More than 10 years ago Boreal stormed the aluminum sailboat market with a boat that would be a huge success and would launch a new brand that would occupy a significant place among voyage aluminum boat builders.
The boat had modern lines but looked unrefined in what regards looks and interior design, even so, the boat qualities make it a success probably because it was designed by a sailor, Jean-François Delvoye that had finished a 6-year circumnavigation with the family, on a boat that he had built himself. After the circumnavigation, he had very clear ideas about what the improvements should be to implement on a voyage boat to become the ideal boat to make the kind of cruising he had done, his perfect yacht.
His ideas were enriched by the ones of great sailors he met on his voyages, all with a taste for sailing in remote and isolated places (he spent two years sailing in Patagonia). Obviously, if he was a different type of sailor, not sailing with a big family (4 children), or without a taste for sailing in high-latitudes, cold and deserted places, the ideal yacht would be very different and I can assure you that there is not something like the "best yacht in the world", being the "best yacht" very different, for different sailors.
And he had managed all this on the 44, even if things like real visibility for the helmsman or that 360º interior view from a station were relative, and the choice of a centerboard implied a considerable loss in sail performance, except downwind, but being this a voyage boat, trade winds would be by far the predominant, and that disadvantage less important.
For minimizing the speed disadvantage due to excessive weight, a centerboarder has to have a worse AVS and worse safety stability than a bluewater fin-keeled boat, with a considerable draft and a bulbed keel. Dutch centerboarders, which today are almost extinct, did not go that way and for offering a similar AVS and safety stability had around a 50%B/D.
That made them very slow boats, even downwind, if the wind was not strong, and unable to plan in stronger winds. That is not the case of the French centerboarders, especially the bigger ones (smaller metal boats are proportionally heavier) and the original Boreal 44 had a 36%B/D, which can be considered high if we compared to the one of the OVNI 450 (32%), especially if we consider that the ballast in the OVNI is inside the boat and the one of the Boreal was mostly on a kind of short keel, from midships to the back of the hull.
Note that to be approved as Class A the boat has to have a minimum AVS but that minimum decreases with the boat size (with mass) and on a boat with 10 430kg like the Boreal 44, that minimum is only 100º, even if that is considered by most as unsuitable for a bluewater boat.
Note that I am not saying that the Boreal 44 has only a 100º AVS, quite the contrary, due to the buoyancy of the partially closed dodger, with a waterproof door, the AVS is higher than the one of the OVNI 450, but the safety stability would be close, or very similar, and very far from the one of a bluewater boat with a keel, like a Hallberg Rassy or an X-yacht.
The cabin and dodger buoyancy will not affect positively the stability curve except in angles very near 90º (or over), and that means that when the boat is knocked down, it will not affect the force that the RM is making for righting the boat. The part of the stability curve that is used for righting a boat from high heel angles is what I call safety stability, and if the AVS Boreal is good (due to cabin and dodger buoyancy), that is not the case with the safety stability (due to the low B/D).
Note also that this type of centerboarders can lift the board up and still remain with the same stability, and in bad weather with the centerboard up, they will not trip on the keel when the boat is hit laterally by a breaking wave. That allows them to dissipate the wave energy sliding laterally, while a traditional sailboat, with a large and deep immersed keel, would have the bigger part of the wave energy transformed in a rotating movement.
This is an advantage centerboards have over other sailboats, especially the ones with keels with a large area, but does not diminish the problem when the boat is knocked down, and that can happen just by a huge wind gust or a big breaking wave, leaving it exposed for a relatively long time, on the side, almost without remaining stability, at the mercy of the next wave.
That is why it makes sense for these type of boats to be big, 44ft or bigger, sizes that give them big overall stability (hull form stability and displacement) that makes more difficult, or even improbable, a capsize on of very rare sea and weather conditions. That is also why the SA/D of this type of boat is normally smaller than the one that can sustain a knockdown without any significant problem (being able to right itself up immediately) and the smaller SA/D also diminishes the knockdown risk.
The experience shows that capsizes with this type of sailboats are rare, especially with this size or bigger, and even if I consider it necessary to know about its limitations (to sail it accordingly) the Boreal 44 is a seaworthy boat, with a big hull form stability and big overall stability.
|
Note the small keel where the ballast is located |
The new one will have a bigger hull form stability due to a bigger beam (4.39 to 4.30m) but a considerably smaller B/D 28.7% to 36.4%. The ballast is the same on both boats but while the older model light displacement was 10 430kg, the new one displaces 13 250kg, a huge difference for such a small difference in length (13.80 to 13.87).
Because both displacements are in lightship condition, the difference in weight can only partially be attributed to a bigger beam and higher freeboards, but it has to be due also to a more heavily built boat, and that can be good on this type of boat, but not the absence of the correspondent increase in ballast, to have the same B/D.
Of course, everything is a trade-off and the 1027kg extra ballast (probably more because it would have to be located inside the hull) that the new boat would need to have the same B/D as the older model, would make the boat even heavier and slower, considering that it is already 2820kg heavier than the previous model.
With this B/D and considering that the ballast is in a small keel outside the hull, in what regards safety stability this boat should not be far from the OVNI 450, which displaces 11 550kg, while the previous model would have considerable bigger safety stability and AVS. However, the overall stability will be bigger on the Boreal 44.2 due to the bigger displacement.
|
Boreal 44. The 44.2 will have a similar layout |
And that's the only thing I don't like on the new version (much bigger displacement and smaller B/D), even if the overall stability is bigger this is going to be a slower sailboat, even with slightly bigger sails. The older version had the same sail area in the main and genoa (45 and 55m2) and only the staysail (this boat has a cutter rig) passed from 22 to 26m2. Displacing more 2820kg and with practically the same sail area and more beam, this boat is going to be considerably slower than the original Boreal 44.
|
Boreal 44. The 44.2 interiors will be similar |
All the rest seems much nicer, from the hull design to the overall design. The boat does not seem any more amateur-designed, it seems well designed and modern, especially in regards to the outside.
Regarding the inside, the apparently larger window surfaces are only cosmetic and don't translate in interior significantly bigger "windows" neither by a more luminous interior (having as reference the 47.2).
If compared to the interior of the last models of other brands of voyage aluminum sailboats, the ones from Boreal seem of good quality and practical, but show clearly that they are not designed by a top interior designer and lack style, beauty, and design quality. I hope that the improvements in design refinement, that the new boat clearly shows on the outside, is going to be followed by an equivalent upgrade in interior design quality.
|
The 47.2 interior that is given as a reference for the 44.2 |
Another thing that deserves to be pointed out is that the centerboard on the Boreal 44.2 is smaller than on the Allures 45.9, OVNI 450, or Garcia 45 (2.48 draft to 2.90m in all of them) and this will contribute to worse upwind performance, that is not a really good one in all of them (if compared with a bluewater fin keel yacht): in the light wind due to the extra ballast. And in strong winds due to less power, there is not a similar and proportional increase in RM when the boat heels to bigger heel sailing angles (higher CG).
|
Boreal 44 |
Aluminum sailboats are generally more expensive than most fiberglass boats and the huge increase in aluminum price did not help. This boat costs at the shipyard (France), standard with two sails, without electronics, without taxes 538 525€ that is slightly less than what costs an Xc-45 and also slightly less than a Saare 46, but a bit more than the also Aluminum Allures 45.9.
A correct price, taking into account the quality of the building and the high resistance of the hull (that has a bow that can break ice) and that is reflected in a long waiting list. If you order one now, it will be delivered only in 2025.
Hallo Paulo,
ReplyDeletethank you for sharing this insightful analysis. Your article made me wonder - what defines a great bluewater cruiser? A boat that will take you afar and keep you safe in remote locations.
Does it need really to be aluminum? And does it really have to be a centerboarder? I am not sure.
Wouldn't a well made GRP boat be equally suited? One with a high-quality hull, collision bulkheads front and rear and a pivoting or lifting keep that allow to access shallow anchorages. Plus - such a boat would probably faster and have superior stability ... invaluable assets to outrun or ride across a storm. It seems to me that an aluminum centerboarder really is a niche concept for a very specific purpose ... to sail across frozen seas and beach your boat without penalty.
Best,
Markus
Hi Markus,
DeleteNo, a Bluewater boat does not need to be in aluminum even if aluminum is probably the best option to sail in waters with ice. Probably a boat with a kevlar hull, or an outside kevlar layer would be as good or better, but none is proposed now on the market (Comar had proposed one without comercial success).
Does not need also to be a centerboarder even if almost all aluminum boats on the market are centerboarders.
And most sailors have no desire whatsoever to cruise or sail in very cold high latitude deserted places, you have only to see the number of Nordic boats sailing in the med, Caribbean or circumnavigating by harmer climates to understand that.
For all those probably a faster sailboat offering the same cruising amenities makes more sense even if these aluminum center boarder can be as fast on the trade winds.
Some will want to do that in a really fast sailboat, like the Pegasus, the JPK45 or an Outremer catamaran.
What defines a bluewater boat is the seaworthiness and to have a large autonomy. There are plenty boats that have those characteristics.
Hello Paulo, thank you for your comment. The JPK would be on top of my list ... ;-)
DeleteBom dia Paulo
ReplyDeleteI sold my 2015 Beneteau Oceanis 38 and bought an 2006 Ovni 395. What a difference, an aluminum with retractable daggerboard and rudder makes, specially is your playground is the shallow waters of the Bahamas and south Florida..I think I will never go back to fiberglass and fixed keel boats.the sense of security and practically is incomparable… congratulations on you blog.
Abraço
Homero
The Boreal 44.2 likewise has removable daggerboards (as did its predecessor). Will likely assist it a lot in going upwind.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see this style of aluminium centreboard sailboat, but with a somewhat lighter, and much more easily driven hull. (Imagine a cross between a Boreal 44.2 and a J/45!). I suppose the market niche would be way too small, and the initial stability too low. Perhaps the latter issue could be partly overcome my rigging it as a ketch. That of course would make the market demand even tinier.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot have that. This type of boats have their seaworthiness based on having the same stability with the board up or down. You can have a fast aluminum boat with a swing keel like the Pogo, but the stability will be very different with the keel up or down.
DeleteThe builders of OVNI make also the Cigale, a fast aluminum boat and they can have it with a swing keel (Pogo Style) but it is a different type of boat, much lighter (and faster) because it does not have the ballast inside the boat, or in a small keel, like the Boreal, but it has a very different stability, keel up or down and keel down and it will trip on the keel if a breaking wave hit it.
https://www.alubat.com/la-gamme/cigale-16/
Hi Paulo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your always interesting insights!
We are interested in a yacht arount 45 feet with variable draft and have already visited the 4 French Centreboarders (i.e. Boreal 47.2, Allures 45.9, Ovni 450 and Garcia E45). We also thougth about a Discovery 48, but the future of the yard is uncertain and the price.... We hope we can sail an Allures this year.
Which yacht do you think sails best and offers best stability? According to German Yacht Magazine, the Boreal 47.2 sails very well. However, they did not address the low ballast ratio.
Best,
Fred
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteI have a professional paid service to help clients to choose the boats that fit them better. I know well all those boats and many times clients end up paying nothing because I can agree with the shipyards a fee for bringing clients. If you are interested contact me by email: pernao.paulo@gmail.com
BTW I just came across this posting on yacht.de. An X 4.9 had to be abandoned in the middle of the Atlantic due to water ingress.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that 'the rudder shaft on board had come loose from the upper rudder bearing for reasons that were apparently unknown. Only fixed by the lower bearing, the shaft damaged the GRP hull, which led to water ingress.'
https://www.yacht.de/aktuell/panorama/arc-january-erstes-schiff-im-ziel-x-yacht-auf-see-aufgegeben
Clearly, this is one of the things that can't happen in a bluewater cruiser. IMO, even if in the case of negligence on behalf of the crew, the rudder system has to be designed in a way that it cannot compromise the structural integrity of the boat. Including, in case of hitting a floating object.
Best,
Markus
Thanks for the comment. I knew about the loss of that X4.9, knew that it was rudder related but I thought that they had hit something big and hard with the rudder and that the rudder stock had broken the hull at the insertion point.
ReplyDeleteThis seems weird and almost incredible. But In my own boat, when the rudder was dismounted for inspection, I did not like the way the upper rudder bearing was holding the shaft and modified the system, increasing the safety.
Anyway, accidents can happen and even if a rudder is designed to break before breaking the hull, when a massive object hits it with huge force, sometimes things just do not happen as previewed, at it is always possible the hull to be broken by the hull shaft, specially when it is a stainless steel one, but that should not result in a boat sunk because the bulkhead that separates the rudder zone from the rest of the boat should be watertight.
Well, it should be, but in reality the boats that have this feature are very rare, even among very expensive sailboats.
Hi Paolo,
ReplyDeleteNice article, quite well documented.
A big thank you for your interest in our sailing boats. I would of course have preferred to collaborate with you in its drafting in order to avoid having to make some corrections.
Your reasoning, correct regarding your numbers, leads to the conclusion that this new model will be slower and less stiff than the old model with regard to the B/D ratio.
How could it be possible that all the journalists from the European nautical press who tested the boat in La Rochelle and crowned her "European sailboat of the year" were so wrong in unanimously praising its performance and seaworthiness in all the wind and sea conditions?
In fact, the light weight of the old Boréal 44 was 12,850 kg and not 10,430. her ballast was 3.8T, the current one goes to 4T, the ratio remains more or less stable.
But this report, if it gives some indications on the stability of weight, gives none on the stability of forms. The hull of the 44.2 has been completely redesigned for the most part above the waterline so that, as soon as the boat starts heeling a little, her RM is always greater than the old version. For the same sail area, we will take the first reef at 22 knots instead of 20, gaining power and therefore speed. We have also straightened the bow which is now vertical and thus increased the length at the waterline, a guarantee of speed.
Regarding the B/D coefficient, it is essential to specify the capital importance of the height of the final center of gravity of the ballast in this ratio. The majority of current aluminum sailing boats have their ballast placed in the bottom of the hull. Many of them consist of a heap of little cast iron units whose final density is less than 7T/m³ if the space between them is taken into account. The ballast of the Boréal is made up of molded lead blocks (weighing an average of 450 kg each) to be integrated at the lowest point in the keel embryo, under the hull. Their density is 11.4T/m³. The result of these different elements is a better centering of the weights (better behavior at sea) and a lowering of the center of gravity (better stability).
I can tell you that all these improvements have changed the behavior of the boat… and not in the way you are describing.
I remain of course at your disposal to talk about it again.
jean François Delvoye
Architecte des Boréal
Hi Jean François,
DeleteIt is a pleasure to talk with you, and as somebody interested in yacht design I noticed from the beginning the innovative caracter of the Boreal 44 and my comments about the boat (then in a thread with the same name in a big sail forum - 2 million hits on the thread) had relevance in the boat being known, particularly in what regards American sailors.
In what concerns the data your site provides about the yachts not being correct, that is something that is not my responsibility. I work with the data that is provided by the shipyards and I assume it is correct.
An error of displacement of 2400kg in a 10 400kg, regarding lightship condition, it is a huge mistake. I have seen many optimistic displacements, but this one is really big. On the new boat the indicated ballast is given as 3800kg, not 4000kg and I prefer not to comment about the optimistic stability curve that was provided.
Regarding to be the sailboat of the year, I have no doubt that the Boreal 44.2 is a great sailboat, but regarding to know if this one is faster or slower than the previous boat, the only way to know about that is to have both boats in the water at the same time, even if a very expensive top VPP program in the hands of a specialist can give solid information.
I believe when you says that the new boat needs to reef later and that the stability is bigger, that is quite normal being the sail area the same and being this boat heavier (even if not so much as the wrong information about the previous boat make believe) and you say that this boat has more hull form stability....but that also increases drag.
Anyway that is not important in this type of sailboat and if the difference between the displacement of the two boats is not so big, that difference in speed will be small. Probably it is more important the increase in stability and need to reef later than a small loss in speed.
Hello Paulo, thank you for your reply. I don't want to deviate too far from our initial discussion about the new Boréal 44.2, but you are raising a really interesting and important subject. What are minimum safety requirements a bluewater cruiser should comply with? Evidently, these requirements have to include minimum stability requirements, as you have pointed out in several of your articles. Additionally, they would have to include navigation and communication equipment, plus the ability to detect and avoid other vessels. And then there is the issue of floating objects. Today, I came across these guys here - https://www.useitagain.earth/cartographie/. They attempt to circumnavigate the globe in the 'wrong' direction, and during their passage from Lorient to Cape Horn they claim to have hit four UFOs! Maybe they had an extraordinary dose of bad luck. But regardless, I believe that a bluewater cruiser should either be able to reliably detect and avoid UFOs, or withstand a collision, not sink and still be maneuverable.
ReplyDeleteWhether you need a watertight aft bulkhead to achieve such a goal or not, is a different question, but it's certainly a good idea to have it. To my knowledge, among aluminum centerboarders both Boréal and Garcia have this feature, whereas Ovnis are 'open'. Among GRP boats, I understand that a few shipyards - JPK, Salona, Pogo, possibly Luffe and Faurby - have it, but many others not. Hallberg-Rassy, who claim to build outstanding bluewater cruisers definitely do not offer this feature.
Best,
Markus
That talk about avoiding UFOs or remain with a boat able to continue sailing is a bit theoretical. Sure there are boats that have a bigger resistance to impact.... and slower the better because the energy in a collision is proportional not only to the mass of the object but also to the speed of the boat.
DeleteBut who wants to sail slower if one can sail faster?
The many UFOs encountered by the boat you refer has to do with the speed of that boat, that is a very fast multihull, and most if not all of those UFOs are marine life, most of them mammals.
A very poor choice of sailboat to try to beat that record. Several racing multihulls have tried and all failed. I will predict that they will fail, breaking the boat, before reaching half of the way.