, with a crew, 4 to seat on the rail in inshore regattas, probably the ClassB would get better results in handicap racing. For offshore racing, duo, or solo, the heavier Class A keel would give certainly a better performance and probably better also with a crew.

For more extensive cruising I would choose the cruising version, which has a very nice and good cruising interior, can have a true marine head, with a black water tank, a decent galley with a gimballed two-burner stove (option), and a good-sized refrigerator.  On this one, I would choose without any doubt the Class A keel, for the better seaworthiness it will provide.

Regarding the type of engine choice, it depends: If some racing was on the program, I would ask Axel to do me a version with outboard engine on a well, similar to the one that is offered in the First 27 (Seascape 27). I believe that there is space for a 10 to 20hp outboard with electric start, and that would be more than enough, saving about 200 kg in the boat displacement (that in a 1500kg sailboat is a lot), not to mention that it would be less expensive, not only the engine, but the maintenance and even an eventual replacement.

If I was not interested in racing, or in taking from the boat all the speed I could get, I would have the 15hp inboard engine that provides better reliability and a bigger battery charge when running, at the cost of a bigger price and considerably more weight. The difference in speed the lighter boat will gain would be very little upwind, more noticeable downwind, in what regards the wind speed needed for the boat to plan, and some difference in what regards light wind sailing.

Anyway, even in its heavier version, the Cruising Class A, with an inboard engine and a displacement of 1688kg, or a bit over (depending on equipment), is a very fast sailboat, and the extra weight contributes to increasing the stability and to make it a less nervous sailboat, and that can be a good thing for extensive cruising.

The SA/D and the D/L of the heavier Class A cruising version with inboard give an idea of how fast this boat is:  It has an upwind of SA/D 29.1, downwind 64.1, for a D/L of 109.7. If we consider the Class A version with an outboard the numbers are the ones of a true racer: upwind SA/D 34.0, downwind 74.8 for an 83.9 D/L.

Who, will be interested in this sailboat? Well, for sure a younger version of me LOL, this boat is the answer for young sportive sailors that have a small family, like to cruise fast in a seaworthy sailboat, with a nice cozy interior, that are still working, have not much time and want to save money, keeping the boat in a garage, not paying an expensive marina berth.

It will also be suited for cruisers that like to race and have the same concerns. For cruisers and racers alike it offers the possibility to transport the boat on a trailer to distant cruising grounds, or race locations, inexpensively and fast, saving in time (that they don't have) and in money.

This boat, like the other Sarch, has systems to lower the mast and to raise the keel that makes it relatively easy for two to put it on the water, or from the water in a dedicated trailer, which is also offered by the manufacturer.

Of course, high tech and high performance come with a high price and even if I don´t find it high for what is offered, this boat is a bit more expensive than a First 27, even considering the one with the swing keel, the only one that is easily trailerable and comparable. They say the model with a fixed keel is trailerable too but you would need a crane, and will have to tow it very carefully due to the high CG.

It is difficult to find price information for the First 27SE, because almost all the information regards the fixed keel version, which comes without an engine but with sails, and it is considerably less expensive than the swing keel version.

From what I could understand a F27 SE with a swing keel costs about 85,000 € without an engine and with dracon sails. That compares to 86,560€ for a DS8, also Class B, but with much better quality 3D Nordac North Sails and an 8hp outboard. Both prices are without VAT.

The daysailer (DS8) Class A, with the heavier torpedo keel costs 87 560 € and with an inboard 15hp Yanmar engine, 99 400€. The cruiser (CS8) Class A costs 97 580 € and 109 420 €, respectively, with an 8hp outboard, or with the interior Yanmar engine, both come with 3D Nordac sails. The Class B version, with less ballast and less draft, costs 1000 € less in each of them. All at the shipyard without VAT.

 

They offer two dedicated trailers with 4 wheels, both with brakes and a winch, one is able to carry 1350kg, the other 1500kg, for respectively, 4240€, and 4650€. This allows Europeans to pick a Sarch directly at the shipyard, without transport costs. The shipyard is in Spain, near Alicante.

5.80 MINI - 6.50 MINI, COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE IN A TRANSAT

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).

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/class-mini-580-inexpensive-boat-to.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/5-vendee-globe-for-poor.html

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:

http://yb.tl/globetransat2021#