MOJITO VIRGIN 650 VERSUS OCEANIS 30.1 AND DJANGO 770

I talked about this sailboat when it was at the project stage, back in 2020, and failed to give any more information. It could have seemed that the Virgin Mojito 650 had not passed to the production stage, but that is not the case, and till April this year 6 boats have been launched, probably more at this time.

The Mojito 650 is the cruising version of the Maxi 650 racer,
the boat that won more times the Transat in the Series class.

For more information about this boat and its technical characteristics look here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/11/virgin-mojito-650.html 

I raised some reservations regarding safety stability because the boat is only certified as a Class C sailboat (inshore use) while there are older Mini racers certified as Class A sailboats. It turns out that the demands have changed and today to be certified as a Class B a boat needs to have at least 1500kg, and the mini-racers displace only about 900kg.

However, mini racers have to pass the stability substantial requirements that the class demands, namely "the boat lying at 90° must have a positive righting moment with a load of 55 Kg at the maximum air draft" and that is a high demand in what regards safety stability and implies a big AVS.

That's the case with the racing mini built by IDB (Maxi 650), the same shipyard that builds the Mojito. 

The Maxi 650 is the most successful racer in the Production class, with 50 sailboats already built and many victories in the Mini Transat. Even if its safety stability would allow it to be certified as a Class B, it can only be certified as a Class C (2 meters waves and 6 Beaufort) because it weighs only 900kgs, far away from the needed 1500kg for a Class B certification.

For a 900kg boat to be able to make 55kg of positive force at the point of the mast lying at 90º, a big safety stability is required as well as a big AVS, and if the 900kg of displacement means that the overall stability is not big, the big safety stability means that the dynamic stability is excellent.

Being the Mojito Virgin 650 derived from the racing boat and displacing only 1200kg they chose not to weigh the boat unnecessarily with 300kg more, just to certify it as a Class B sailboat.

Oceanis 30.1

On their site, they don't inform us about the ballast. I asked them but I did not receive any reply. Voile et Moteur magazine talks about 416kg on a swing keel (0.80m and 1.85m), not a bulbed one, even if slightly larger at the bottom. That gives a 34.7% ballast which is not exceptional for this type of keel and draft, but that is way more than the 21.2% of an Oceanis 30.1, with a swing keel, even if with more draft (1.20-2.30m). A bigger B/D is also important for more stiffness (sail power).

Not saying that the First Oceanis 30.1, which is certified as class B, is less seaworthy than this boat, but certainly has worse dynamic stability, much worse safety stability, and a higher AVS, while having a much bigger overall stability due to having a  displacement 3.4 times bigger. The Oceanis 30.1 has the same beam and a bigger hull length (6.50 to 8.66m).

Dynamic stability is very important to sailboat safety and is linked with the ability to dissipate the energy of a breaking wave while skidding (instead of converting it in a rolling movement) and the ability to righten itself up very quickly after a knockdown, not allowing the boat to be caught by the next wave still lying or deeply heeled, and without almost no positive stability.

Django 770

If we look at the sail area we will see that the 3.4 times heavier Oceanis 30.1 has a standard 39.5m2 sail area, and the Virgin Mojito 650 has 38m2. The difference in stiffness/sail power is huge, the polar speeds are quite impressive, all that showing clearly what the Mojito 650 is about. 

Why am I talking about these two very different cruising boats? Because the prices of a sailaway boat should not be that different and that counts a lot when choosing a cruising boat. 

Both, in standard condition, cost respectively 75500€ (Mojito) and 102200€ (Oceanis), without VAT at the shipyard, but the Oceanis comes with sails, a kitchen, a WC, and lights, and the Mojito comes with nothing but cushions, being all cruising equipment optional. In the end, if both boats were equipped the same way, I would not be surprised if the Mojito (that cannot have a separate WC, or a marine one) would be more expensive.

More about the Oceanis 30.1 here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-new-oceanis-301-versus-hanse-315.html

These boats represent, for a similar cost, opposite perspectives regarding cruising. The Mojito gives top priority to the sailing part of cruising and to sailing as a sport, while the Oceanis gives priority to the living aboard functionality, which is part of cruising in a sailboat.

You can make a virtual visit to the Mojito 650 here: 

https://www.idbmarine.fr/3D/Visite%20Mojito%20650.html

The Mojito sailing fun is without parallel for the cost and available interior space, but as a cruising boat, even a camping spartan one, the Mojito leaves much to be desired, and even if it offers a big cockpit locker for storage, it does not have an anchor locker to store the anchor, chain, and cable rod, and worse, it has not even a dedicated mooring cleat.

A racing Maxi 650 doing the Mini Transat:

Oceanis 30.1 interieur

As a fast pocket cruiser (even if not as fast) the Django 770 seems a much better proposition: it costs just 4,000 euros more but it has much more standard equipment, including sails, engine, kitchen, electricity and a chemical toilet (as an option can have a sea toilet). 

It offers also bigger seaworthiness, with a Class B standard certification, bigger overall stability (1750 kg displacement) for a not-very-different safety and dynamic stability, having several keel options, including a swing keel with 1.90m draft and 600kg ballast (34.3%B/D).

A Django 770 doing a circumnavigation:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-never-ending-circumnavigation-on-25ft.html

But if you want to cruise, sailing in a boat with an almost racing performance, with about the same sensations, the  Mojito Virgin 650 offers the cheapest way to do it. It all depends on how important sailing pleasure is for you in comparison to living comfort.

On top Django 770, Directly above, Virgin Mojito 650

Top performance is never cheap, the boats have to be built with top materials and techniques, the same ones used in racing boats, to allow for a lighter but strong sailboat and the same happens with sail hardware.

A radical sailboat for radical cruisers and sometimes being radical about something is not a bad thing and makes us enjoy life with undiluted pleasure.

Today I am old and that affects my perspective but I remember all the joy I had cruising each year for a month in a boat about the size of that one, equally devoid of any interior, with a much smaller interior volume and much less standing height. There is a remarkable pleasure in living simply, keeping only the important things in mind, and for me, sailing and traveling, are the most important parts of cruising, and I love having fun while sailing.

TWO BEAUTIFUL YACHTS: ARCONA 50 VERSUS X-YACHT 4-9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Arcona 50

The Arcona 50 looks like an X-Yacht, and if it was not built by Arcona, it could be an X-yacht. That is one of the few things that could be said negatively about the Arcona 50.

Above the Arcona 50, below the X4.9 MKII
 version. The resemblances are clear.

I had already talked extensively about the Arcona 50 designed by Jeppesen and Pons, the ones that used to design X-yachts:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/03/surprising-arcona-50.html

Niels Jeppesen, one of the founders of X-yachts left the company, but X-Yachts that are designed now by an X-yacht design team, continue to be designed along the same lines used by Jeppesen and Pons, which created a distinctive image brand. Nothing wrong with that, it is their brand's image.

The same used to happen with Arcona which managed to create a strong image identity under the designs of Stefan Qviberg (who passed away), but contrary to X-Yachts lost that identity on the new Arcona 50, which is now indistinguishable from an X-yacht.

It is as if Porsche used a Ferrari designer and the new Porsche looked like the new Ferrari. I don't know about Arcona fans but I am quite sure Porsche fans would have hated it, and as far as I am concerned I think the same way. Instead of going along with the lines of the Arcona 435 ( the last Qviberg design), and slightly modernizing them, Jeppesen and Pons opted to continue the work they were doing for X-yachts here, and obviously, the new Arcona looks like an X-Yacht.

Above Arcona 40, below X4-9 (MKI). You can see the different transom
designs. The one on the Arcona, without limiting heel is more progressive.
The X4.9 one works like a chine, creating more RM at a given heel angle.

The new Arcona 50 sails very well, it is not about that, it is about having an Arcona that appears to be an X-yacht, a bit beamier maybe. It does not seem right to me. But maybe the market proves me wrong, and I would not be surprised: even in big fast sailboats, that apparently have all the space one needs, people are buying and wanting beamier and beamier sailboats.

Look for instance at the new Solaris 50 and the previous model, being the new one a lot beamier and slower than the previous model. 

I would have preferred the older model but it is obvious that the new one sells better, and that the criteria I value most in a performance cruiser are not the same that are preferred by most.

Regarding Arcona versus X-Yacht as boat builders, I have heard some complaints about the quality of X-Yachts, but to be honest I don't know if it is just one or two random cases, or, if like somebody has said to me, their quality is not what it used to be, due to a much larger production and the need to maximize manufacturing speed and to minimize costs. What cannot be denied is that they have a very clear difference regarding shipyard size and boats and the number of produced yachts.

Above Arcona 50, below, X4-9 (MKI)

If I had to choose between an Arcona 50 and a similar-sized X-yacht, I would take that into consideration, because being built in much smaller numbers by a reputable and experienced boat builder, basically the same way as X-Yachts, the chances are that Arconas are built with bigger attention to details and better quality control. 

Arcona cannot get it wrong with this one while for X-Yacht it would be just one more yacht among the considerable number they build.

Arcona 50 natural competitor is the new MKII version of the 2018 X4-9, which is basically the old boat with some small modifications: the same hull, bigger bowsprit, redesigned single rudder, revised small winch relocation, and some small cosmetic touches to make it look more like the new X5-6 (that looks like the Arcona 50, just a bit bigger). 

The bigger differences between the Arcona and the X4-9 regards the hull, with the Arcona 50 having the beam slightly more brought aft (being more similar to the X5-9), having two rudders instead of one, being a foot longer (HL 14.99 to 14.65m) and most of all, considerably more beamier (4.60 to 4.49m). 

Above Arcona 50, below the X4-9 (MKI)

By modern standards, the Arcona 50 is not very beamy and its 4.60m beam is a lot smaller than the one of the smaller Hanse 460 (4.79m beam), it is smaller than the one of the new Solaris 50 (4.78m beam) and much smaller than the one of the Hallberg Rassy 50 (4.99 beam), the one than the new Contest 50 (4.90m) or even smaller than the Pegasus 50 beam ( 4.83m).

Curiously it has the same beam as the X-yacht C50 (that has a very different hull), and it is bigger than the sportier and much faster XP 50 (4.43m beam). 

If we want to look at really fast all-around performance cruisers or cruiser racers, the Mylius 50 has a 4.48m beam, the Swan 50 has a 4.20m and the Shogun 50 has 3.88m, being the only one that can be considered to have a narrow hull. A very beamy fast performance cruiser maximized for downwind sailing, like the Pogo 50, has a 5.15m beam.

Above, the two Arcona 50 layouts, below,
 the two X4-9 layouts. They are very similar.

Arcona 50 and X4-9 have similar lead torpedo keels and while the B/D is big on both boats, it is way bigger on the X4-9 (42.5% to 35.8%) even if we have to give some compensation to Arcona due to having more 10cm draft.

If on the Arcona that B/D will give good safety stability and AVS, on the X4-9 it will give much better values. In regards to sailing power (stiffness), the bigger Arcona 50 compensates for the much bigger X4-9 B/D with a bigger hull form stability and the performances should not be very different, except upwind with waves, where the X4-9 will have a better performance.

The B/D was calculated with the X4-9 standard (2.40m) draft and the Arcona with the optional 2.50m draft. As standard, the Arcona 50 has a 2.95m draft with  600kg less ballast. With these configurations the X4-9 displaces in light condition 12900kg and the Arcona 14500kg.

Even considering the difference in size (the Arcona is one foot longer, 11 cm wider), the difference in displacement seems too big for two boats built the same way and with about the same materials.

Arcona announced that this boat was more intended for bluewater sailing than the others, maybe Arcona is built in a beefier way, or maybe the X-yacht displacement is too optimistic.  Sailboat displacement remains in many cases the one that is used for certifying the sailboat project, an estimated displacement. The displacement should be mandatorily corrected after the boat is built and weighted, but that is not the case.

 
Above Arcona, below X4-9. Both garages have small
height and that makes it not easy to store a dinghy inside,
 especially if you are raising it from the water

I know of boats of this size that missed the forecasted weight for over a ton. Anyway, if these values are correct then Arcona has a substantially bigger overall stability, but a smaller AVS and a smaller safety stability.

To put these displacements in perspective a Hallberg Rassy 50 displaces 21000 kg, a Contest 50 22900kg, a Solaris 50 15900kg, an ICE 52 12500kg, and a Pogo 50  8900kg. 

Regarding SA/D both the X4-9 and the Arcona 50 have very similar very high SA/D. Both boats have standard jib on a self-tacking rail and can optionally have instead a small genoa. 

Both with jib, the X4-9 has a SA/D of 22.3 and the Arcona 24.3.  Both with a small genoa, the X4-9 has 23.9 and the Arcona 25.8. The smaller X4-9 SA/D has to do with the X-yacht being less beamy. Less beamy sailboats generally need less sail area to sail upwind and less sail area to sail in weak wind.

They do not only look very similar, as they have very similar performances, with the X4-9 being just a bit better upwind (and probably in light wind) and the Arcona 50 sailing with a bit less heel and probably being just a bit faster beam reaching with medium-strong to strong winds and just a bit easier downwind with strong winds.

Both boats offer excellent space for whelming the boat, the cabin seats
are about the same length, but the Arcona cockpit is much wider,
allowing for a passage between the two tables, but keeping people apart.

However, let me point out that in regards to transom design (and sailing with more or less heel) the two transom designs are different but not necessarily one better than the other. 

The beam is much more brought back on the Arcona, but it is not one of those transoms that limit heel at a relatively low angle, quite the contrary, it allows progressively high angles of heel, increasing RM and trying to limit the increase in drag. It is a design more centered on allowing a very good performance than on making it easier to sail the yacht, and I see it as a positive thing on a performance cruiser.

The one on the X4-9 is less progressive and it is designed to increase RM at a given heel angle, minimizing drag, partially compensating the smaller hull form stability (due to the smaller X4-9 beam) and giving a better performance at the angle the designer considered that the hull works better, taking into account the increase in drag and the more substantial B/D, that demands heel, to be fully exploited.

The sail hardware, the running rigging, the winches location, and even the optional genoa tracks are very similar being the main difference a single-point attachment for the main line control (boom) on the X-yacht, versus an electric-operated traveler, a very expensive piece of equipment, on the Arcona.

Arcona longitudinal galley is not as in the layouts. It is better.

Regarding layout, both boats are very similar and you can even tell that they were designed by the same designer, both have a  good space aft the engine for technical equipment, both have a good sail locker at the bow and a dinghy garage, being the one of the Arcona wider due to the extra beam.

But the dinghy garage, when is not complemented with a decent storage space in the cockpit has its own problems because it is a wet storage space, and it is impossible to maintain it dry. 

Above and below, Arcona 50 interior is nice, with lots of
storage, even if a bit cold for my taste.

Besides it is not subdivided and that means that anything you put there will be moving around, and will stay wet. It is not a suitable space to mount any electronic equipment not designed to be in wet places, and most of them are not.

Arcona, being much wider should have much more storage space than the X4-9, especially aft, but while the X4-9 has storage space under both cockpit seats (one of them for the liferaft), Arcona, besides the garage, has only a small cockpit central locker for the liferaft. 

Arcona's garage is wider but does not have dedicated storage spaces at the sides (subdivided), nor a way to access that lateral space from the cockpit (only central hatch access), and that makes that extra space of little use, in what regards storage. It allows only a slightly bigger dinghy, even so, too small for a boat of this size.

The absence of practical storage in the cockpit can make a big difference in regards to cruising, with Arcona lacking the space to store all that stuff that all that cruise know needs to be at hand. Not having an easy storage dry space,  with easy access on the cockpit makes no sense because such space is needed for cruising, and even for sailing, to store equipment frequently used.

Anyway, those two garages will be of little use in regards to storing a dinghy while cruising a cruising ground, which implies using it almost every day. The dinghy has to be a small one, for a boat this size, and due to the need to store cruising material in the garage, and the small height of the compartment, it will give a lot of work to put it in and out, much more than if it is stored on davits or over the deck.

Above and below X4-9 interior. The Arcona 50 galley in 
the layout with the longitudinal galley is bigger than the
 one of the X4-9. On the layout with the L galley, the one
 from Arcona is slightly bigger due to the bigger beam.

For an oceangoing cruiser, it makes sense to have a storage space where a dinghy could be stored, even half deflated, on a several days ocean passage, but for that, the best design would be to reserve the central part for storage of a folded dinghy, while reserving the two lateral parts for two dry storage compartments, accessed from the cockpit. But of course, that would diminish the space of the aft cabins and these days interior space is the most valuable commodity in cruising sailboats.

The interior layout is very similar but due to the bigger beam, the interior volume is bigger on the Arcona, with special relevance for the two aft cabins that are not only wider but higher because they include the space under the cockpit seats. 

The X4-9 interior is less imposing, with a smaller height but also
 with lots of storage. I find it more cozy and with enough space:
a boat-like interior versus a more house-like interior.

The Arcona 50 interior is also a bit higher due to higher freeboards.

The standard engines are similar with around 60hp (both with an option for 80hp), the diesel tankage is bigger on the Arcona (375L to 265L) as well as the water tankage (375L to 310L). Both can have optionally more tankage.

The Arcona 50 costs standard at the shipyard, without VAT, 844240 €, and the X4-9 MKII  costs  696000 euros, as announced by Yacht.de, even if the price seems too low, if compared to Arcona. 

Of course, it all depends on the standard equipment that comes with each boat, but traditionally both brands include standard much material that is optional on other brands.

I bet some of you will be asking what would be the one I would prefer. I would have to say I don't know exactly, there are things I prefer on the X-yacht and others on the Arcona. 

On the X-yacht, I like the smaller beam, the smaller freeboard, the bigger B/D, the cozier, and warmer interior, the cockpit storage space, and being built with epoxy resin. 

Above, Arcona 50, below X4-9

On the Arcona I like more the transom design, the electric mainsheet traveller and the idea of being built in smaller numbers, presumably with more attention to finish and detail. 

I don´t like the aluminum rudder stocks on X-yacht, but being the designer the same, I don't know if the new Arcona has them (I hope not). 

I prefer the twin rudders of the Arcona, not because they are more effective, but because they pose fewer problems while docking in the med.

About the advantages and disadvantages of twin rudders:

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

If those prices are right and correspond to boats equipped similarly, I like a lot more X-yacht price, even if I doubt both boats equipped the same way have a difference of price over 178 000 € (with VAT), but if so, I would clearly prefer the X-Yacht, but it is not up to me to decide, it is up to you.

Other performance cruisers around 50ft that may interest you:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-ice-52-had-bad-luck-last-year-it.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/12/new-solaris-50-beautiful-but.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/12/italia-1498-fast-beautiful-and.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/shogun-50-and-shogun-426.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/07/mylius-50-carbon-rocket-cruiser-racer.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/02/grand-soleil-48-performance-and-race.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/10/swan-48-perfect-performance-cruiser.html

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

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/pegasus-50-perfect-long-range-voyage.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/10/oceantec-50-what-looker.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/12/another-dream-boat-fc3-53.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/11/fc3-53-dream-come-true.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/eleva-50-different-and-not-only-in-what.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/01/new-first-53-kind-of-disappointment.html

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/