THE NEW KRAKEN 44 BLUEWATER CRUISER

I confess that the first idea I had about Kraken was a very negative one: the designs seemed outdated and I still think that the choice of having skeg rudders and non-bolted keels is more a publicity stunt than a real advantage, even if most conservative sailors are attracted by those features. You can read more about that here:

Above the new Kraken 44, below, the older Bluewater 44,
by the same designer, Kevin Dibley.

 https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/03/kraken-50-versus-pegasus-50-comparison.html

But the truth is that Kraken yachts are well-built, and except for those two items, not in an outdated way. The designs, even if slightly outdated (bow, keel and rudder design), offer advantages (and disadvantages) if we compare them with modern beamy bluewater boats like Hallberg Rassy or Contest.

I was very curious about their new 44ft boat because while they claim to make boats "founded with one objective, to build the best blue water yachts ever launched...a boat crafted For Life (to) Sail across oceans safely and comfortably", the truth is that a couple does not need a 50ft yacht (or over 50ft) to circumnavigate or to do bluewater sailing, neither can they afford yachts with a starting price of 1.5 million euros (the cheaper ones). 

Above, the new Kraken 44, below, the old Bluewater 44

How can the best bluewater yacht, designed for life, be one that has a price that puts them out of reach of practically all cruising sailors, and only at the reach of very healthy people, who are not necessarily good sailors? Looking at it from this perspective, they are more like a luxury item, than a practical offer regarding bluewater sailing and cruising life.

Below, Hallberg Rassy 44

That's why I was very interested in their new 44, which was meant to be what the others were not, an affordable bluewater boat, and one that could be used by a considerable number of sailors for a cruising life, an alternative to other options on the market, even if at a moderate extra cost, justified by a superior quality.

To attain that Kraken chose to base the new boat on a pre-existing older design, made by Kevin Dibley, the designer of all Kraken. The original design has a 13.50m LOA, the Kraken 44 has 13.52m. The BW44 has a 3.78m beam for a 3.83m beam on Kraken. Both have a 2.0m draft, and the keel and rudder design are similar, even if the BW44 had a bolt-on keel, and originally a spade rudder, that became a skeg rudder by demand of the single client.

Kraken 44

Looking at both designs the differences are minimal, being the more noticeable the longer cabin and bigger height on the aft part of the boat on the Kraken, due to the option for a central cockpit, instead of an aft cockpit, as on the original design, and the higher position of the boom, certainly because of the American taste for huge dodgers and enclosures. 

The new design is a bit nicer, mainly due to the cabin design, which seems not to be as high: being longer, because of the center cockpit option, makes it look lower. The longer hull ports disguise better the high freeboard. The underbody is basically the same, with the exception of the older design having a slightly more efficient keel with a torpedo.

The higher boom is not a good thing for sailing, raising the sail center of effort, and is even worse in terms of sail accessibility and the easiness of storing the sail on a sail bag. They could use an inclined boom, lower at the head, a solution that has become increasingly popular, and that is used for instance in the Jeanneau SO 440.

Jeanneau SO 44 inclined boom.

There are some mysteries regarding the dimensions of the two boats. One of them is the LWL which on the original design has 11.2m, while for the new design, they say it has a 12.0m LWL. But looking at both designs and the scale that is on the bottom of the Kraken 44 image, I cannot understand how that is possible. The transom design looks slightly different, and that would increase LWL, but not by 0.8m, taking into account that the bow design remains essentially the same.

Hallberg Rassy 44

But what is really odd between the two boats is the displacement, which is given as 10900kg for the older design and 14597kg for the new boat, and if we consider that the displacement on the older design is a measured weight, it is difficult to understand that huge difference, even considering the extra weight the solution of an encapsulated keel implies, unless the Kraken 44 is not built the same way and using the same materials as the other Kraken.

Take for instance the difference in displacement between the Kraken 50 and the Hallberg Rassy 50, being the Kraken the lighter boat with 18250kg for 20000kg, while if we compare the Kraken 44 and the Hallberg Rassy 44, it is the opposite, with the Krakem displacing 14597kg and the HR44 displacing 13300kg and that is especially odd because the HR has 1100kg more ballast than the Kraken.

Bluewater 44 layout, also a two-cabin two head layout, but with a much
smaller aft cabin and much more storage space accessed from the outside

Even more worrisome is the B/D difference between the BW44 and the Kraken 44. The older design has a 39%B/D, having 4251kg ballast while the Kraken 44, being much heavier, has 51kg less ballast making for a B/D of only 29%, that, associated with that type of keel and draft (both not very efficient), seems to me insufficient for that type of narrow hull, in what regards a very good sailing performance upwind or beam reaching, and in what regards the safety stability and AVS a bluewater boat should have.

Kraken 44 layouts, the king-size cabin restricts the possibility
of having a decent space for sailing material, from fenders to
ropes and all the stuff a long-range cruising boat has to have.

I hope they sort this out because I like the original boat, which I have no doubt has a very good sailing performance. I doubt the same can be said regarding the Kraken 44, considering the dimensions they have released regarding displacement, ballast, and sail area. I hope these dimensions are just a mistake.

In fact, there is much good to be said regarding the original model, the Bluewater 44: the big B/D on a relatively narrow modern hull (if we exclude bow design) allows for a big sail area and excellent performance, especially in lighter winds and upwind, in all winds and sea conditions. I like narrow boats and in regards to sailing in the med, I would prefer this type of hull over the beamy type that is now proposed by almost all builders, and that we can see for instance on the Hallberg-Rassy 44.

The much-beamier hull, even if not hugely beamy by
modern standards, allows for a much bigger interior 
volume and also a much bigger storage space. The 
space for equipment or interior storage is much bigger
on the HR44 allowing for an option of two extra berths.

The Hallberg Rassy beam is much bigger (4.20m to 3.78m), the HR is much heavier (13.300kg to 10 900kg), and has a slightly bigger B/D (40% to 39%). The superior hull form stability, and the superior B/D (with more draft and a more efficient keel) will give it a much bigger overall stability for at least a similar safety stability and similar AVS, but the narrow Bluewater 44 hull offers advantages in what regards drag (less displacement) and wave drag, even considering the bigger HR LWL, due to a modern bow (12.0 to 12.8m).

In what regards SA/D the HR can have 20.5 and the Bluewater 44 21.0. Apparently, this is not a big difference, but it is a difference bigger than what it seems in regards to sailing with weak winds or sailing upwind, due to the big difference in beam. Overall the Bluewater 44, even with a bigger keel and rudder drag, will be faster in most conditions.

For sailing in the trade winds and even for sailing many days in a row, I would choose the HR44. Maybe if I was younger I would have chosen the Bluewater 44, but now, being honest, if I don't mind sailing with considerable angles of heel for a day sail ( I like it), for living in a boat while sailing for several days, being it for sleeping, eating or cooking, the difference in heel between the two boats while sailing will make a huge difference in living comfort. 

Kraken 44 grey hull

And that's for me, who likes sporty boats and sailing with the boat heeled. Even in the med, if cruisers test sailed both, I am sure that most would prefer the HR 44, due to a more moderate heeling. Upwind with medium or strong winds the BW 44 will sail more heeled, but also faster, with a softer motion, pounding much less and being able to close more on the wind.

But most sailors in the med chose not to sail upwind in medium-high or strong winds. Many choose to stay sheltered waiting for better conditions, while others motor upwind. On a bluewater passage motoring is out of the question, at least for a long time, and the BW offers advantages not only in what regards sailing upwind but also in sailing faster in lighter winds. But not even in a bluewater passage the BW44 offers always advantages over the HR44, namely in regards to sailing downwind and beam reaching, with medium and strong winds, the conditions you will find in the trade winds.

Kraken 44, blue hull

So, it all depends on where or how you are going to sail oceans. If you go against the prevailing winds, certainly the Bluewater 44 is a better boat for the job but if you are going to sail on the trade winds, and in the "right" direction, which many times depends on the time of the year, then the HR 44 is from the two, the best to do that, being a more forgiving and easier boat to sail on those conditions, rolling less and being more easily driven in auto-pilot, even sailing fast with strong winds.

For sailing in the Med and the Baltic, I would probably prefer the Bluewater 44, if I could overcome my displeasure regarding how the boat looks, and I doubt that. The cabin and freeboard are just too high for my taste, and all those glass surfaces would make the boat unbearably hot during the sailing season in the Caribbean or the Med, and would have to be closed in the hot summer months. Of course, if you live in a boat for the full year, or if you sail in cold climates those windows can be very handy to let the sunshine in, and warm the boat and your soul. 

Lyman Morse 46

Between Dibley designs, I would have, for sailing in the Med, the Lyman Morse 46 performance cruiser, not the Bluewater 44. I find it beautiful, it is certainly fast and would be a lot of fun to sail, having a good cruising interior for a couple. 

But I am only talking about my personal taste in regards to cruising in the Med and because I was talking about that regarding the HR44 and the BW44. I like speed and sailing fun, and I am way out of the mainstream in regard to cruising boat preferences. 

Above and below Dibley designed Lyman Morse 46

Cruising in a very fast boat implies always a bigger level of discomfort and a more spartan way to live, and regarding preferences, there is no right or wrong. Each one likes what he likes and there are sailing boats adapted to all cruising tastes, having the majority tastes that are reflected in main market cruising designs, the boats that sell more, some of them bluewater boats, others not really, even if they can cross oceans or even circumnavigate. 

The difference lies in being more or less adapted to do that, and in the bigger safety factor bluewater boats can provide, which has to do with being a stronger built boat, with having a big overall stability, bigger safety stability and AVS, offering a more sheltered enclosure to sail the boat with bad weather, a more adapted rigging, better tankage and with being equipped with ways of generating lots of electric energy, even if this is normally an extra, that is only required if that use is given to the boat, and unnecessary for other uses.

Lyman Morse 46, has a very nice cruising interior.

But this article is not about the Bluewater 44, but about the new version of that boat with a center cockpit, now renamed Kraken 44, and even if they look similar, due to the much superior Kraken displacement, the smaller SA/D (only more 0.4 sqm of sail for 3697kg more), the much smaller B/D (29% to 39%), they are very different sailboats, even if they share practically the same hull. They are so different that I really hope there is some mistake here in the numbers given by Kraken.

I asked them for information but they redirected me to the information on the boat site, and these dimensions are what they have there. I am afraid the information is correct because that could explain why both boats have practically the same sail area being the Kraken 44.1% heavier than the Bluewater 44.

Kraken 44

That only makes sense if Kraken 44 is a much less powerful boat than the Bluewater 44. Both boats have practically the same hull, being the Kraken 3.7T heavier. It is as if the stability BW 44 gets by having a much lower CG (much more B/D), was substituted by the stability Kraken gets for having much more displacement (weight increases overall stability). In the end, both can carry the same amount of sail, but the BW44 will be much faster and will have much better safety stability and AVS than the Kraken, due to the lower CG.

The Kraken 44 SA/D is 14.3, an unusually small value today, that compares to 21.0 for the Bluewater 44 and 20.5 for the HR44 (with an optimized sail area) or 19.3 in its standard version. As it is the Kraken 44 is a shadow of what could have been, and without being a bad boat it is not a match for the competition, in regards to sailing potential, overall stability, safety stability, and interior space. I would say also in what regards looks, even if that is debatable.

The Hallberg Rassy 44 has the keel strongly bolted to a stub and
 to the superior structure. They stopped using skeg rudders years ago
and use now, in most models, twin rudders. 

Regarding extensive cruising, the Kraken 44 has a problem: the very small outside and sailing-related storage space, due to the king-size aft cabin, and small beam. The BW 44 does not have that problem because the aft cabin is much smaller, and on the other side of the boat there is an ample storage locker for all the sailing and cruising stuff a long-range cruising boat needs to have.

On the Hallberg Rassy that space is also not big and some will find it unsuited for long-range cruising, but it is incomparably bigger than the one on the Kraken 44, mostly due to the bigger difference in beam, and the beam being carried more aft. The aft lockers are much bigger and the sail locker is also bigger. It has also a much bigger interior space to mount equipment.

In green, the Combi 15KW electric drive engine is mounted
over the Yanmar and designed to work with it.

Due to the much bigger beam, the living space is uncomparably bigger in the HR, which offers more interior storage and also, if there are kids, two additional berths, without compromising the galley or the saloon living space. More about the HR 44 here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/03/halberg-rassy-44.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/05/halberg-rassy-44-boat-test.html

The sole Kraken 44 argument seems to be its encapsulated keel (and eventually price) and skeg rudder, a weak argument since Hallberg Rassy has thousands of boats on the water, for several decades, and none of them has ever lost a keel or had any problem related to the keel and it offers the superior reliability of a twin rudder system. 

The Kraken 44 estimate price is between 779 000USD and 850 000USD (no taxes at the factory) and includes as standard a hybrid engine constituted by a main Yanmar 4JH57, combined with the Combi 15kW electric drive motor.

For  a good efficiency the system should include a
generator, but I don't know if it will be standard or not.

I would not trust that solution for a bluewater boat. If the system were reliable enough Yanmar would have it as an option in their engines or would have developed its own version. It is theoretically a good idea, but like in cars, these new systems have more maintenance and more malfunctions than traditional systems, including the ones having a separate hydro generator, solar panels and wind generators. 

The option to mount it as standard, on a type of boat that by definition will be many times away from a repair facility (and knowing that around the world the ones that can repair this system are very few), seems to me a bad idea, increasing boat cost.

https://electricboat.co.nz/index.php/product/combi-hybrid-parallel-electric-hybrid-system-for-diesel-engines/