I confess that after the way RM went bankrupt some years ago, being saved by the Grand Large Group (Allures, Garcia, Outremer, Gunboat), but without fulfilling the contractual brand obligations to the many clients that had boats being built, RM lost a lot of appeal to me and I consider the situation very unfair, I did not know that was even legally possible.
Under Grand Large ownership the RM has survived and contracted the original brand creator (he had sold the brand some years before it went bankrupt) Martin Lepoutre as CEO.
Under the new management and maintaining the "old" line of yachts, things took some years to stabilize and to customers to renew the trust in the brand that, when it went bankrupt, had a large number of sailboats in order.
They went bankrupt not due to lack of orders but due to the impossibility of delivering the boats at the contracted price without losing money. The boats were well designed, well made (even if with some finishing problems at the end), and constituted a very interesting option as fast voyage boats, especially suited for the trade winds.
Like the Pogo, the hull design was very influenced by trade wind racers, like the 40 class racers or IMOCA, less fast than the Pogos, heavier, not so radical, and with a much better cruising interior, the RM offered (and still offers) a very interesting cruising line that deserved praise in several articles in this blog:
The new RM 1380 follows the previous RM 1370 and has the particularity of being the first boat developed by the RM under the new ownership. Let's have a look at the boat and at the differences to the previous model, this one:
This one, like all other RM, is built in plywood, epoxy impregnated and can have an optional kevlar outer layer for better impact resistance and the differences to the previous boat seem small, but let's look at them in detail:
The new boat is slightly shorter than the previous one, it has increased only in the denomination (1380 to 1370) and in beam (4.53m to 4.50). The new boat has 14.40 LOA while the previous one had 14.74m and the hull length decreased from 13.68 to 13.30m. The older boat displaced 9400kg, the new one is heavier, displacing 9800kg.
The older boat was proposed with three different keels, a fin keel (2.45m), a twin keel (1.95m) and a swing keel with all the ballast in the keel (1.30/3.20m). On the new one, they don't mention the possibility of a fin keel with a torpedo but only the twin keel version (1.95m) or a swing keel (1.45/3.35m).
Above the new 1380, below 1370
They don't say what this boat ballast is, which I hope is not different from the older 1370 that had a 3000kg ballast on the twin keel with a 1.95m draft. That gives it a 30.6% B/D that is slightly higher than what mass production cruisers of this size offer (having as reference the 1.95m draft) but less than what is offered by performance cruisers.
The running rigging seems to be the same but while the 1370 had 6 winches this one has only 4 standard ones and I don't understand why the winch that is near the steering wheels is the one that was taken off. In fact, the new version has a winch distribution typical of a tiller use, while a tiller is not previewed.
For all the manoeuvers, if the boat is single-handed, the man on the wheel has to leave it and go forward to work on the winches.
Smaller but with a bigger interior volume, not only due to the small increase in the max beam but mostly because the forward sections are much beamier, giving it a worse sailing performance upwind but allowing for having two cabins at the bow (as an option) making it more interesting for charter, with the possibility of having 4 cabins.
1370, twin keel version
The max beam is now all pulled back, increasing slightly the interior space on the aft cabins, increasing even more hull form stability (like the beamier forward sections) but increasing drag in light wind and upwind sailing and allowing the boat to sail with even less heel.
The other main difference is an aesthetical one that makes the boat look better, I mean the chine on the upper part of the hull that makes the freeboard look smaller, but I wonder about the costs of that and in what regards strengthness, and unnecessary complication.
RM 1370
The problems that led to the bankruptcy, some years ago, had to do with the complicated shapes of the upper part of the hull that had to be made in fiberglass.
They don't mention the use of fiberglass on the site so it is possible that the extra top chine is made with plywood and maybe without a considerable extra cost or lesser resistance.
But I am a bit allergic to shapes that are used aesthetically as visual references to racing boats when those shapes have the opposite result in regard to sail performance.
RM 1370
On a racing boat those chines on the upper part of the hull, and especially in the bow area, have the finality of diminishing the height, without decreasing buoyancy or hull form stability, but in this case, due to the type of building and used material, it adds weight, instead of saving it.
295 000 € was the price of RM1370, back in 2017, standard, at the shipyard. Now the 1380 costs considerably more (330 000€) and this happens not only with the RM. All boats cost now a lot more than 5 years ago and unfortunately everything points to an even bigger increase in prices this year.
And in this case, it is not only about looks, the Aelos P45 is a full carbon racer, or racer/cruiser, with specifications that will make it an incredibly fast boat. The P45 follows the smaller, also full carbon, P30 that is already in the water, with 5 other boats in production.
The P30 comes as a response to the huge increase in solo and duo sail racing, and particularly to a new type of offshore racing that has become popular in the North of Europe based not on a handicap, but on the size of the sailboat. The P30 was designed as a one-class racer but also to beat the Dehler 30 on those races, and also to finish ahead of any 30 ft sailboat in any offshore race.
The popularity of these small very fast racers is so big that there is another one being developed, the Farr X2, that even if not a carbon boat, should be a very fast one. It is not yet on the water due to Covid, but it should not take long.
The P45 is a much more ambitious attempt and is designed as the ultimate racing/cruiser machine, like the Swan 50 and its two competitors from the North of Europe, the Shogun 50 and the Aspect 45. Sure it can also be ordered as a full racing machine, but in what regards that the competition is big, with some featuring canting keels. It is more about sailing, in relative comfort, a yacht with the performances of a top racing machine, not only while racing, but also while cruising, or just having fun.
The P45 is a relatively narrow sailboat with a 13.6m HL and a 3.9 beam with, a huge 49.4 B/D, a big 2.9m draft, a high-performance torpedo lead keel in a carbon foil, and 200kg water ballast. There is an option for a lifting keel with a 2.9m draft, that can be raised to 1,6 m and that will allow the Aelos to enter any port or marina, and will give it a much bigger polyvalence as a racer-cruiser.
It can be offered with a tiller set up or with two wheels and, independently, with one or two-rudder setup, depending on the type of use you give the boat. The single rudder has a better performance with light winds, being maximized for 12kts, the twin rudder is maximized for 20kts wind.
The Aeolos is built like a top racing boat, all in carbon sandwich/epoxy, including the bulkheads and boat structure. Using prepreg post cured technology, it is fully laminated, forming a very solid integral box, where the interior furniture (all in carbon) is integrated. This allows it to displace just a bit over 4 tons.
The sail area is huge, if we take into account the SA/D, but relatively small for a 45fter and easily manageable if we take into account the global sail area, with a main with 78 m2 and a 63 m2 jib. The water tankage can be very good because the 2 x 200 L ballast tanks can be used for freshwater.
As for motorization, it a small electric motor is used with the support of a Honda generator. A bit curious about the type of generator and how it will work safely, but this system can surely be upgraded to a better one if cruising is also intended.
It offers a good cruising interior, with a big longitudinal galley, a huge forward cabin, two small one's aft and two heads, both near the forward cabin. It seems to me that an exclusively 2 cabin version would be more interesting, allowing for two big cabins, each one with a dedicated head, more storage space.
The layout has to do with having the place for a racing crew, but with a two-cabin layout, it would still have the space for 6 crew (with much more comfort), being easy to have two removable suspended berths, if they are necessary for a bigger crew.
This solution would also have the advantage to create more space for water tankage that with 350kg would be much more effective and would allow for better performance with a smaller crew ( even for 3 or 4), and today the racing sail tendency is for smaller crews.
Of course on a boat like this, the interior has not only to be functional but also beautiful and it may be a weak point on this boat because I don't know if they can get the expertise for doing that not in what regards being all built-in carbon, but in what regards the quality of the design, that is many times undervalued.
The interior of the Swan 50 is beautiful, by all accounts, luxurious, but not as practical as it could be, the one of the Shogun 50 is chic, but with lower design quality and a doubtful taste, the one from the Aspect 45 remains to be seen, as well as this one.
The Aeolos are made in Dubai, and have become part of a bigger technological group with expertise in composites and that allows them to be built with the highest standards and technology, at a better price, than would be possible in the North of Europe. Allows also for a bigger capacity in what regards production and financing.
There is not an inexpensive full-carbon yacht, but the Aeolos P45 aims to offer exclusive performance at a lesser price and at 440000 euros, this full carbon 45fter will put many dreaming about it and hopefully will find some clients that can make that dream come true and will give us the pleasure of seeing it sailing.
They say that the two first boats will be sold at 399999 euros and that seems quite incredible. I just hope they can provide it and not become in trouble to achieve that because this is about half the cost of what normally a full carbon top racer-cruiser this size would cost.
Things have become odd in the nautical market with many MKII (new version with the same hull) having different names (like for instance the Dufour 310 and the Dufour 32) and now with a new boat (new hull), having the same denomination as the previous model.
New X4-3
To increase confusion X-Yachts says that the New X4-3 is an "updated version" of the older model. It seems that X-yachts wanted to profit from the success of the older model, which was the brand's bestseller while making a new model to increase sales, but maintaining it as close as possible to the older version, while updating the hull to look more modern, with a larger transom, but maintaining the same classic bow design and a slightly less rounded cabin design.
Old X4-3
But this is not the only deceiving or confusing information about this boat, there is another one that comes already from the previous model, that has a hull length of 12.50m and was a 41ft boat, not a 43ft one, like the name seems to indicate. This one has a 12.67m hull length (41.6ft) being closer to a 42ft boat, very far from 43ft.
Curiously, even if the hull length is bigger, the waterline length is almost the same, 11.33 to 11.31m being the new one slightly beamier, with 3.99m to 3.95m. The new one is heavier with 9400kg to 8850kg, having slightly less ballast (3700 to 3800kg), having a similar keel and standard draft (2.20m).
New X4-3
The B/D of the new boat is smaller (39.4% to 42.9%) but it remains among the biggest you can find in modern cruising boats, especially if you consider the 2.20m draft and the torpedo keel. Probably the designer opted for a smaller B/D due to the bigger hull form stability that is provided by the bigger beam and the different hull design, with the max. beam pulled aft.
I am quite happy to see a builder resisting the modern tendency of increasing beam hugely to create bigger interiors and the sail performance of the new boat will be not very different, and that means a very good one. The previous one probably has a better racing handicap and being lighter and with slightly less drag (due to less beam and different transom design), will have a slightly better performance in lighter winds.
New X4-3
This one compensates for the extra weight with a 0.5m longer mast, which allows for 2 sqm more in upwind sail area. The new transom design is a nice one and doesn't restrict much the heel angles. The
new boat, out of light winds, due to increased hull form stability should have a better performance with medium and high winds, except upwind where it probably loses a little bit.
The real improvement comes in the interior space where it was possible to increase the width of the aft cabins, which are now more comfortable, also because they have a superior height due to a slightly raised cockpit and the port one also due to the volume occupied by the cockpit seat locker, that is now absent. The extra length was used to increase the aft storage space and now the 3 cabin version becomes more usable for more extensive cruising.
The old X4-3
This model has only a seat cockpit locker while the previous had two, the same sail locker, but a bigger aft cockpit locker. If the sail locker is not used for sails, I believe the 3 cabin version has the exterior space required for not very extensive cruising, and the starboard cabin can always be used for extra storage, but personally, I would rather have the extra cockpit locker than a slight increase in the port aft cabin volume.
The New X4-3
The interior is practically the same as the previous boat, and even if that seems odd, (normally on a new version they maintain the hull and change the interior) I am quite satisfied with the option, because it is not only a very functional interior, with plenty of cabinets and storage, as it is a very nicely designed and very pleasant one and the new hull allows for more space without compromising performance, at least significantly. You can have a virtual visit here:
All in all a nice job, improving what was already a great performance cruiser, especially in regards to interior space and practicability. From the previous version, more than 100 sailboats were made and it seems that this one will not be less successful because about 30 boats were already ordered, but I don't know how much of this success has to do with clients thinking they are buying a 43ft boat when in reality it is not even a 42ft (41.6ft) sailboat.
New X4-3
This boat should not be compared to the Grand Soleil 44 (even the Grand Soleil 42 LC is considerably bigger) nor to the Italia 12.98 neither to the Arcona 435 or the Solaris 44, all much bigger. In fact, the X4-3 is closer in dimensions to the Solaris 40, which has about one foot less in hull length, but more than one foot more in LWL. (HL- 12.36/12.67m ; LWL - 11.33/11.70m), displacing both boats the same (9400kg).
Solaris 40
Don't take me wrong, personally, I prefer the X4-3 over the Solaris 40, for a number of reasons, the main is having a more balanced overall performance, but I bet that most people that buy the X4-3 are not comparing it to the Solaris 40 (that is considerably less expensive) but to bigger performance boats (that even so are less expensive), not realizing that the difference in size is big, due to the misleading denomination of the X-Yacht, that makes them believe this is a 43ft sailboat. Look at how they advertise the boat as a 43ft boat:
Of course, that is also because the X4-3 interiors and layout are excellent and make that confusion possible.
First, Old X4-3, above, New X4-3, below Solaris 40
Note that I am not saying that the X4-3 is expensive for what it offers and I should say that even if the building of all mentioned boats is of very good quality, the X4-3 is the only one that is built using exclusively epoxy resins, while all the others use vynilester resins that even if epoxy-based do not offer the same superior characteristics, even if much better than normal polyester resins that are used in less expensive boats.
Like all of them, it has a vacuum-infused sandwich hull but uses post-cured epoxy construction with a foam core, biaxial E-glass skins and local E-glass unidirectional reinforcements. Structural bulkheads are of marine plywood in thicknesses between 12 and 20 mm (note that some of the competition use sandwich composite main bulkheads, which are a lighter, more expensive and better solution). It is the only one that uses a keel structure made of galvanized, high-strength steel frame, that is an integral part of the hull structure. The keel is an antimony hardened lead T-bulb bolted and glued to a cast iron fin.
Solaris 40
Also regarding price, we have to consider that what is offered as standard is a bit better than what is offered by the competition, but that should be checked case by case because different brands offer different standard equipment. The New X4-3 costs standard without taxes, at the factory, 385500 euros while a Solaris 40 and a 44 cost respectively 309000 and 343000€.
The truth is that personally, I would prefer as performance cruiser the Xp44, a much older model still in production, a much lighter and more powerful sailboat, more difficult to sail if sailed at full potential, but that can be sailed with a small jib mounted over a self-tacking rail, and even so be much faster than any of those boats.
Contrary to the X4-3, it is a "real" 43.6ft boat with an interior, that even if not so good as the one of the X4-3, is not far away in comfort and beauty and because it is part of a line that, unfortunately, X-yachts is discontinuing (they don't produce the Xp 38 anymore), is sold at a very interesting price, 375500€.
Note that I am not saying (by any means) that the Xp 44 is a better cruising sailboat than the X4-3, quite the contrary, most would find the X4-3 more suitable, but if you, like me, like to sail fast and sportively, than the Xp 44 is a better sailing boat, not to mention that it is much faster if you race now or then, not probably in compensated, where a better team is needed to sail the Xp44 to the handicap, but in realtime, leaving the X4-3, or even the X4-6 far behind.
Solaris 40
The funny thing is that even at this price they sell it much less than the X4-3, or the X4-6, which is only slightly bigger than the XP44 (44.3 to 43.6ft), much slower and 103000 € more expensive. My experience as a consultant informs me that even the ones that prefer light and fast performance cruisers, and don't mind much about the interior, don't consider it, because they find that the hull is outdated.
Well, as outdated as the one of the new J45 LOL. In fact, the objective reason is not the lack of performance of that type of hull, but because they don't find it "sexy", because it does not follow the last tendencies in what regards offshore contemporary racing design.
Does it make a difference? Sure, but minimal in performance if compared to displacement difference, B/D difference, or excessive beam for having a bigger interior, and in the market there is not a more interesting proposition in what regards all that and price.
The truth is that most that want a performance boat, more than wanting a truly fast boat, want a boat that looks like a very fast boat, and in between choosing speed and looks, they chose looks. What about you?
And I say incredible because it is not really a new boat, but a new version of the 8-year-old Dufour 310 and nevertheless it has deserved high praises from all nautical press. Yachting Monthly says about it "Impressive new small yacht", Yacht.de says: "Fresh ideas, amazing gadgets: "Dufour surprises with the announcement of a new entry-level model", Voile Magazine gives it "the 2022 Innovation Award".
It is really incredible that a remake of an older boat that was a success 8 years ago can generate so much praise, and it tells that Dufour is making something good in what regards creativity and also in what regards promotion and management of new models because the Dufour 32, compared to the older version, the 310 is a simplified and less expensive model even if with many gadgets, and a "fun" look.
The Dufour 310 was a very successful model and deserved an enthusiastic welcome from the press, generally acclaimed as being a small fast boat that looked and felt much bigger than what it really was, partially due to a two-wheel setup; it was fast and sailed very well, with the two rudders giving excellent control.
Well, so much for the two rudders that are now substituted by a single one and the two wheels by a tiller. The truth is that the boat didn't need two wheels (now optionally it can have one) but that has nothing to do with having two rudders or one, that has a lot to do with price, being the new solution much cheaper.
The two rudder solution is better for cruising because due to the necessary bigger length of a single rudder this one is necessarily more fragile to shocks (due to the size of the arm) and less reliable. Having two, even if one is destroyed, the boat remains maneuverable. The two rudder setup has disadvantages in regards to marina mobility, which doesn't seem very important in such a small boat.
The 310 comes standard with a self-tacking jib and this one too, but while the upwind sail area of the 310 was given with the self-tacking jib the one of the 32 is given with the larger genoa, and it looks it is much bigger due to that. It seems that to the press it was suggested that the considerably bigger sail area was due to a bigger mast, a mast further taken aft, a mast much more raked aft, and a mast without a backstay.
In the drawing (plan) it looks much more raked but looking at the boat sailing it looks just about the same as in the previous 310, which also did not have a backstay, and if we look at the size of both boats' mainsails we will see that the new one has only 0.5m2 more (34.0m2 to 33.5m2) and that is mostly due to a square head that was absent on the 310. So much about all other explanations.
The bigger sail area is due mostly to a bigger headsail and being the mast in the same place and with a similar height, the 5.2m2 sail area difference (22.0 to 18.8m2) seems the difference in area between a jib and a genoa, as a standard sail. And regarding that, we can see that the older 310 was sold standard with a jib on a self-tacking traveler but had a genoa track while the new boat comes without it, and only in the performance version offers a more complicated but effective 3D headsail control. Again, in the standard version, cheaper and with less control over the sail.
They also managed to convince reviewers that this boat was not only more powerful than the previous one, with more sail area, but also much lighter and much faster and therefore on Yachting World magazine the title of the review is "Sporty and Fun" while on the Yachting Monthly review ("Impressive new smaller yacht") they say that the new boat is 500kg lighter (11% of the displacement), and that is absurd taking into account that the boat is built the same way and the weight of the equipment that was taken or replaced:
Two wheels and two rudders for a tiller and one rudder set up, two winches less, substituted by a purchase system, a small genoa rail out, four small cabinets out, a traditional swimming platform substituted (that was an option) by an inflatable one, plus the weight in the new boat of an integrated bowsprit, on a 32ft boat it does not make for 500kg, not even close, and if we look at the difference of the given displacement between the two boats we will have a 40kg difference (4900 to 4940kg).
Probably that does not take into account the difference in weight between the two different swimming platforms but that difference should not be bigger than 30 or 40 kgs, so, even considering the boats equipped with those options, how can someone imagine a 500kg difference in weight when in reality it is obvious that it is less than 100kgs? Hard to believe!
So, instead of "sporty and fun" maybe we should say cheaper, and with innovative solutions, that are not necessarily better. Who would prefer a proper swimming platform, that increases the cockpit area and that has a ladder for coming out of the water to an inflated board, that will be hard to climb to, and will not provide added space? If someone wants a board like that and dispenses the swimming platform, it will be easy to find it on the market, cheaper than the price Dufour charges for it, not to mention that the boat looks ugly, sailing with that thing on the transom.
The running rigging intrudes the cockpit
Regarding sails, the absence of a genoa rail worsens sail performance (standard boat) and it will be needed a relatively expensive performance package with 3D control to improve it.
The solution of a tiller with a purchase system with a fixed point on the cockpit (an option on the 310) will provide better control of the main at the cost of a much bigger intrusion on the small cockpit, in what regards sailing the boat.
The running rigging leaves the cockpit free
Why was this not referred to by any of the press reviews? The two-wheel setup provided a cockpit free of intrusion, with everything being controlled by the two winches on the back of the boat and with the help of the self taking jib. Now if one wants to have a similar set up will not only have to buy, as an option, two winches that were standard on the previous version, as it will have one wheel, in place of two, restricting the access and the movement between the cockpit and the transom. Again a cheaper and less effective option in what regards cruising convenience.
Above the 32, below the 310. Note the number and dimensions of the cabinets
I prefer the purchase control system with a tiller, that is a more sporty option, but I bet that most that have bought the 310 ( and were many) would prefer the two-wheel option and the bigger cockpit comfort, so why not offer standard a cheaper tiller set up, maintaining the two rudders (that proved to be very effective on the 310) and offer also the two-wheel set up that proved to be very popular on the previous version? The only reason is that it would cost significantly more.
Regarding boat sail power, everything remains the same, the same hull, only 40kg less displacement and the same keel and ballast,1330kg for a cast iron L torpedo keel with 1.90m draft. The B/D is almost the same (27.1% to 26.9%) and that does not change anything significantly in what concerns stability.
Dufour 32
There are some great ideas on this version that could have been introduced on the older boat, being the more interesting the new integrated bowsprit, not only nicer but it will provide better performance with gennaker, the inflated sail bag (Still to see how resistant it will be) that seems an idea with great potential, and also the 3D control of the genoa, as a performance pack (but maintaining the genoa track on the standard version).
I like the idea of having a cockpit table that can lower and become the floor of the cockpit and that can also be used to create a longitudinal rest bed on the aft part of the boat, but I don't like the idea of taking away 4 saloon cabinets, even if it makes the space bigger and nicer. On such a small boat, if used for cruising, those cabinets are needed, especially because the ones over the galley are very simplified ones with little storage.
Dufour 310
It seems clear that at some point they wanted to do an interior with much more light and outside views and you can see that by the big black decorative band but, at some point, due to costs, they decided to maintain the small port hull of the 310. that now seems incongruous on the middle of what should have been a much bigger port hull.
Don't take me wrong, I would prefer this sailboat, hands down, over the Oceanis 30.1, it is a much better cruiser, faster, with a much bigger offshore potential. The Dufour 310 was a great little cruiser, one of the best in the market ( shares that distinction with the Hanse 315) and you can understand that reading what I said about it:
The point is that I consider that this version could have been a lot better, improving the previous version without turning that great little cruiser into a kind of hipster boat, losing in the way many great features. This boat could have been turned into a more sportive boat, as an option, without diminishing the great cruising potential of the previous boat.
And I didn't like how the nautical press absorbed the shipyard propaganda without any criticism, giving the idea that this is a new, faster, and much better, cruising boat than the previous version.
The fact is that the previous one was already a fast boat, that this one is not significantly faster (if the same sails are used), not 500kg lighter, as it was mentioned in a magazine, not with a mast brought aft, as it was said by another, but with a square-top mainsail, that could have also been mounted on the previous version, that had not a backstay to start with.
It pisses me also all those eulogistic references of a boat without a backstay as if a boat without a backstay was not only a simpler and cheaper solution, but a better solution in what regards performance sailing. it is not the case, racing boats have backstays.
Backstays are important for controlling the shape of the forward sail and give added security to the rig.
For allowing a bigger square-headed main you need to have two backstays instead of one and they are more complicated to use.
But if the backstay is eliminated to allow a bigger mainsail you don't lose only the possibility of better control over the frontal sail, you lose also the possibility of opening the mainsail in a big way while sailing downwind, and particularly in this case the spreaders are so much brought back that limit a lot that possibility, more than I ever saw in any other rig.
Even so, a very interesting sailboat at a comparatively low price, a price all these "simplifications" made possible, with the introduction of some innovative solutions that can make life at anchor more pleasant.
Also faster in standard configuration, coming with a genoa (instead of a jib) and with a square-top mainsail. The Dufour 32 costs standard at the shipyard 96 000 € without VAT a relatively low price for what the boat offers.
This size of cruisers, that 50 years were very popular have become more and more scarce, with some of the main factories not bothering to offer them, but even so there are on the market more seaworthy, better-built sailboats, but far away from the Dufours 32 cost, and that makes it a very interesting sailboat, offering a lot for the price.
