BRAND NEW HANSE 410 COMPARED WITH ALL THE COMPETITION

                                                                                                                                                                                             Hanse 410

Main market cruising boats are becoming more and more alike in regard to hull design, and the Hanse 410 is no exception. Of course, there is a good reason for that: they are all trying to build the ideal cruiser sailboat, the one that not only most cruisers desire, but also the one the cruiser charter market wants, for maximizing profits.

Hanse 410

I hear many saying that these boats are designed for the charter market, as if what most cruisers want is a cruiser with different characteristics, but out of the option of two cabins at the bow (instead of a bigger one) that is just not true.

Note that I am talking about what most cruisers want, and not about what all cruisers want. Today, with maintenance boat prices and maintenance costs skyrocketing, most who buy new boats are people who are retiring and want to spend some months in a year cruising, or people who are almost retiring and buy a boat some years before to learn the ropes better and to prepare for the greatest adventure of their lives, that for most is cruising in the Med, or in smaller numbers, in the Baltic. Sure, some will buy a boat for a bigger adventure, to cross Oceans, or for a circumnavigation, but they are very few if compared with the first ones.

Hanse 410

I asked a charter company about the annual maintenance costs of a new Pogo 36 and the cost, including the boat in the water in a Greek marina, was well over 20 000 euros. Of course, the maintenance price is not calculated for a single year, but for 6 or 7 years, with the total cost divided by the number of years.

Most that have a boat pay less than that, but either they don't have the boat in mint condition, or they do a big part of the work, but for that you need time, time you don't have if you are still working.

Hanse 410

The increasing costs of having a sailboat is the real reason why the charter market is growing so fast: with a bit over 20 000 euros you can charter an almost new boat for 3 or 4 weeks, and you can do that with your family and a friend's family and share the costs. Anyway, if you work you don't have more than 4 weeks holiday and I doubt that most want to spend all of them in a boat.

Diminishing the costs of the charter by allowing a maximum number of cabins, berths, and heads is one of the main drives of modern cruising boat design. To understand the others you have to understand the cruising needs of most who are retiring and want a boat to cruise in the spring and summer, or even to live aboard permanently.

Oceanis 40.1

Regarding that, it is good to remember that 20 years ago it was easy to retire with a full pension at 55 years of age, after having worked 35 years. Today the average retirement age is 65 (going to 69) and in most cases, there is no possibility of retiring with less than 40 years of work. The average retirement age is now at least 5 to 10 years later than some years back, so these boats are designed to be sailed by sailors 60 years of age or over.

Oceanis 40.1

Few of those who want to spend their retirement days in a sailboat are passionate sailors, and neither they are really experienced sailors. Sailing is for most not a sport but a way to get the cruising boat going from one place to another spending less money. 

For many their experience comes mostly from occasionally chartering, and the wives rarely have any experience, so, another main design drive has to be simplicity in regards to sailing, and there is nothing simpler than motoring.

So, all these boats have, at least, as a not expensive option, a powerful engine, and they are sold almost all with that option. The Hanse 410 comes with an optional 56 HP engine and a standard 39 HP, that does not have the power to make it a motor sailor. I bet more than 90% will have the boat with the bigger engine. The smaller one is there only to lower the standard boat price.

Looking at the competition, the Oceanis 40.1 offers a standard engine with 45hp that would be enough even to motor sail, the Bavaria C42 comes with a 40hp engine and an option for 57hp, the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 410 comes with a 40hp engine and an option for 45hp, the Dufour 41 comes with a 50hp engine and an optional 60hp engine.

Bavaria C42

Oceanis, Jeanneau, and Dufour will not need to upgrade the engine while both Bavaria and Hanse will be better with the more powerful engine. The needed power has to do with boat displacement and beam. Lighter boats with less beam don't need as much power as beamier and heavier boats and that is why 40hp is alright for the Jeanneau, but short for the Hanse or the Bavaria.

Diesel tankage has also to do with engine power: more power more consumption, at least if the cruising speed is maintained at optimal speed versus autonomy. With a bigger engine, the optimal speed will be a bit higher and if with a smaller engine we opt for the higher optimal cruising speed of the bigger engine, then the consumption can be not very different, on the bigger and smaller engines.

Bavaria C42

The Hanse has a diesel tankage of 160 L, which for a 56 HP engine is short. The competition does better than that offering more diesel tankage for less powerful engines (that waste less). The Oceanis has a diesel tankage of 195 L for a 45 HP engine, Bavaria has 210 L for a 57 hp engine, Jeanneau has 200 L for a 40 hp engine and Dufour has a diesel tankage of 250 L for a 50 hp engine.

Maybe they can mount in the Hanse an additional tank, but I doubt they can do that and also mount an optional water tank (they do not announce an optional water tank, but I am sure there will be one). The 295L Hanse water tankage is not much, especially if more than a couple cruise in the boat.

The competition offers a better water tankage. The Oceanis offers standard 235 L but 330 L as an option, Bavaria offers 210 L standard and an option for 460 L, Jeanneau (surprisingly) offers standard 530 L, and the Dufour offers standard 250 L and optionally 430.

Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 410

You may find it strange that I start talking about motoring ability and water tankage before talking about sailing ability, but the truth is that I see most of these boats motoring and in what regards sailing ability, even if boat magazines try to disguise the fact, the performance of all these excessively beamy sailboats is not great, especially upwind. Due to the number of design handicaps, only downwind or beam reaching with medium winds, do they have a good performance, even a surprisingly good one. 

Jeanneau SO 410

Almost all magazine sail tests are done with small waves and the main problem of these boats with fat entries is that they have a huge wave drag, and don't have a considerable B/D to give the extra power to overcome that drag. All that does not allow a good upwind performance with waves. 

If you read the Yacht.de sail test, nothing of this is apparent, they say: "The design from Berret-Racoupeau's studio in France shows high-performance potential, runs at an unusually close to the wind and is light and agile when steering."

But then they explain: "With 15 to 18 knots of wind (4 to 5 Beaufort) and only slight waves, the 9.85 ton displacement design... is powerful and runs an unusually close to the wind upwind. The test boat, equipped with a self-tacking jib, turns at an angle of just 80 degrees and sails at a speed of 6.8 knots."

Looking at the test photos we can see that they are testing the boat in a very unusual situation, in protected waters, that does not account for the real sailboat performance. With 18 knots of wind in the Med you will get, 1.5 to 2.0 waves, with a vertical wall and a short period, that very effectively take out boat speed and upwind, close to the wind, will demand more power than what that boat can provide to maintain a good speed, and that means the need of a more open course to have a better compromise between wind angle and boat speed.  On those conditions, that are for most the normal conditions for that wind, the performance of this boat will not be good.

Dufour 41

Saying this boat has a high-performance potential makes no sense, as it makes no sense to say " the Hanse 410 has a windward speed (VMG) of 5.1 knots when cruising". That VMG on a fat cruiser with a low B/D while cruising loaded, is so absurd that will make everybody who knows something about sailing laugh, and saying this in a magazine boat test tells also something about the ones who wrote and reviewed it.

https://www.yacht.de/yachten/fahrtenyachten/hanse-410-test-der-neuentwicklung-der-12-meter-fahrtenyacht/

Dufour 41

Note that I am not saying that the Hanse 410 is worse in performance than the beamy competition, but if you want a main market 40ft with an overall better sailing potential buy the Sun Odyssey 410, which is by far the less beamy of these boats.

If you, like most, don't beat or sail upwind (that due to apparent wind is the more common point of sail), then the choice for a better performance sailboat can be different, and having these boats (except Jeanneau SO 410) similar hulls, the choice can have to do with SA/D and the wind conditions where you sail most. 

Dufour 41

What I have observed in over 30000 miles of sailing in the Med is that with 18 kt wind, almost nobody goes against the wind sailing, and on other points of sail most cruisers, with that wind, use only the forward sail and most will motor. 

I know that among the ones that follow this blog that is not the norm, neither it is what I do, but it is what you see most cruisers doing in the Med, and these boats are designed for them. The number of experienced sailors among cruisers is few and even experienced sailors while cruising do not always beat to the wind. Some prefer to motor-sail only with the main to go closer to the wind.

Hanse 410

With a fast cruising sailing boat, you can beat to the wind as fast as beamy boat motors directly against it and the waves, and I have verified this personally many times, I would say every year. And I can tell you that out of protected waters, my VMG, on a fast boat will be way smaller than 5.1kts (as they say the Hanse does), no beamy cruising sailboat of this size, charged for cruising, will be able to do a 5.1kt average cruising motor speed, directly against the wind and 2.00-meter short-period waves.

Hanse 418

If one dismisses a good upwind performance and, on one of these main market beamy boats, wants a better downwind or beam-reaching performance, better to choose one that can optionally have a big genoa, instead of a self-tacking jib. Nothing like a big frontal sail to increase performance, especially in weak to medium winds which are the conditions in which most cruisers sail.

Oceanis 40.1

Yes, I know that all these boats come with an integrated bowsprit for a code 0 or a gennaker, but I would say that they have it more for looks than for use, at least in what regards most buyers. I see very rarely cruisers using those sails in 40ft boats, and most that use them have at least two knowledgeable sailors aboard, not the typical couple situation, where normally the man is at best an average sailor and the woman knows very little about sailing.

Bavaria C42

It is a bit of a mockery that almost all main market cruiser brands have now as standard a self-tacking jib (for easier sailing) and equip all boats with a fixed bowsprit, to sail in weaker winds (less than 15 kts) with a gennaker, that is comparatively a difficult sail to use, much more than a big genoa, that could provide an acceptable performance till 6/7 kts winds. The difficulty for an inexperienced couple to use a big gennaker is the reason you will see very few sailboats sailing with less than 10k wind.

Jeanneau SO 410

Yes, a big genoa gives a bit more work than a self-tacking jib and if, like most, you store the dinghy over the deck, you need to "invent" a grid of small ropes on the back of the dinghy to warrant that the genoa can tack without being caught in anything and pass easily over the dinghy. Also, you will have to furl (reef) more times the genoa, but nothing of this is a big deal for a solo average sailor while using a big gennaker can be too much.

Dufour 41

Thereason why they all have standard a self-tacking jib is because it is cheaper: less sail area, no need for two big genoa travelers, one or two winches less and a more simplified rigging. As a bonus, they can sell it as a more easy-to-sail set-up, and that's true, although not so much that for many a genoa did not make more sense. And in what regards easiness, a combination of self-tacking jib and geenaker, or code 0, is certainly more difficult to use than a big genoa. 

Hanse 410

Another reason they prefer this system (self-tacking jib and gennaker) is that, on test sails, with a full crew, a well-used geenaker on a light boat (without all the stuff needed to cruise, low on tankage) they can sail it at 9 or 10 knots with 13 or 15kts of wind. That gives a very flattering performance, but a false one regarding cruising, where the boats are loaded, and the crew is a 60-year-old couple.

Above, Oceanis 40.1, below Bavaria C42

One that would never dare to fly a gennaker with 13kt of wind. Sailing with my wife, I don't fly a gennaker with 12kts wind. I have no trust in her ability to maintain a proper course while I release the big sail. Besides, if you have it flying in 12kt, you risk having to take it down with much more wind. In weak winds, in the Med, a gennaker is hard to use because with less than 10kts Med winds tend to vary a lot in direction, and you risk putting it in the air, just to bring it down an hour later.

Below, Jeanneau SO 410

I have plenty of experience using a big 135% genoa or a 110% smaller one, because I had both in my boat. Last year I had to choose what genoa I would buy as a new sail. Both genoas were 7 years or more, and both had been ripped in strong winds. 

Being close to 70 years of age and having a boat with a much bigger SA/D than these, I hesitated but ended up choosing the big genoa, and this year's season proved that it was, by far, the right option, for most sailing days.

I do sail most of the time and the big genoa makes a huge difference with less than 10k winds. The Hanse 410 offers a genoa as an option with 43m2 instead of 35 (self-tacking jib), a small genoa with a very small traveler over the cabin.

 Dufour 41

On all these boats genoa size is limited by the position of shrouds and chain plates. For a big 135% genoa, shrouds have to pass near the cabin.

Puzzles me that on the Yacht.de test, they don't talk about the possibility of a genoa car, but about a genoa with "hole points on deck". Do they refer to the old system of manually moving the genoa car and fixing it in each hole on the track with a pin? 

The Hanse 410 has a hull length of 11.99 meters (39.3 ft), the same as the one of the Oceanis 40.1, Bavaria C42, Jeanneau SO 410 and about the same as the Dufour 41 (11.90). If the HL is almost the same the LWL is quite different and in boats with not very different lengths and beams, having all a plumb or inverted bow, that difference has to do with transom overhangs, which even if seeming non-existent are there and are very different. 

Hanse's 410 cockpit is so wide that seems shorter than the others.

We can see that on the Oceanis the LWL goes practically till the end of the transom while on the Dufour it is quite far away, and therefore the 70cm difference in LWL. All the other boats are in between these two. The Hanse LWL is 11.55m, 11.70 in the Oceanis, 11.49 for Bavaria, 11.47 for Jeanneau and 11.00 m in Dufour.

The LOA are respectively 12.55m (Hanse), 12.87 (Oceanis), 12.40 (Bavaria), 12.35 (Jeanneau) and 12.75m (Dufour). Because they all have about the same HL, the difference between the LOA and HL refers to the size of the fixed bowsprit, which is bigger on the Oceanis and Dufour. 

Oceanis 40.1 cockpit

If you use a code sail or a gennaker this is an advantage, if not, it is a disadvantage because in some marinas you will pay for the length of the boat, independent of what is written on the boat documents (normally HL).

With the exception of the Sun Odyssey 410  they are all very beamy boats. The SO 410 has a 3.99 m beam and that does not make it a narrow boat, quite the opposite. The Hanse has 4.29, Oceanis 4.18, Bavaria 4.30 and Dufour 4.27m.

Bavaria C42 cockpit is less wide than others due to larger side passages

Very beamy boats have advantages in regards to interior volume, sailing with less heel, and allow to build less expensive sailboats because they need less B/D to sail in average situations, but don't let dealers or magazines convince you that very beamy boats with a low B/D have an overall speed advantage over more moderately beamy boats with a bigger B/D, because that's not true. If you look at top racing boats with about a 40ft length (like the JPK 11.80) you will see that the optimal beam for offshore racing is between 3.80 and 4.10m.

Above, the Jeanneau So 410 has a less wide cockpit, but that can have
advantages while sailing. Below the Dufour 41 has a huge cockpit with
true sofas, but decidedly it is not made to sail upwind or to sail out of 
good weather: where do you store all those huge cushions when the
the spray hits the cockpit?

However, if overall performance is not the ultimate goal, but beam reaching and downwind sailing, a class 40 with a 4.5m beam can be one of the best options in regards to speed, but we are talking about very light planning boats that can more than compensate downwind, with superior planning speeds, what they lose upwind due to the bigger beam. These cruising boats are much heavier and even if they can be tested in light displacement, they are going to be used with a considerable load and they will have difficulty in planning downwind, except with strong winds, and with a very good sailor or a crew, not in normal cruising.

But taking into consideration that most don't beat upwind, or even sail upwind, except in very benign conditions, it makes sense to have very beamy cruisers as main market boats because the advantages, namely the much bigger interior space and sailing with less heel, are for most cruisers much more important than the disadvantages.

Regarding displacement Hanse has 9680kg, Oceanis 7985kg, Bavaria 10070kg, Jeanneau has 7784kg and the Dufour diplaces 9700kg. Looking at the numbers, I am a bit suspicious about the Oceanis and Jeanneau displacements.

I don't see a reason for such a big difference in displacement. Even if the German boats, due to the way they are built, should be slightly heavier (they don't use infusion), I don't see a justification for a 2000kg difference in displacement. The same regarding Beneteau and Jeanneau versus Dufour. There the difference in displacement is even more mysterious, being the Dufour manufactured with superior building techniques which should made it lighter, not heavier.

Hanse 410, good cabinet storage

I have seen big differences in the light displacement, between the one that is announced when the boat is designed (it is an estimation), and real light displacement, when the boat is built and weighed. Few boat brands correct that displacement later, because the lower unreal displacement gives a more flattering image to the sailboat: lighter, giving it a bigger B/D, a bigger SA/D and allowing for better estimate polar speeds. 

One that has corrected the displacement on one of these boats was Bavaria, with the C42, which had an announced initial displacement of 9678kg and later was corrected to 10070kg. I suspect that if that was made with Beneteau and Jeanneau the differences would be bigger, even if the Jeanneau, a considerably less beamy boat, built with infusion technologies would probably remain as the lighter one.

Hanse 410, good cabinet storage on the two-cabin version. The big
 closet at the end of the galley is the cabin closet on the 3 cabin v.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/10/bavaria-c42-changes-you-dont-see.html

Regarding ballast, B/D, draft and shape/efficiency of the keel, the Hanse comes with an L-bulbed keel with a 2.1m draft. They don't announce the ballast and that's a bad sign. The one I quoted was published in a boat test magazine.

Contrary to most Hanses the 410 was designed by Berret/Racoupeau,  a very fashionable design cabinet and the one that has contributed more to the modern tendency of diminishing B/D on main market sailboats. The only ballast data available is provided by the magazine Yacht.de that test sailed the Hanse and they refer to 2370kg ballast but for the keel with 1.7m draft, and 9850kg of displacement. That gives a 22.7%B/D, that on an L-bulbed keel with a 1.7m draft is quite low, probably the lower on these type of boats with that draft.

Hanse 410

Of course, the boat has a stability that allows it to be RCD certified as ClassA, and for that, it only needs a 110.3º AVS, but I would like very much to see the stability curve with the AVS, but not the estimated one, made by the design team using computer program and estimated weights and estimated CG (the ones that serve to RCD certification), but a real one made in the water and calculated based on the real boat heel.

You should know that when (for top racing purposes) AVSs are measured with an inclination test to make an ORC international file, the AVS values are always significantly smaller than the ones that are registered in their RCD certification files.

Hanse 410, good closet storage. Lousy and ugly solution
for storage over the bed.

Assuming that the difference in the displacement between the 410 Hanse versions with the 2.10 and 1.70m keels are due to a difference in ballast (as it normally is), the Hanse standard version (2.10m keel) will have a 2200kg ballast and a 22,7% B/D, that compares with a 29.1% B/D on the previous Hanse 418 (Judel&Vrolijk), that had a similarly designed keel with also 2.10 m draft.

Note that this does not relate directly with sailboat performance, but only with safety stability and AVS. Probably due to the bigger hull form stability and lower weight (due to less ballast) the new boat is faster while beam reaching or downwind, and it can even have a good performance upwind without waves, but upwind, out of sheltered locations, you have always waves, except in weak winds.

Oceanis 40.1

And it is not needed much wind to get half-meter waves, and on those conditions, the wave drag will slow down the new boat that cannot get substantially more stability heeling, while the 418 will not only have less wave drag, as it can get substantially more stability with the boat considerably heeled.  With more wind, and bigger waves (that create bigger wave drag) the slower the new boat will go upwind, and the larger it will be the difference in speed for the previous Hanse.

I am not saying the 410 is a worse boat than the 418. It has advantages and disadvantages. For you to choose the set of advantages that fit your sail program. What I am trying to explain to you is what the differences are between this and the previous model, between a beamier boat with less B/D and a narrower boat with more B/D.

The Oceanis has a 25.1% B/D on a 2.17 m L keel but with a torpedo, a more efficient keel with more draft. In fact, if the Oceanis had the same keel and draft as the Hanse it would need a significantly bigger B/D to generate the same RM, and that means that we cannot compare directly the 22,7% B/D on the Hanse with the 25.1% on the Oceanis. To have a correspondence the Beneteau would have a bigger B/D to compensate for the less efficient Hanse keel ( +/- 27/28% probably).

Oceanis 40.1: lots of open cabinets that serve almost
 for nothing in a sailboat, and effectively reduce storage.

The same happens regarding the Bavaria C42 which has a 26.8% B/D, because even if it has the same draft as the Hanse (2.10m), it has a more efficient L keel with a torpedo. The B/D would have to be bigger to generate the same RM if the Hanse type of keel was used on the Bavaria, with the same draft.

The same with the Jeanneau which has not only a more efficient L keel with a torpedo but also considerably more draft (2.25m to 2.10), and even so a considerably superior B/D (25.7% to 22.7%).

The Jeanneau is the only one that offers a swing keel (1,37-2,97 m draft), with a smaller ballast but, if Marc Pajot designed it the same way as the one in the 349, it would provide the same RM, allowing for a lighter and slightly faster boat.

Oceanis 40.1 main cabin, also with a poor storage space over
 the bed, but a nicely designed one, if compared with Hanse.

The Dufour has few and contradictory information. Magazines and dealers give it with a 2.10m std draft and a 2600kg ballast, on an L torpedo keel, but on the manufacturer boat site (with very incomplete information), they give a 2600kg ballast for a 1.85m keel and don't mention a 2.10m keel. 

But I believe that the 2.10m keel is the one I saw in all the drawings is probably the standard keel. The B/D is the same (26.8%) but the keel generated RM  will be considerably different if the ballast refers to a 1.85m keel or to a 2.10m keel. I am assuming the displacement and ballast that are referred to in the Sail magazine test is correct, because, oddly, on the manufacturer site they don't say the displacement, as well as the ballast regarding the 2.10m keel.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/09/bavara-c42-it-sails-very-well.html

Bavaria C42

As you can see the new Hanse has a particularly low B/D (taking into consideration keel design and draft) if compared not only with the previous model, but with all other mass production offers in this length, and if their B/D is already low compared with these boats, it is very low if compared with more expensive main market boats like Hallberg-Rassy, Contest or X-yachts.

If you sail only in fair weather and don't sail upwind except in light winds, or in protected waters, that is not a problem and it can even be an advantage because the boat is lighter and will sail slightly faster. For the ones that want to use it on the ocean, with the possibility of nasty weather, or beating upwind with stronger winds, it is a disadvantage, and it can be a big one.

Bavaria C42, good cabinet storage in the galley and saloon

To understand why more expensive main market boats of this size have a bigger B/D have a look at this article. Mass production boats of the same type have less because it is expensive to put more ballast on a sailboat, not on account of the ballast itself, but because the boat needs to be stronger, from the hull to the hull structure, even the mast and shrouds have to be beefier to accommodate the extra power more RM will generate.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/05/please-rcd-certification-for-bluewater.html

Galley with good storage

Let's look now at the sail area/displacement (SA/D) which is a good measure of speed potential, not forgetting that it can be misleading when different wave drag is to be expected, being in that case beamy boats with huge bow entries very penalized due to a bigger drag. 

The Hanse has an SA/D that can go from 18.1 to 20.6, being the lower on the version with a self-tacking jib and a furling mast, and the higher with a traditional one-line furling boom and an optional small genoa. Standard it comes with an 18.8 SA/D. with a non-furling mast and self-tacking jib. 

Also, no cabinets over the bed, but a cabinet behind it. The lack of cabinets
 over the bed has nor to do with lack of space but with saving money. Some
years ago even 36ft boats had cabinets there.

The Oceanis has an SA/D that can go from 15.2, standard with a self-tacking jib and a standard furling mast, to 20.3 with an optional longer traditional mast and a small genoa. It can have also 19.4 with a nonfurling mast (but not a longer one) and a small genoa. The option of a longer mast to increase sail area is a relatively expensive one.

The Bavaria C42 has standard a 19.7 SA/D with a traditional mast with a boom with one line reefing and a self-tacking jib. Changing the jib for a genoa will give it a 21.4 SA/D. With the jib and a furling mast, it has a 17.5 SA/D.

The Jeanneau has standard a 20.5 SA/D with a traditional mast and one line reefing and it is the only one that comes standard with a genoa.

From what I can understand Jeanneau now sells what was the performance version as the standard boat, and it makes sense because the ones that chose a Jeanneau over the others are probably interested in sail performance. It seems also that the model is to be substituted soon because they are offering it at a discount price.

Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 410

I am not confident that the new model will be better than this one, at least in regards to performance.

The Dufour has as standard configuration a self-tacking jib and a classic main but all the tests were made with a small genoa, upgraded sails (more 10 000 euros), and the optional classic mast. They don't say on their site the sail area of the standard self-tacking jib. With the genoa and a classic mast the SA/D is 18.7 which seems low being the one of an intermediate version. With the standard jib, it would be a lot less.

Almost no cabinets in the upper part of the saloon and galley which is
 relatively small. They lose a huge space for a chart table that has no
 storage. The main cabin is smaller than in the competition, with less
 closet space, but with four small cabinets behind the bed.

The Dufour site is quite poor in information but it seems that the boat will be sold in three versions, an entry one called "Easy" with even less sail (self-tacking jib and furling mast?) and only two winches, another called "Ocean", which seems that is the one that was tested in all test-sails and has a small genoa and two additional winches, and one called "Performance" with a bigger boom, 10% more sail area, and the boom control not over the cabin but near the wheels, after the table, on a single attachment point, unfortunately without a traveler option. This one should have a 19.6 SA/D.

So, what conclusions can we take from all this? As I said before, except for the SO 410 which has a less beamier hull, the sail performance of these boats will have much to do with the sail options you chose. 

Whatever the sail and keel options you get on the other boats, the SO 410 standard will be overall the faster boat, and by a considerable margin, due to a much better performance upwind, but that does not mean that in all points of sail and wind conditions, the Jeanneau will be faster.

In standard configuration, the Oceanis is penalized by its small sail area due to the standard offer of a furling mast, which is chosen by many, or even most as an option on the other boats. On its performance version, if we don't consider the Jeanneau, it will be, with the Bavaria 42,  faster than the others, due to having a 20.6 SA/D close to the one of Bavaria (21.4) and a similar RM coming from the keel. 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/02/new-40-ft-cruisers-oceanis-401-versus.html

Dufour 41

The main difference between Oceanis and Bavaria regards beam being the Bavaria considerably beamier (4.18 to 4.30m), the LWL that is longer on the Oceanis (11.70 to 11.49), and the genoa tracks are over the cabin. All these factors translate into an Oceanis performance advantage (both boats in the performance version), allowing for a better performance upwind and probably a slightly better speed with weak winds.

The overall performance of the Oceanis is probably slightly better than the one of the Bavaria, but it will be very close, and quite possibly the Bavaria would be slightly faster downwind and beam-reaching with medium to strong winds, but it is good not to forget that the Oceanis needs a bigger mast, that is probably a costly option, to be faster. 

The Saloon and galley have lots of cabinets and the galley is not
only big, as it is functional, especially if the boat is not sailing.

In standard configuration, the Oceanis will be highly penalized by the smaller sail area with the furling mast and will be slower than a standard Bavaria, which comes standard with a traditional mast and more sail area.

This points out something that is often forgotten when looking at these boats: the performance can vary a lot with the configuration (options) they have and with sail quality. A standard boat can be faster than another standard boat, but slower if both are the upgraded faster optional configuration.

The lateral opening is in the wrong position regarding
 the stove.

Unfortunately the same happens with price and you will rapidly conclude that getting a better performance is expensive and that there is a reason for standard boats being equipped like they are. These boats are all about offering a huge interior and about offering reasonable performance at the lowest possible cost.

So, what about the performance of the other two, the Hanse and the Dufour? Well, the press says wonders about the way they sail. Yacht.de says that the Hanse "has a high-performance potential", and Sail Magazine says about the Dufour: "It’s lively, invigorating sailing, and we joke about how we’re giving the J Class thoroughbreds racing in the Superyacht Cup Palma a run for it, even as one swoops down on us like an avenging angel. It reminds me that even if cruising—not racing—is the goal. Fun, fast, comfortable sailing is the best way to get there."

Dufour is the only one that offers cabinets over the bed

https://www.sailmagazine.com/boats/dufour-41-new-boat-review

But they say this about almost almost all new boats. I remember that on the Bavaria and the Oceanis in tests by magazines, great speeds were attained (with geenaker) and that the tests were highly laudatory regarding sailing potential. The truth is that today boats are very well designed, with computer-assisted analyses of hull performance in all sailing conditions, so it is not so much about the boats being well designed, but about the set of compromises that have been taken to get a more voluminous interior and a higher interior height (bigger beam and bigger freeboard). 

Hanse 410

The Dufour has 16cm more freeboard than the previous model and I have to congratulate the designer (Felci) because looking at the boat, that is not apparent, due to those huge hull inserts that disguise the extra freeboard. But I wonder if they are only bonded. I know the boat is not designed for being sailed in storms but if you make passages in an ocean you can get one, and I would be a bit worried about hull flexion and those long windows, not in what regards popping in (they have interior frames), but in what regards popping out.

Oceanis 40.1

On the Hanse yacht.de test, they say particularly well about the Hanse steering feeling. Not so well about the steering feeling on the Dufout 41 (regarding the Dufour, that is also mentioned on the Yachting World test).  But most will sail these boats on autopilot almost full-time and for those this will not be a problem. For the ones that like to sail and like to steer the boat for the fun of it, then the Dufour would not be probably the better choice. 

In regards to speed, these two will probably be the slower of this group. The Hanse will be penalized upwind in medium and strong winds by its lower B/D and less effective keel, and curiously the lower ballast does not translate into a smaller displacement, so no advantage in light winds. The SA/D is slightly bigger on the Hanse, but they remain very close and among those with smaller SA/D.

Bavaria C42, below Jeanneau SO 410

In fact, taking into account the huge freeboard and beam, the Dufour 41 sails better than what would be expected due to so many compromises regarding interior volume, and it has surprised several sailors. The choice between the Hanse, Oceanis, Bavaria, and Dufour will have mostly to do with the price, the use one wants to give the boat, the equipment one desires, preferences regarding looks, the interior design/quality, tankage, and engine power. 

Below Dufour 410, the only one that provides one
head for each cabin.

For most differences in sail performances will be less important as a choice factor. The ones that regard that as a determinant factor would only choose one of the others over Jeanneau by mistake, due to lack of correct information. 

Regarding rudders, the Hanse, the Bavaria, and the Dufour have a single rudder, while the Jeanneau and the Oceanis have twin rudders. 

I have often explained here the advantages and disadvantages of one system over the other and I am not going to repeat, but in very beamy boats like these, to be effective the single rudder has to be quite deep and they are, even if not so much as in more sportive boats with that beam. 

That means that in critical situations trying to get the boat under control in extreme angles of heel, the twin rudders will be more effective, but that is not a normal situation and in normal situations, these boats sail with a small heel and the single rudder works perfectly on those conditions. There is more to be said about that and I have in the blog an almost 10-year article about that. It is mostly correct but I will revise it soon, integrating new information.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/11/best-type-of-rudder-skeg-rudder-spade.html

If one is going to sail in the Med I would not recommend the versions of the single rudder boats with a shoal draft because, on those versions, the rudder will have practically the same draft as the keel, and when you Med moor to a quay the depth near the quay is always a lot less than some meters away, where the keel will rest, and you don't want to touch the bottom with the rudder instead of the keel, and even worse, going backwards.

Only the Hanse and the Dufour have different layouts
for the versions that can be considered the best 
solution to live aboard for considerable periods.

A last word about performance. From what I said, being the Sun Odyssey 410 the faster of these boats, some would think that she is a performance cruiser. Well, it is not. It is faster than the other main market mass production cruisers but it is not a performance cruiser, and if we compare it with true performance cruisers we will see that the differences in performance to the Jeanneau are bigger than the difference in performance the Jeanneau has over the other main market cruisers.

Compared with a performance cruiser with a not-very-different beam, and also all the beam pulled back, like the Elan E5, we can see that the Elan has 12 cm less beam, 26cm more draft, more 26% B/D (32,7%B/D) in a deeper keel and a bigger 22.8 SA/D (versus 20.5). The difference in sail power is even bigger than what the SA/D implies because while on the Jeanneau it is measured with a genoa, the one on the Elan is measured with a Jib. If both were measured with similar genoas the difference would be considerably bigger. 

Jeanneau is among these boats the only one with a Swing kell option
 and by far the less expensive among the boats that offer this option

The Elan E5 would have an uncomparably better performance in all points of sail and winds and would be much faster, particularly upwind with waves.  The performance is also helped by better and more complete sail hardware, that permits better control of sail shape and easier and faster work on the sails (6 winches). 

However the Elan is not a cruiser racer, more thought for racing than cruising (like for instance a JPK 11.80) and its performance is typical of this type of boat that unfortunately is becoming rare, being substituted by beamier boats less performance-oriented like the new X-yacht, or the new Solaris, but that is another story. The Elan and the Dehler 42 (now that Salona 41 is out of production) are the two options that are in the market at the closer price to one of these boats, offering a good and comfortable cruising interior even if smaller.

The Elan E5 offers good outside storage and a nice interior but a small
galley and a very small second head where the bowl swings up to
allow access to the sink. Inexplicably, on the version with only two
cabins, they didn't take the opportunity to make the small galley bigger.

The Dehler 42 is slightly longer than any of the other mentioned yachts, with a 12.42m HL, and a 3.91m beam. It is offered in two versions, one with 9100kg and a 2.15 m torpedo keel, and a faster one with 8700kg, a carbon mast and a 2.38m keel. The simplified slower version (but way faster than main market boats) is the one that has a price closer to the one of  Hanse, costing 30000 euros more. The slower version has a 21.4 SA/D and a 33%B/D and the faster one has a 22.9 SA/D.

Back to main market mass production boats, and looking at the interiors, the difference between them is more about design than overall quality. Even if functional, I don't like the interiors of the Jeanneau and Oceanis. The one from Bavaria seems to me a  bit nicer. I have not yet seen personally the interiors of the Dufour and Hanse, I have only seen photos but they both look good, well designed and with lots of cabinets and storage. 

Hanse's interior looks as nice as the one from Bavaria. The one from Dufour is difficult to access by photos. All those white cabinets and bulkhead make for a very luminous interior, but the feeling depends on the quality of the materials, and how you feel inside the boat. I reserve my opinion till I see it personally. The photos look nice, but I have seen white cabinets I liked, and others I did not like, as I said, it depends on the finish and material quality.

Regarding design and interior preferences, this is a subjective assessment. In what concerns a boat's interior the tastes can vary a lot. It is just my opinion, taking into consideration that these boats will be used mostly for coastal cruising, where most of the main meals will be taken on anchor, or at the marina, eating most while sailing sandwiches or pre-prepared food.

In that case, a longer longitudinal galley has advantages. 

Elan E5 interior. Notice that in the salon the mast is not set.
Both the Elan and the Dehler, contrary to all main market
 boats, have the mast over the keel and not set over the deck.
That is a disadvantage in what regards interior but allows 
for a 30 to 40% stronger ser-up.

For Ocean sailing the Hanse galley configuration has advantages, but due to a smaller safety stability, the Hanse is, from the group, the one I find less suited for that. Bavaria offers an intermediate solution that I find very practical.

A remark for the Dufour 41 that manages to offer 3 cabins and three heads without them being smaller than on the other boats. Certainly a big advantage for chartering, but also an advantage for the ones that have a big family or want to cruise permanently with two couples, and want a cabin for guests. Of course, the boat in that configuration has very limited storage, but not smaller than the other boats on the 3 cabin version with two heads.

Besides sail power, another important consideration while choosing a boat in what concerns sailing performance is the functionality and easiness in what regards controlling the boat and the sail shape. Regarding easiness, all except the Jeanneau come standard with only two winches. The Jeanneau comes with 3 due to a standard genoa. If you have only two winches you cannot have permanently the lines on the winches but have to have them closed on blocks and change the lines on the winches, depending on what you are doing. The size of winches is another important factor and believe me, on these boats they tend to be always undersized.

If the smaller, but nice saloon does not pose a problem the smaller forward
 cabin may be a problem, depending on your and your wife's size. The cabin
 is nice with cabinets and good storage, but due to the fine bow entries, it
 is narrow on the feet zone. You cannot have it all LOL.

They are 45 size on Hanse, 40.2 on the Oceanis, 45 on Bavaria, 40.2 and 46.2 on Jeanneau, and 45 on Dufour. All come with an option for 4 winches and only Bavaria has an option for 6. For using a genoa or a geenaker it is VERY convenient to have four. 6 gives you easier work, without the need to change lines,  but the running rigging has to be prepared to use 6 winches and normally they are not.

The Hanse, the Jeanneau and Dufour come standard without a backstay adjuster and have them as an option. Oceanis and Bavaria come standard with a mechanical backstay adjuster. 

If you like to sail as much as cruising, only you can know if the much
 superior sailing fun and speed is worth the space inconveniences and if the
 Elan E5 makes more sense to you as a sailing cruising boat, taking into
consideration that you will have to pay more to have fun and speed.

All of them come with self-tacking jibs, except the Jeanneau which comes with a genoa and genoa travelers. All offer an option for a genoa and genoa travelers. Neither of them can use a big genoa.

None comes with a traveler for a main or even an option for one, but all except the Hanse 410 come with a wide separation between the attachment points of the two lines that control the boom over the cabin, and that allows a better trim than with a small separation. The Dufour 41 is the only one that offers an option for a boom control not over the cockpit, but at the end of the boom, with a single attachment point on the deck, forward to the steering wheels.

 This allows not only better control and also smaller forces needed to bring the boom down.

Regarding outside space, all these boats offer tons of space on the cockpit with huge cockpit tables, with the exception of the Jeanneau, which with less beam, offers a smaller cockpit and a table, that will suit four persons, having the advantage of offering the best lateral passage to the front of the boat, being the worse and narrower the ones of the Oceanis and the Hanse. All offer a good swim platform, some even a gigantic one, that regards sailing is not a good idea, due to lots of weight aft.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/04/dufour-41-three-cabins-and-three-heads.html

The Dehler 42, which is probably slightly less fast than the standard
Elan E5, represents a better compromise regarding cruising. It offers
 a better galley, slightly beamier (3.91 to 3.87m) offers also a better
 second head, and a better main head, with a separate shower.

Almost all of these boats offer little space for the helmsman and if you like to steer the boat manually you should give a good look at that. Most of them allow you to remove permanently the seat behind the wheel, which serves for nothing while hand steering the boat, allowing for more space to sit laterally or to stand behind the wheel. Only Oceanis allows these seats to be held vertically, increasing the space for steering without removing them.

Regarding outside storage, the Oceanis, Jeanneau, and Dufour are the ones that reserved more space on the transom for storage (see layouts above). None offers a sail locker but the anchor lockers are generous and allow to store some fenders. Besides the locker under the cockpit (transom), Hanse and Oceanis offer only one cockpit locker under the seats. Bavaria, Jeanneau and Dufour offer two storage compartments under the cockpit seats.  

All these boats can have two cabins two heads and a third cabin reserved for storage. That is the best solution for the ones that live and cruise for considerable periods on a boat and want to receive guests from time to time, but only the Hanse offers an increased size galley on that configuration and the Dufour, besides the two heads, offers a huge completely separated shower.

In what concerns space for technical equipment, for instance, a generator or watermaker, only the Oceanis and the Dufour offer space behind the engine, and in between the two cabins, that may serve that purpose. Curiously the beamier boats reserve almost all space for the rear cabins and have in between them only a residual space.

Regarding boat building the quality is not very different but there are substantial differences between them. The Oceanis continue to use a  monolithic hull, polyester resins and a monolithic structural "contre moule" bonded to the hull. The bigger problem of this type of structure is the reparation or even the assessment of a structure keel problem, due to a grounding or any other thing. Also does not offer the same hull rigidity as a sandwich hull.

The Jeanneau uses a similar technology but they use injection on the contre moule, resulting in a lighter boat. They use a monolithic hull on the 410 (sandwich in bigger models, like on Beneteau) but they say that their structural contre moule (integral inner liner) provides easy access to the grounding frame.

The Dehler 42 price is now very attractive and may be subject to
negotiation because, unlike the other models,  they did not yet have
 launched the small renovation, that they cal SQ.

The boat costs 282 294 euros without VAT, only 30 000 euros above
  Hanse 410 price. Besides being faster the Dehler  is a better-built
 boat with a better-quality interior.

Dufour 41, also uses a contre moule laminated to the hull, but has a sandwich hull, and is the only one that uses an injection process (similar to the one Beneteau Oceanis 40.1 and Jeanneau SO 410 use in their sandwich decks) everywhere, resulting probably in a lighter boat, for the same strength.

Bavaria uses on the C42 a hand lay up sandwich hull, with a monolithic bottom. I am not sure about the structure. It seems the C42 does not use the same modular structure the C45 has, but uses an inner liner (that if integral is about the same as a contre moule). But the one on Bavaria is not an integral one, in fact, they use several, bonded to the hull. They use hand-laid fiberglass instead of infusion and that results in a heavier boat.

On the 410 Hanse they use hand-laid fiberglass and a sandwich hull. Nothing is said about the structure, but previous boats used a grid liner that was bonded and laminated to the hull.

Among the boats that use a sandwich hull, all use closed-cell foam except Hanse, which uses a balsa core. All decks are sandwich being the Hanse the only one that uses a balsa core. The French boats use infusion on the deck composite while German boats use hand-laid fiberglass. This contributes not only to the bigger displacement of the German boats, but it diminishes the stability, contributing to raising the CG.

Dehler 42

It is always better when you can build a sailboat lighter, as strong as a heavier one, but it is even better when doing it lighter you can manage to lower the CG. Increasing the height of a sailboat is never a good idea and I don't understand why German builders don't use infusion, at least on the deck. Surely there are better ways to cut the final price. 

Bavaria used infusion (hull and deck) in the first C-line boats but preferred cutting costs by starting using hand-laid fiberglass. Cuts in a sailboat are always made in things clients are not interested in, or cannot understand. 

All can see the quality and design of a boat interior but very few can understand the difference between a monolithic or a sandwich hull, between a hand-laid one and an infused one, and they can always justify the extra weight by saying that a heavier boat is a stronger one. Of course, that is not necessarily true, particularly if one boat uses infusion everywhere and the other is hand-laid, or if the quality of the resins is not the same.

Dehler 42

Regarding resins, all seem to use good quality polyester resins and rely on the waterproof gelcoat and on the layers of epoxy paint in the underwater hull (that many times are an option) to have it waterproof, with the exception of Hanse and Dufour, which on the hull's first layer use vinylester resin (that contrary to polyester resins is waterproof). More expensive sailboats use vynilester or epoxy resins everywhere, resins that are not only waterproof, as they provide a superior bond.

Dehler 42

Standard prices are many times misleading and they should be eyed only as a general reference. It is possible that a more expensive standard boat turns out to be less expensive than another one when both are in the configuration you desire. The standard prices without VAT at the shipyard are these: Hanse 410 - 251899€, Oceanis 40.1 - 234400€, Bavaria C42 - 222550€, Dufour 41 - 230 000€, Jeanneau SO 410 - 210 900€.

But if you are going to buy one of these with VAT and delivery, even a well-equipped Jeanneau, will cost over 300 000 euros and some of the others will go near or over 400 000 €. Yes. As I have said in the beginning, unfortunately, sailboat prices have increased sharply in the last 5 years. Not many years ago what costs now 400 000 euros used to cost 300 000.