With a big genoa, I am sure the Saare is going to surprise a lot of sailors and I am sure it will sail fast and comfortably, leaving the HR well behind.
But this does not mean the HR is a slow boat, downwind or in a beam reach, with medium-high to high winds, on those conditions the HR will have a very good performance, being easier on the auto-pilot, sailing with less heel, less roll on the waves, and probably, because it is easier to handle on autopilot on those conditions, most will sail it faster than the Saare.
 |
On the HR 400 all the lines, including all sheets, except the
genoa, come to these clutches, on this, and on the other side. |
Upwind, on those conditions, the Saare will sail faster, closer to the wind, slamming less, even if with more heel. Under lighter winds, the Saare will always be faster, no matter the point of sail.
The Saare offers another option, a cutter rig, slightly more expensive, and less fast in most circumstances, but with an unmatched easiness and it is not even expensive at 6525 euros, including a Furlex 304s and two double clutches for sheets. I never saw a 41AC with a cutter rig and in a boat of this size it would make more sense a Solent rig, and I don't know if it is not that what they call a cutter rig.
In this case for simplifying the running rigging it would make sense to have the jib mounted in a self-tacking rail and a really big light genoa, or a reacher, mounted on the bowsprit.
To know what type of hull and type of boat will suit you better, it is up to you to know what are the conditions in which you sail most, and if sailing with some 6 or 7 more degrees of heel is, or isn't a problem. But one thing is for sure, you will have to use the engine more often on the HR, due to its worst performance in light winds.
Most of this was already said in the post about the comparison between the Saare 41CC and the HR40C, the central cockpit versions of these boats, which are also an interesting option, that can be seen here:
The real difference between the Aft cockpit version and the Center Cockpit has not to do mostly with the sailing performance, even if the Aft Cockpit offers a bit less windage, a more direct rudder connection, with a better feeling.
Curiously the CC version of the HR has a more easy-to-use main traveler and one that offers better main control, due to the traveler's position (aft the cockpit on the CC and over the cabin on the AC), and the point where the mainsheet is connected to the boom (at the end on the CC and in the middle on the AC).
The Saare offers, on both versions, equally efficient systems, both having the mainsheet to boom attachment point at the end of the boom. The traveler is, on the AC, forward to the wheel, and on the CC, aft the cockpit, over the cabin.
 |
The Saare has a bigger sprayhood and can be completely covered,
the HR leaves the wheels out and can be sailed with the cover, but
the cover is too big to be practical for sailing. |
The Saare can also be equipped standard with an arch, that will facilitate a bigger sprayhood, and a bigger bimini, being the mainsheet German rigged through two blocks on the arch. The solution is not so efficient as the one with the traveler near the wheel, but the short distance between the arch blocks and the boom mainsheet block, as well as the arch being substantially more aft than the traveler on the HR 400, will probably make it as effective as the HR solution, with a traveler over the cabin and much easier to use, because it dispenses a traveler.
Both boats use German rigging for the main. The Saare comes with 5 standard winches and the HR with 4, but while on all the photos I have seen from the HR, they have the standard 4 winches, on most photos of the Saare clients opted for having six, with two over the cabin, for reefing and other functions. 5 winches will be better than 4 (the winches are on both boats of similar dimensions), and they will make the use of clutches less needed.
I hate to have the sheets on clutches, instead of directly on the winches. If there is a sudden gust you would have to change the sheet, put the other one around the winch and open the clutch, to be able to depower the sail, while if you have all the sheets around the winches, it would be much faster and simpler.
 |
| First Saare, then HR. The difference in beam is huge. |
Not to mention that if you have all the sheets on winches and have electric winches, you can control everything at the touch of a button.
Both can be sailed easily from the cockpit, and the winches are correctly located, but the Saare offers, for the reason I explained above (number of winches), better and faster boat control, even more, because the traveler on the Saare is not only easier and faster to work with, but the mainsheet offers a better trimming due to the block on the boom being situated at the end of the boom, while on the HR is in the middle, due to the location of the traveler in each boat.
The Saare has a keel-steeped mast, or a deck-steeped (depending on the client's wishes) and the HR a deck-stepped. A keel-stepped mast is more resistant, but a deck-steeped mast allows for a better mast tunning in racing boast and allows for a lesser interior intrusion.
The Saare has a single deep rudder and the HR a twin rudder system. The first allows for easier maneuvering in marinas and (if you are experienced) to dispense an expensive bow thruster (about 7000 euros), while on the HR400 it makes sense to have one. The two rudders offer better reliability in case one is destroyed by Orcas, or by contact with a heavy object, and offer an advantage while med mooring, due to being less deep.
 |
Saare and HR hellming positions. The cockpit seats are about
the same size, but the cockpit is much wider on HR. |
The cockpit space on these two boats is much bigger than what is offered by the CC versions, but even so, they are very different, due to the difference in beam and the HR having all beam pulled back.
Due to the large transom, to offer a good seating whelming position, the HR has to have a two-wheel setup, and two steering posts, while on the Saare, to provide that, a single wheel is enough. The two-wheel setup allows also for an easier passage from the steering position, or from the quay, to the cockpit.
The bigger single wheel provides a better feeling and, in conjunction with the narrower transom, a more protected steering position at the wheel, with easier movement when the boat is deep-heeled. In regarding efficiency, it is more important the hull and rudder design, more than having a single or duo rudder, but, a boat with a big beam and a large transom, like the HR, would have needed a very deep single rudder, and that makes the double rudder a more reasonable option.
The smaller Saare transom allows for a less deep single rudder than it would be needed if the HR had one and that turns that option into a good one.
 |
Above, Saare saloon, below, HR. |
The cockpit living space is much wider on the HR 400 than on the Saare, and does not allow for a comfortable position with the boat heeled unless you have a 1.80m height, or more, otherwise, you will not be able to reach the other seat with the feet for support. That makes the permanent use of the HR removable cockpit table convenient. On the Saare medium-sized people will have no difficulty in sitting comfortably with the boat heeled, and the absence of a cockpit table will make sailing easier, with a better ability to move around.
The Saare comes with a standard foldable table, that is stored on the wheel pedestal, one that is smaller than the optional table provided by the HR.
In regards to outside storage, contrary to the CC versions, these two offer very good storage, both with a bow locker (bigger on Saare) and access through the cockpit seat, to a big interior storage compartment (bigger on HR).
.png) |
The difference in luminosity has to do with the way photos were taken, the
one on Sarre with closed curtains, not with a much less luminous interior. |
Both have another locker under the opposite cockpit seat, for the liferaft on the HR, and for other stuff on the Saare because Saare has a liferaft storage place on one of the deep lockers at the stern, with the liferaft being able to be extracted from the outside.
The HR offers an under-the-cockpit locker, less deep but of considerable size. Both offer much more outside storage than the CC versions and I find the outside storage space adapted for extensive cruising (two-cabin layout).
In the interior, these two boats, compared with the CC versions, offer also two cabins and two heads (the HR40 CC only offers one head) but while the aft cabin is a king-size one on the CC versions, on these it is a much smaller one. These ones offer much more interior storage and slightly smaller galleys, even if of good size.
But the much bigger beam, allows the HR 400 to have a bigger interior volume even if the Saare is longer. That results mainly in the HR having a bigger equipment and storage space aft, the Saare having a bigger sail locker at the bow, and the HR having a wider aft cabin for similar-sized galleys and not very differently sized heads.
 |
| Above Saare, below HR. |
The head that serves the bow cabin is slightly larger on the HR. Of course, the HR saloon is wider but I would say that does not count for anything and it can even give to Saare a better-proportioned look, seeming bigger than what it is.
The space for extra equipment is smaller on the Saare and not as well positioned because while on HR it is located behind the engine, on a tunnel, on the Saare it will be mixed with the storage space.
The storage compartment can be detailed and compartmented, but it diminishes the overall storage space. But I would say that the space on the Saare is enough, even if obviously HR comes ahead here. That's what Saare pays for having a better upwind and light wind sailing boat.
The biggest interior disadvantage of Saare is the less wide aft cabin where the shape of the transom makes it smaller aft. Saare proposes an intelligent solution to avoid this shortcoming, with the space occupied with two berths at different levels, the one to the hull higher.
 |
| Above, Saare aft cabin with a raised berth, below, HR aft cabin. |
That solution can look even better if the cockpit locker on that side is eliminated, with the space reverting to the interior. Also, a foldable rail should be added, to prevent the one that sleeps on the top berth to fall, when the boat is deep heeled.
Both things are easy to accomplish and the Saare offers a great degree of customization, much bigger than the one HR can propose. The Saare will remain with less outside storage, but if the storage space is well-detailed it will be enough for most, and with this solution, the aft cabin is a good and nice one.
In regard to detail the storage in the big locker I remember something that I saw once, I believe in a Jboat, and never saw replicated again: On the access to the deep storage space there was a large tray with space for the smaller stuff that is always needed and difficult to find in a big locker.
That tray could be taken away to access de deeper part of the storage "room" that could be accessed also from the interior.
That solution could be improved using a larger tray that moves sideways, mounted on rollers that could be locked while sailing, and could be slid to one side to allow access to the deeper part.
It will add costs but I believe that the improvement on the aft cabin would be so big, visually and in feeling, that it would be well-spent money.
Of course, it all depends on how much you value space feeling and I know most people value that a lot, but if it was for me I would want a solution that would make the big locker more usable from the outside, and I would want also the second locker under the other seat. I would value more the cockpit locker than the nicer cabin.
 |
| First, Saare bow cabin, directly above HR bow cabin. |
But I am part of the minority that, in what regards sleeping space (cabin), think that it is the comfort while sleeping, and functionality that matters, and I would be satisfied with just a rail, not to fall from the berth when the boat is heeled. In fact, that solution with two single berths not only provides more space than a single one, but it provides also better privacy and flexibility because the two that will occupy the space can be a couple, or not.
In the end, you will like either the Saare or the HR and it would not be small details like this one that will matter, but how comfortable and enjoyable you will find the interior. Both offer a very high-quality well-finished interior but with a clearly different flavor: slightly more luminous and more modern on the HR, more detailed and slightly more traditional on the Saare.
.jpg) |
Above and bellow, Saare: Main head and storage space |
I like the more detailed Saare approach regarding galley cabinets, which are simpler and not as nice on the HR. The superior detail is extensive to the saloon, with an optional cabinet (on the galley part that faces the saloon) dedicated to cups and a small, but very practical optional, refrigerator at the center of the saloon table.
If the bigger "windows" give more light on the HR, the ones on the Saare are all openable and provide better ventilation on hot days, if the port hulls on the HR are bigger and provide a better outside view, the much smaller ones on the Saare give the hull better integrity.
Both boats offer natural ventilation that will allow, on rainy days, to dispense forced mechanical ventilation, but the Saare system is better using the traditional system HR used to have, with big vents. while HR has smaller ones not profiled to catch the wind.
You can look at both boats in detail, inside and out on these 360ยบ views:
The Saare carries as tankage 330+100L water plus 310+100L diesel (100L optional).
The HR carries 520L water, 400L diesel. The Saare and HR share a Volvo Penta with 60HP. Regarding equipment both boats have a long list of optional, however, there are some considerable differences:
 |
Above, HR space for technical equipment
behind the engine, below, main head. |
The HR comes with a 3 blade fixed propeller, the Saare with a flex-o-fold foldable propeller. The HR comes with Dracon sails (a main and a small 105% genoa), both have steel windscreens with tempered glass and sprayhood, that on Saare is bigger and finishes in an arch.
Both come with some electronic instruments, the HR with Raymarine i50 Speed, i50 Depth i60 Wind, and the Saare with a Raymarine log, and echo sounder i70. Both come with hot water, the HR has 2 house lead batteries with a total of 240Ah, Saare with 2 house AGM batteries with a total of 330Ah.
Oddly, on HR the electric anchor windlass is optional, while it is not only standard on Saare, as it comes with a 20kg stainless steel anchor and some chain and rope. Also standard on Saare and optional on the HR: the cockpit table, the Flexiteek side decks and coach roof, the diesel heater (Eberspacher with outlets in all cabins, saloon and heads), shore power connection, charger, inverter, and one more electrical winch.
The value of optional equipment offered by Saare is almost 4 times bigger than the value of the optional equipment offered by HR, a difference of about 60 000 euros, so, even if not equipped standard with sails as the HR, the Saare is better equipped, as a standard boat, and both are better equipped than mass production boats.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
