Two or three decades ago 40ft footers were the main size in most brands, the bestsellers, and the size most wanted, the yachts most dreamed about. Now all those dreams moved to bigger sizes, as well as the sizes of boats that sell more, and to a point that today (mostly in Europe) a 40ft cruiser is considered a modestly sized cruiser yacht, and I can tell you that while I am cruising, most yachts I see cruising are way bigger, and very rarely smaller.
Maybe that explains why it took so long for Grand Soleil to substitute the old 39 (2011), from the performance line. On the sizes over, the previous 43 was from 2012 and was replaced for a 44 in 2020. The 47 that was from 2015 was replaced in 2018 by the 48. This shows what are the shipyard priorities that have to do with demand and it is especially meaningful because the yacht this one substitutes, the 39, designed by Maletto was never a very successful boat, neither as a cruiser nor a racer and didn't sell well.
The Previous mode, Grand Soleil 39
The GS 39 is a nice design even if I never quite liked the transom, but as a cruiser, for the size, it offered a smallish interior due to a beam smaller than average (3.70m) and it was reported to be a bit nervous on the steering wheel (for cruising), maybe due to the transom design that did not offer a gradual increase in hull form stability with heel.
Regarding racing, despite a 3rd place in the 2014 European ORC championship, the GS39 was not a popular boat, and the offshore racing performance was not as good as the inshore one, in traditional around the cans regattas and they never raced any of the classic big offshore regattas.
The Grand Soleil 40 has a very different transom design
This one, like all the new generation Grand Soleils has one thing in common if compared with the previous models: they are all beamier boats. The 39 had a 3.70m beam, now the 40 has 4.07m, the 43 had 4.25m, now the 44 has 4.30m, the 47 had 4.25m, the 48 has 4,50m.
It is not by accident but follows the modern tendency for always beamier boats with bigger interiors, a tendency that is not so marked in performance cruisers, but that is noticeable even there.
In all of them, it is on the 40 that the increase in beam is more noticeable, partly because the 39 was less beamy than the average, but the fact is that a 4.07m beam on an 11.90m hull length, makes for a beamy performance cruiser. For instance, the Italia 11.98 has a 3.98m beam, the Salona 41 3.84m, the Arcona 415 3.90m, the JPK 11.80 3.93m, the X4.0 3.81m, the J122 3.63m, the Elan E5 3.87m, and even the JPK 39, that is not a cruiser-racer, has less beam, with 3.98m.
Among cruiser-racers with more or less overall good performance, only the Solaris 40 has more beam, with 4.10m, but the Solaris is not really a cruiser-racer and besides even if most boats are supposedly 40ft boats (by the name), the Solaris is, in fact, a 40.6ft boat while the GS is a 39.0ft boat.
Of course, I am talking about performance yachts with a balanced performance (upwind, beam reaching, and downwind) because if we look at fast boats maximized for downwind and beam reaching, like the Pogo 12.50 (40.0ft), we can see they are beamier, the Pogo with a huge 4.5m beam, the Pogo 44 comparatively less beamy with the same beam for a bigger yacht (42ft length).
If we look at slower mass production boats, like the Oceanis 40.1 (39.3ft), we will see that not only the Oceanis ( 4.18m beam) but most of about the same length, are considerable beamier (Hanse, Dufour, Bavaria) for offering a bigger interior space (at the cost of upwind and light wind performance).
First Gs39, above, GS40
Comparing the GS 40 model with the previous model, we will see that curiously the old 39 (12.20 m) is longer than the new 40 (11.90 m), and that is quite odd and says a lot about the confusion with misleading names based on boat sizes that do not correspond to the hull length. And it is not only Grand Soleil, but most brands, with for instance X-Yachts calling X4-0 to a 37.7ft boat or Pogo calling 44 to a 42.0ft boat. RCD should stipulate that when a length is used to name a boat the name should have correspondence to a big disparity between the length the name indicates, and the real yacht size.
Regarding beam, the 39 is a much narrower boat, with a 3.70m beam, to 4.07m on the 40. Regarding B/D, the 39 has 33.3% on an L bulbed keel with a 2.40m draft. The new 40 has the same 33.3% B/D, with the same draft (2.40m), but probably on a T torpedo keel. Both boats have a very close displacement, 7350kg for the 39 and 7500kg for the new 40.
This means that the new 40 is a more powerful boat, stiffer and that will be fast while beam reaching and downwind sailing, out of very light winds. Probably the 39 will be faster upwind and in light wind but overall, in a balanced track with varied winds from all directions, the 40 will be faster.
First the GS39, then the GS40
Sure, the 40 will develop more drag, but the extra stiffness allows it to carry considerably more sail area upwind (82m2 to 95m2) and that will be enough to more than compensate for the extra drag.
However, those 95m2 are optional, and the standard sail area is only 84m2. With only 2m2 of sail area (in the standard version) I doubt the 40, in low medium winds will be faster. Only with stronger winds, when the 39 needs to reef, and the 40 can continue with full sail area, the 40 will be faster.
Above GS39, below GS40
It may be pointed out that the 40, notwithstanding being much beamier, has fine entries and that the transom, even if with almost all beam aft, has a design that does not increase drag significantly at a medium heeling angle, being the chine high and weak.
It will offer a progressive increase in hull form stability with heeling, which will more than compensate for drag increase.
But sailing, especially in what regards cruising is not only about speed, and I have no doubt that the 40 will be an easier and more comfortable boat to sail than the GS39, heeling less, with more directional stability, and easier to sail fast downwind, with strong winds, at planning speeds.
In regards to racing, being the 40 designed by Matteo Polli, a specialist in ORC with several world titles, I have few doubts that it will be competitive, if with all options that contribute to making it faster. They call it race version, but in fact, only with all those extras, the 40 will be a cruiser-racer.
Faster, easier to sail and with a bigger cruising interior, the 40 is a better design than the 39, even if I would like it to be even faster, losing some beam and weight and a biggerB/D, I would say 6500kg for a 3.90 beam and a 40-45%B/D. But of course, that would make it more expensive and with a smaller interior and that would mean a faster boat, but one that would sell less and one that in handicap racing could be less competitive.
This boat, like all the others from the GS performance series, has the advantage to upgrade from the standard simplified standing rigging to a more complex one (4 to 6 winches) that will allow a better sail control, a thing that starts to be impossible in several performances cruisers from other brands, because the standard rigging cannot be modified.
We can complain that in the basic and cheaper version the standing rigging is too simplified and besides 4 winches (instead of 6) it has no boom traveler, no genoa traveler, but if you don't want to spend time tuning correctly the sails, you can enjoy a fast hull, with an easy and very simplified running rigging, without paying for more expensive sail hardware.
The cruising layout explores well the increase in interior volume, the anchor locker is big and will have space for some fenders and that allows for a good forward cabin, with a head, two relatively big aft cabins, served by another head, leaving enough space in the aft part of the hull for a large storage compartment accessed by the cockpit.
But for the ones that want more storage space, it seems there is not a two-cabin version and what is proposed is a three-cabin version with the forward head turned into a storage space, a space that will not be very useful due to the location and shape, except to carry a gennaker.
I don't like the saloon and galley interior design, not so much in what regards functionality, but in what concerns style. But maybe the real thing looks better than the drawings. When it is on the water we will look at it better, and compare it to the available options. For now, not even the price has been released.
When it is on the water and after a visit, I will make a comparison with the X4-0 and the Solaris 40, which seem to be the two main market competitors.
Arcona is known to produce very well-built performance cruisers with a traditional flavor being all yachts designed by Stefan Qviberg, who unfortunately passed away a few years ago. I was very curious about the designer that would succeed Stefan, but I confess that I was not expecting it to be Niels Jeppesen, the founder and designer of X-Yachts.
Very similar in design to the X5-6
Not because he is not an excellent designer but because of his connection to X-Yachts. I cannot see a more fit successor and this is great for Arcona and to all who like performance cruisers. Jeppesen sold the shares he had on X-Yacht company and will be working with Arcona as a designer, and he says that he has been given more freedom to design the new Arcona than what he was allowed on X-Yachts, and that is also wonderful news, because Niels likes fast sailing boats, and certainly knows what he is doing.
I looked with anticipation at the images and data about the new 50 to try to understand what type of boat the new Arcona will be and.... it was not difficult, it looks like a smaller X5-6, the last yacht he designed for X-Yachts.
I would have expected a different boat, closer to the XP line than to the X line, and not so similar to the X5-6. And when I am saying it looks like, I mean not only the looks, that are really close to the point of Arcona looking like an X-Yacht, but to the type of boat and boat dimensions.
I am not sure I like the way Arcona goes because it means Arcona is changing from traditional cruiser-racers to modern performance cruisers: slower, less sportive, beamier boats with a bigger cruising interior. I would say the other Arcona are in between the XP and X lines, closer to XP while this one could easily be a new X-yacht from the X line.
The drawings show a beamier boat than the other Arconas, similar in beam to the X line of hulls, very similar to the X5-6 in transom design, with 4 electric winches aft, near the helmsman, an electric furling boom, and an electric mainsheet traveler (that will be an expensive option). Like the X yacht, it can have an optional inner stay for having two fixed frontal sails, the smaller one on an auto-tack system with a rail, the genoa on a traveler.
A luxury performance cruiser that depends on a generator for working and pointed to fast relaxed cruising. The interior is also similar (but smaller) to the one of the X5-6, which is a bigger yacht, but an interior bigger than the one of the X4-9, which is closer in size.
Arcona 50
The main difference to the X5-6 (besides size) is that the X5-6 offers in all layouts a forward crew cabin, while the 50 offers a sail locker on all layouts.
There is another difference and one that is positive for a cruising boat: the Arcona 50 offers a twin rudder set-up, that is advantageous in what regards reliability (in the case one is broken with a shock with a submerged heavy object) and it is better for Med type of berthing, because near the quay many times the water is less deep than some meters away, and a deep rudder represents a liability if it hits the bottom sailing backward.
X 5-6
A twin rudder set-up has the disadvantage of lesser maneuverability in marinas, but this type of boat has always a bow thruster so that should not be a problem.
The Arcona 50 offers a dinghy garage, but if it is used for that finality the cockpit storage space for cruising stuff is limited. Also, the central upper opening to access the dinghy garage is small, if the space is used for storage, and it will be difficult to reach anything stored laterally unless the transom is open.
Unlike the other Arcona, this one does not have a cockpit table that disappears into the cockpit floor, and it is easy to store and deploy. A pity, because that was a great feature, a trademark from Arcona, that allowed for a clean cockpit for sailing and a very nice cockpit table when required.
Regarding dimensions, it is difficult to know the size of the boat because they don't give the hull length, only LOA (14.99m) and this boat seems to have an integrated bowsprit, that can be an option, and if that is the case the Hull Length will be the same as the LOA.
And in fact, the 14.99 LOA seems to be the HL, if we take into consideration the announced13.98m LWL. The X5-6 has 14.94m LWL (16.58m HL), the XP50 LWL is 13.31m (14.99m HL), the X4-9 13.58m LWL (14.50m HL) and the Arcona 465 13.25m LWL (14.09 HL).
The Arcona 50 has a 4.60m beam that compares to 4.89m on the bigger X5-6, with 4.49m on the smaller X4-9, 4.43m on the XP50 and 4.24m on the Arcona 465. Regarding displacement, they don't give it yet, but probably it will be around 14500kg, while the X5-6 displaces 18800kg, the X4-9 12900kg, the XP50 13600kg and the Arcona 465 only 9550kg (the 465 is carbon made).
Regarding B/D and draft the Arcona 50 (considering 14500kg displacement) will have 46.9%B/D for a 2.4m draft, the X5-6 has 38.3% with a 2.9m draft, the X4-9 has 42.5% for a 2.40m draft, the XP50 has a 41.2%B/D for a 2.65m draft and the Arcona 465 has 39.8% on a 2.50m draft.
We can see that Niels Jeppesen is one of the few who designs cruising boats with a high B/D ratio, and that the new Arcona 50 will not be an exception. Not surprisingly the XP50, if we consider the draft, is the one with a proportionally bigger B/D, but in this case the difference in B/D between the faster and slower X-Yachts is not big, contrary to what happens in most brands.
It is worth also mentioning that the XP50 and the Arcona 465, the faster boats, are also the narrower but again it may be pointed out that the increase in beam (for having a bigger interior) on the slower boats is not comparable to the increase in beam on many other cruising boats, even performance cruisers.
Jeppesen is one of the few designers that seems to refuse the modern tendency for hugely beamy boats at the cost of sail performance. Just for comparison purposes (with the Arcona 50) let me remind you that the new Hanse 460 was 1.12m less long but had 19cm more beam.
They give the weight of the ballast (6800kg) but not yet the displacement, but I am sure that this yacht is going to have a large B/D, and maybe the difference for the X-yachts (more B/D) has to do with those having a T keel and Arcona maintaining an L keel ( they don't give information about the type of keel).
Like X-yachts, Arcona has a high quality of building and the two companies use similar building methods, having as boat structure a steel grid. They use sandwich composites, having foam as core, infusion methods and the main difference seems to be the use of epoxy resin by X-Yacht and vinylester by Arcona. Vynilester is not as good as epoxy, but it is better than what is used by most brands, and similar to what is used in most top-quality brands.
The interior of Arcona yachts is a high-quality one, slightly more classical than the one of X-yachts, but it is possible that this yacht's interior will have a more modern design. The Arcona 50 will have as competition mainly the X line of X-Yachts, Solaris the LC line of Grand Soleil as well as the Swan 48, the brands that produce this type of performance cruisers, oriented for easy sailing.
As more sportive alternatives, but still, with a high-quality cruising interior, we will have the X-Yachts XP line, the Italia yachts, GS line from Grand Soleil, ICE yachts, or Mylius. If one wants to sail in a sportive way, with a better sailing performance, with or without racing the boat, the Arcona 465 or the correspondent yachts of these brands, will be a more interesting alternative.
Understandably Arcona turned to the type of boats that are selling better in this segment, performance cruisers, not really cruiser-racers, the type of boat Arcona used to produce, even if with very good quality cruising interiors. This is the first one of a different type. I am a bit disappointed with the turn to more sedate sailboats, but I hope that this change will not be generalized to all Arconas, even if I don't believe it.
If this boat will be a success, or not, will depend basically on the price at which it will be proposed and on the interior design, which, like the price, has not yet been made public. I hope it will be a success because Arcona, as a brand, really deserves it.
If you consider buying a 45/50ft cruising performance yacht with similar characteristics to Solaris or X-Yachts X line, then this one deserves to be included in the selection. If you are looking for a very fast cruising boat with a great cruising interior, and one that can be used also for racing and want an Arcona, then look instead at the slightly smaller Arcona 465.
If you like the article and want to contribute to the continuation of this blog, please click on some of the ads, the only way I can have some compensation for the effort.
As usual, let's take a look at how different types of boats and hulls performed on this race to contribute to a better understanding of what makes a sailboat fast on an offshore race. This one has very little upwind sailing, it is almost all sailed downwind and beam reaching. I believe that it would be more interesting if the design of the route in between the Islands gave a more balanced sailing in what regards wind directions, but that's what it is, and here is well taken into consideration that gentlemen don't sail to windward. LOL
Skorpios, Swan 125
This year the conditions were perfect, mostly between 11 and 15kn, conditions that lead to a new race record in multihull and a close call in monohull. As usual, the Mod 70 trimarans were much faster than any monohull and two of them finished almost together, the Argos beating Maserati by 2 minutes....but with Maserati winning in handicap. Odd, when the Mod 70 are supposed to be a One class.
This time the big Russian Swan 125 Skorpios beat the Australian Comanche, gaining points as the fastest monohull, a title that for many years belonged to Comanche. The third was Leopard, but far away from these two, which have very similar performance, even if the Swan is considerably bigger.
PAC 52 Warrior Won
In handicap, the Comanche beat Skorpios and finished 2nd, behind a PAC52, "Warrior won", that in elapsed time took more 17 hours than Comanche, while Comanche took more 12 hours than the faster trimaran.
If we take into consideration the difference in size and the good TP52 performance in wind balanced races, like the Middle sea Race or the World ORC championship, it is easy to understand that this box rule gave origin to what is probably the fastest all-around type of hull, the one that you should take as a reference when trying to know how fast a performance cruiser is in real-time , or a cruiser-racer is.
"Warrior Won" is just a slightly modified TP52, with a bit more draft and a slightly bigger mast, and a 100kg lighter engine. In California, they tried to make a new class, the PAC 52, based on TP 52 hulls, but more turned to offshore racing. It seems that the class ended a short time after beginning and the links for the new class, and for the class' rules are no more online.
I believe the PAC52 class was not a good idea. Why a new class using the same hull, just for having boats that have very similar performances to TP52, that are also used in offshore races? It would make more sense to modify TP52 rule to allow for boats more suited, or comfortable, for offshore work, without diminishing the size or potential of one of the most successful one-class series, the TP52.
While the PAC52 as a one-class was a miss fire, the TP52 series continues successfully now with 23 yachts competing in this year's Super Series and many TP52 racing successfully in major IRC races or on the world ORC championship. Anyway, in what regards type and shape of the hull and ballast the differences are almost inexistent.
In this race, the PAC52 winner in IRC was not much slower than the VOR 65 and VOR 70 and that says how fast a TP 52 can be, taking into consideration the difference in size, and the fact they have not a canting keel, nor water ballasts, like the VOR65 or VOR 70.
TS5/ORC50 Guyader Saveol
It is also interesting to point out that 3 of these based TP52 were faster than the fastest catamaran, beating the two 50ft cats that were racing, the TS5 and the ORC50, even if not by much.
Typically a TP52 has the maximum allowed beam, or close to it, and the max ballast (or close) and that means for a 15.85m boat, a 4.42m beam and a lead torpedo of 3800kg for a total displacement not lower than 6975kg. If all the others are close to the limit normally the average displacement is a bit bigger, around 7.5T, due to the difficulty of building a boat with the minimum displacement and the maximum ballast.
Mylius 60 Lady First III, teak deck and all
This means a boat with a B/D of a bit over 50% and an L/B (length/beam) of 3.56. The ones that believe that very beamy boats with a low B/D, like the new Hanse 460 can be fast, believe in miracles. The Hanse notwithstanding being much smaller (13.87) is already much beamier (4.79) and with a much lower B/D (26.7% to +50%).
The ballast is needed to give a goop performance upwind and also beam reaching, without having a hull too beamy (more drag), one that would have a bad performance upwind. Even on the IMOCA, which are maximized for downwind racing and therefore beamier, to save weight in ballast at the cost of upwind performance, the B/D is around 38% but you have to take into account that the draft is much bigger than the one of a TP 52 (4.50m to 3.20m) and that the IMOCA have big liquid ballasts.
Above, Mylius 60, below, Hanse 460
So, when someone tries to "sell" you a performance boat with a relatively low draft and a relatively low B/D, "don't buy it", and understand that if that boat is fast, it can only be in handicap, not over the water, even if in light winds less ballast can be in some cases an advantage, especially when we are talking of a heavy sailboat.
I am not comparing a TP52 with a Hanse 460, just explaining what makes a sailboat fast and what makes a sailboat slow. Ok, you would say that it is evident, but I am insisting on this because when I said, on the post about the new fat 460 Hanse, that, with less B/D, with much more beam (2.90 L/B) and heavier, the new model would be slower than the previous one, many did not believe and the post comments showed that, based on the polar speeds of both boats published by the brand.
Besides, the previous Hanse was designed by Judel/Vrolich, the designer of the boat that won this race, and the designer of many great TP52, while the 460 is designed by a NA without racing pedigree and known for designing boats with a small B/D (Amel 50, Waukiez 42PS).
Back to the race, the first cruiser-racers to arrive were the two mentioned cats, that were closely followed by the first monohull cruiser-racer, a Myliys 60, that contrary to the cats has a luxurious interior, beating the JP54, a more radical cruiser-racer with a canting keel and a beamier hull, more maximized for downwind sailing ( a kind of smaller MOCA adapted for cruising).
Mylius 60 CK interior
The Mylius 60 has the same L/B (length to beam) as the PAC52 (3.56) and even if made of carbon, due to the cruising interior,it is much heavier than the PAC 52 (D/L) and it has a smaller B/D, that at 38.5% is still a big one for a performance cruiser if we consider the 3.0m draft and a torpedo keel.
This Mylius 60 that was racing is not the fastest version, they have a new more powerful version with a canting keel (60 CK) and if this one is already a very fast sailboat we can only imagine the performance of the new one, that is already on the water and still with a luxurious interior, even if this time a lighter one. You can see it on the post cover.
The first 40class racer, a Cape 40
Here, a post about the smaller but no less beautiful Mylius 50:
Racing with very suitable conditions and wind direction, the Class 40 were very fast, especially the two first, also fast was the ICE 52, a performance cruiser that arrived close after the 3rd and 4th Class40. A post about the ICE 52 here:
Super fast, were the two JPK 11.80, racing in conditions that would not suit them (compared to the 40class racers), the two first yachts with less than 40ft to arrive. They battled all the race long, winning Sunrise (the winner of Fastnet and the one that should have won the Middle Sea Race) by very little over Dawn Threader.
ICE 52, above and below
A Class 40 typically has a 12.19m length, about a 4.45m beam and displaces only 4500kg. That makes it a very beamy boat with a 2.74 L/B, but contrary to the Hanse, also a very beamy boat, the Class40, has a favorable drag-to-power relationship and allows it to be very fast, especially downwind and beam reaching. Not so fast upwind, especially with waves, that increase wave drag.
The sail power (RM) is huge on a 40class racer due to a big hull form stability, big ballast tanks (750L per side), more or less 44%B/D on a 3.00m torpedo keel. The Hanse has a 26.7%B/D on a 2.25m bulbed iron keel and no water tanks. Looking at a beamy boat and thinking it will be fast because IMOCA and Class 40 are fast makes no sense, without looking and comparing the way those boats overcome the extra drag a beamy hull brings, to have a favorable Drag/Ratio relationship.
Ice 52 interior
The JPK 11.80, smaller than the 40class racer and with a cruising interior, that was here not as fast as the fastest 40class (but faster than several) and faster than the two Pogo 12.50, is a very different sail boat, a cruiser-racer with a not so good downwind and beam reaching performance, but with an upwind better one.
It has an 11.80m HL, 3.95m beam (3.0 L/B), it is considerably heavier than the 40class (5950kg), having more ballast, but on a less efficient keel (2.34m draft), with a 44.4%B/D. The JPK 11.80 is probably today the best all-around IRC cruiser-racer of this size. An impressive performance here and even better on the Fastnet and on the Middle Sea Race (a winner in IRC on those).
At this point many would want to know why the best 40Class racers are faster than the JPK 11.80, while the fastest Pogo 12.50 is much slower, even on a race that suits it (and not the JPK), and why is it possible to a J122e to have almost the same performance as a Pogo 12.50 when Pogo has a 40class hull (literally).
The Pogo 12.50 hull is from one of the previous Pogo 40class racers, but the main difference is the lack of 750L water ballast, 1000kg more displacement, and even if with about the same ballast (2000kg), a much less effective one, due to a big difference in draft, 2.2m to 3.0m (with similar type keels). The extra displacement gives it a smaller 36.4%B/D (about 44% on a class 40), but that difference would be much bigger if the two boats had the same draft.
JPK 11.80 interior
I should point out that obviously there is also a bigger mast, bigger sail area, a backstay, but all that is only possible because the Class 40 has a much bigger RM, and therefore is able to carry much more sail. I am choosing not to look at the sail areas on this post but to the relation between RM and drag that, in fact, is much more important than looking at sail areas because sail areas would be the ones possible with a given RM.
What makes it possible for a Class 40 to be a ton lighter than a Pogo 12.50 has to do with the boat typology: Class 40 is a racer, with racing accommodations, the Pogo 12.50 is a cruiser-racer with a cruising interior and in this similar to the JPK 11.80 and the J122e, even if regarding those cruising accommodations there are differences in quality and cruising suitability, being the ones from the Pogo and JPK comparable (even if very distinct) and those of the J122e of better quality and probably heavier.
Pogo 12.50 Hermes
Everything in a 40class racer has to do with performance, including the big volume occupied by ballast water tanks, while even if performance is the main drive on the JPK 11.80 design, it is not the only one and the type of sail performance that is desired is different.
While a Class 40 is designed to have the best performance on trade winds, the JPK 10.80 is designed to have a more balanced wind performance, with a good performance on the trade winds, but a better performance in races with a similar balance between upwind, beam reaching and downwind sailing and also designed to perform well in IRC or ORC racing.
Pogo 12.50 interior
To explain the superb performance of the J122e is more difficult and this boat never ceases to impress me. Two of them were racing here in wind conditions that were far from ideal for this type of hull and even so finished very close to the first Pogo 12.50 leaving the other behind (as well as some Class40) and racing at about the same speed as two J121, that are designed much more as racers, than the J122e, that is a cruiser-racer with a great and comfortable cruising interior.
So, how is this possible?: The J122e, a heavier sailboat, with a not very different B/D, with a lot less form stability, in a race with very little upwind sailing, to have almost the same performance as a Pogo 12.50, and worse than the one of a JPK 11.80? Well, it could happen that the Pogos were badly sailed, but if some excuse can be found for the 2nd one (2hand sailed), the first one was Hermes, a sailboat that is extensively raced (has a racing backstay) and has a good crew.
Juno, the fastest J122e in a coastal race
The J122e has the same length as the Class 40, much heavier (even heavier than the JPK 11.80) displacing 6740kg, it has less ballast than the JPK and less draft, even if it has a bulbed keel (versus a fin one), but it has a sleeker hull, with a 3.63 beam, an L/B of only 3.34 and a 37.8%B/D. Let me explain that bigger yachts tend to have a bigger L/B (that means less beam) and that the J122e is quite a narrow sailboat by today's parameters and the reason it sails so well, and it is fast, has to do with the relation between sail power and drag (less sail power but also less drag).
Many would say that the J122e has an old-designed hull, and if we look at it in fact it looks like a hull designed 15 years ago (and in fact, it was designed in 2007), but how to explain the boat to be so fast on the water and faster than several J121, that are more recent (2018), from the racing line, and apparently have a more modern hull?
I would love to see the J122e slightly modified, with a 2.50m draft and a torpedo keel, with the same ballast, a slightly more modern bow to increase LWL and a slightly modified stern that maintained the present hull characteristics but increase substantially hull form stability with stronger winds and at a heel angle just over 20ยบ, or so.
Even so, looking at the market, the J122e is among the boats I prefer among 40ft performance cruisers and it is a pity sales, and desirability by many sailors, are not in correspondence with the way this boat sails. I hope Jboats will do something about it soon, presenting a strongly based new model that can change this situation, because if a boat deserves to be more popular among the ones that like performance cruising mixed with some racing, thisir the one. A nice post about Juno, the fastest J122e on this race, and its family crew:
However, I don't want to give the idea that narrowboats, like the J122e are the best solution for overall fast boats. The JPK 11.80 and the TP52 are much beamier. I have talked about the importance of the Drag/Power relation, but it does not tell the whole story and that is why the old America's Cup monohull, very narrow with a huge ballast and draft was not the fastest of the monohulls with that size.
Hull design, besides drag, has importance in what regards the easiness a boat can plan downwind and the wind speed that is needed for that to happen, and narrowboats go too deep in the water to make that happen easily. So the ability to plan (or foil) is another factor, but one that many times have been overvalued, but that it is a real one. Many have also the wrong idea that boats like Pogo are planing boats and that boats like the JPK 10.10/10.30 or the J122e are not and that is not true even if the wind needed is slightly less on the Pogo type of sailboats.
Look for instance at the Ocean Race Europe, where the old VOR65 beat clearly all the newer IMOCA in a race with mixed wings. I believe it will not be the case in the Circumnavigation race where more strong and downwind winds will be met. In the video below you can look at how different types of hulls plan, including the J122 that won that race overall (IRC).
Jangada, JPK 10.10
Also very impressive the Small JPK 10.10 Jangada that arrived not far from the other Pogo 12.50 (both 2handed) that arrived slightly ahead of a Neal 47 trimaran and ahead of all First 40 (40 and 40.7 with a full crew). Note that what impresses me is not the IRC classification, where for instance the first Pogo 12.50 (that sailed very fast) was only 40th, the fastest J122, 26th, the JPK10.10, 25th and the faster JPK 11.80, 18th, but their performance regarding the type of boat and size.
A word for the 2 handed race, that here, contrary to Europe, does not have many adepts. There were only two boats racing, the JPK 10.10 and the 2nd Pogo 12.50. Both finished (congratulations), the Pogo without surprise was faster on the water, and the smaller JPK 10.10, was faster in handicap.
JPK 10.30
About the best and fastest boats for 2handed racing, some posts:
Jangada, Richard Palmer JPK 10.10, with already some years (the current model is the JPK 10.30) sailed always in duo, has already a big racing pedigree having not only won many times the 2handed class, but overall the 2019 RORC Transatlantic Race. Below, on this year's race where it won the 2handed class.
And a final request: this type of posts are less popular on the media but give me much more work and time. Many asked me about a way to contribute to support my work, but I have opted for not to do it. However, if you like the post I ask you to click on the ads because only when somebody clicks them do I receive some cents. On this one and in other posts you like. I would appreciate that and you would contribute to the continuity of this blog.
