RM yachts used to be very innovative boats and great yachts, but for several years I have not made a single post about them, even if they continue on the market, after a bankruptcy and subsequent recovery by Grand Large Group, that owns several brands: Allures, Garcia, Outremer and Gunboat, besides RM.
 |
| RM 1180, the boat that has led to RM bankruptcy. It is beautiful but its hull shape with that cosmetic superior chine demanded a hull made not only of epoxy-saturated plywood but also made of fiberglass. |
The last post was made almost 4 years ago at the time of bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition by Grand Large. It was an odd bankruptcy because they had a large number of orders, but due to the bankruptcy of a sub-contractor, that made the fiberglass parts for them, they could not make the boats at the prices that were agreed on the contracts. You can read more about that here:
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/rm-yachts-bankruptcy-and-shameful.html
 |
| RM 1380 and the ugly graphic work |
The new management did not bring anything new to the brand or to the sailboats. The 1180 continued to be oddly made with a hull partially in fiberglass and partially in epoxy-saturated plywood. The only new model was a remake of the RM 1370, now renamed 1380, that finished with the nonsense of a two-material hull, and like the 1380 before, it has a hull made of epoxy-saturated plywood, a deck made of cored fiberglass, being the boat also fiberglassed over the plywood on the interior.
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/11/beautiful-rm-1180.html
 |
| RM 1380 at the 2023 Dusseldorf boat show. You can notice the boat finish, with a lacquered blue over an uneven surface. |
I saw the RM 1380 last year at Dusseldorf, it looked huge, beamy, with a big freeboard and a beautiful and big interior. It was also a bit on the expensive side, costing at the shipyard without VAT 393,550 euros, and about 550 000 with VAT, decently equipped.
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/02/new-rm-1380-looking-good.html
https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-french-wooden-voyage-boat-rm-1370.html
 |
| Oceanis 46.1 |
As a comparison, we can look at the Oceanis 46.1 price, without VAT at the shipyard costs 74,000 euros less, and the difference will be bigger on two similarly equipped boats with VAT paid, I would say around a 125,000 euros difference.
The RM 1380 is a better boat but I would say that most who will spend more than half a million on a boat will also want that boat to look nicer than a much cheaper boat, and the hull finish of the RM was quite deceiving.
Not only due to ugly graphics that look inappropriate in an expensive boat but also due to a lacquered blue painted hull, that you could see clearly did not have a perfect finish. All this contributed to an amateurish look, where class was absent. A functional yacht but not one you would fall in love with. You can see what I am talking about, as well as the big and well-finished interior in this "Yacht.de" presentation:
The problem with RM yachts has to do with the plywood building technique, which is suitable for small yachts, but not really adapted for big unities like this one. Just because RM made its name and reputation by building small epoxy plywood-saturated yachts does not mean it has to use the same technique to build bigger yachts.
 |
| The RM 970 (32ft) was one of the best yachts ever made by RM, fast and big enough for a family, offering an incredible cruising interior. |
The first RM were entirely made of epoxy-saturated plywood, then they started to use fiberglass for the cabins and decks. On the 1180 significant parts of the hull are made of fiberglass. On the 13.80 they abandoned the nonsense of having a hull with fiberglass parts and plywood parts and made it again all in saturated epoxy plywood, with a fiberglass cabin and deck.
.jpg)
I wonder if the RM 1380 would not be a better boat if it was all made in fiberglass. But it is a plywood shipyard (all the fiberglass parts are outsourced) and making the boat in fiberglass would have implied a big investment. I don't know if it would make sense, because epoxy-plywood is a perfect construction method for the smaller boats that constitute the RM line. Maybe RM should stick to smaller boats having 36 to 40ft as its upper limit.
Probably what makes sense is to return to the origins, I mean, RM yachts were about inexpensive small fast plywood boats that offered a huge interior space, and good seaworthiness that allowed sailors to cruise to faraway places with a little budget.
 |
| 1998 RM 1035 |
They started to build yachts 35 years ago and for many years they built small yachts for sailors who wanted to sail and cruise differently. Their first 40ft was only built in 2004 and it was not a big success, being their most successful boat the 35fter, which was first named as 1050, then as 1060, 1070, and now 1080.
 |
| Above, RM 1380 interior space, below, Dufour 470 home-like interior space. |
But the yacht cruising market demanded bigger and bigger cruising sailboats. This is linked partially to the increase in the cost of sailboats and the lack of places in marinas near big European towns. This led to most cruising boats being bought near, or at retirement age, in many cases by sailors who had not sailed extensively during their lives and whose wifes wanted to live, even if only for some months in the summer, in a house-like sailboat and therefore wanted the biggest possible cruising interior at the minimum possible cost.
Well, RM is not about that, and even if the 1380 can offer the accommodations that satisfy those requirements, the price is substantially higher than other options in the market, and puts the RM 1380 out of the main market, competing on the much smaller market for bluewater cruisers, a very limited one in numbers, where I have doubts plywood is really the best option, making it a boat that will be bought by very few.
The true RM best seller is the 35/36fter, in a size where epoxy-impregnated plywood makes sense and where the option for very beamy boats has given RM the possibility of offering a small voyage boat with two decent cabins, lots of storage space, fast and with good seaworthiness.
 |
RM 1070, above and below |
And curiously they had maintained for 9 years, practically without changes, their last boat in this range, which is a huge period if we take into account the average time for changing a model, or at least for launching a true MKII. The RM 1070 is a great boat, very modern for its time, and escaped the nonsense introduction of a hull that was part plywood, part fiberglass and it sold well.
Some years back they introduced the 1370+, but it was not an MKII, just the same boat with some small improvements. The RM1080 is close to the RM 1070 but we can talk about a new boat, with a slightly different hull, basically the same interior, but with a new cockpit concept.
4.jpg)
The cockpit proposal seems to me like the beginning of a good idea that got stuck somewhere. On a boat like the 10.80 the priority on the evolution should be to offer a bigger amount of living space to the sailors, without compromising speed and seaworthiness, while offering in the cockpit added protection and a better-adapted space for the cockpit's main functions: sailing the boat and living in the boat, while sailing and while at anchor.
For RM shipyard this should be a revolutionary boat to relance the brand, now under the Grand Large ownership, but with the original owner as CEO. Well, it is not, but it could and should have been.
 |
| Above the new 1080. It looks beamier even if they announce the same beam (4.0m), that is a huge one for a 35.4ft sailboat. The max beam on the 1080 is reached at almost midship, and that makes the bow entries less fine. |
The previous design is already a great one, the fruit of the continuous development of a concept over several models. This one should be the continuation of that evolution, and given the 9 years that separate it from the previous model, it should be considerably improved.
Knowing well what the type of cruiser that wants this type of boat is, it should be easy for them to provide this one with solutions that would make it a choice, not only for those cruisers but for the ones that would find that the bigger main brand 40fters (that are in reality 39fters), that cost about the same price, are not a better solution for a couple that wants to live in the boat for considerable periods and to cruise around, in the Med or doing the Atlantic circuit: Med-Caribbean-Med.
 |
Above, RM 1070, below RM 1080 |
Providing the previous design already a great living space and very good performance, the improvements on this design should have to do with the shortcomings of the RM1070 towards main brands 40fters and in offering important features that are needed for cruising and that are absent on those boats and have to be customized later.
A virtual visit to the 1070 interior:
Being the RM 1070 interior space amazing, one of the shortcomings towards a 40fter is the smaller space to carry a dinghy forward to the cabin, which implies the use of a small dinghy. Everybody who cruises and likes to be at anchor will tell you that a dinghy, with at least 2.50/2.60m and a 4/6 hp engine is very important for autonomy, while at anchor.
 |
| Initially, drawings were more radical, and the new model looked even better, but the choice of not using a hull made partially in fiberglass limited design possibilities. |
It allows one to be on anchor in less crowded places, having the possibility to go safely to villages some miles away for bread, restaurants, and provisions.
Not having space for it forward to the cabin, the obvious solution is to have it in an arch structure on the back of the boat, which would also provide space for the installation of solar panels and a wind generator.
 |
| RM 1070 with a custom-made arch for carrying the dinghy and for solar panels |
Solar panels are indispensable for cruising life and all cruisers have to customize a solution. If such a solution, for having the dinghy suspended and for solar panels, was an RM 1080 option, many sailors would have it, so many that probably it would make sense to have a version called "bluewater" with all that equipment. If produced in bigger quantities it would be less expensive than if customized, not to mention, better designed.
RM potential buyers tend to sail more and farther away than buyers of main brands 40fters, so another improvement that would be much appreciated would be better protection for sailing at night or with rainy weather, but the cockpit modifications they propose have nothing to do with that, but just with the possibility of having more space to be reclined, half laying, while at anchor.
The new cockpit has the disadvantage of not allowing mounting a winch near the helmsman, for a genoa or a gennaker, putting all the winches far away, over the cabin, with the access made difficult by a fixed table. And it does not allow a good seated position at the wheel. They propose for it a kind of ridiculous seats behind the wheels, that are not comfortable or suited to steer the boat when it is heeled.
 |
Above, RM 1080, below RM 1070. Note the absence of space on the 1080 to seat comfortably at the wheel, as well as the impossibility of having a genoa winch near the wheels. Imagine those seats brought to the transom and a tiller. There are several options to modify the traveler to allow that. . |
A disadvantage of the previous cockpit solution versus a longer 40ft cockpit, that is not bettered on this one, is the length of cockpit seats that do not allow for laying down on them, sleeping from time to time, during a night watch solo, or with a wife who refuses to make night watches, and they are many.
While on a 40ft sailboat, there is enough length on the cockpit seats for laying at night, on a 36ft boat with a two-wheel setup you do not have enough space. But if you change from two wheels to a single tiller or single wheel, you can bring those seats all the way to the transom, not only allowing for space to lay down but also increasing the interior aft cabin space and the space for storage, inside and outside. Space in a small boat is precious, especially when you want to give it the same or better-cruising potential of a bigger boat, with the same price.
If well-designed the longer cockpit seats will provide space for a bigger sprayhood, one that can be easily put up and down, leaving half the cockpit covered and half in the sun, providing good shelter when it rains, or the sea is rough, and the tiller with a pole extension will provide better access to the winches over the cabin, with the possibility of having a winch on the side for the second head sail.
Probably it implies bringing the rudder a bit forward or moving the boom traveler aft the rudder. No big deal. Eventually, even if the tiller makes a lot more sense, an option with a single wheel can be used, one of those that tilts to make the access forward easier.
 |
Above, on the 1080, you can sit but there is no space for lying on those big cockpit "beds. You can see that the seat for helming disappeared substituted by narrow and uncomfortable seats. |
One thing they should have done on this boat was to mount one of those cockpit tables that hide under the cockpit floor. It is especially important because it relies on winches over the cabin for maneuvering, and due to being a 35.4ft boat, does not have a wide cockpit that allows easy passage forward, with a cockpit table in the middle.
I don't know if I am wrong. I am thinking as a cruiser that likes fast boats, but it is possible that the RM would sell better with the 1070 looks, just because it looks more like a race boat, and some are not bought for extended living aboard. About looks, the 10.80 is improved by a continuous plexiglass window that makes the boat look longer, and the bowsprit is longer, even if the 1080 has less fine bow entries than the 1070.
 |
RM 1070, seating position at the wheel, with a winch nearby. |
They did not pursue that crazy solution they tried in the 1180 of a hull part plywood, part fiberglass, and that is a very positive thing.
The 1080 may not look as good as the 1180, but it looks good, and the building is much more rational and problem-free.
The 1080, as its name indicates, is slightly longer than the 1070 (cm), it has the same big beam (4.0m) with a hull with the beam brought aft. The difference is that in the new boat max beam is almost at the midships, while on the previous model, it was more aft and it was not all brought back to the transom, like in the 1080. This allowed for finer entries on the previous model.
The RM 1080 is heavier (5200 to 4900kg), and it has similar keels (twin keel, single keel, or swing keel) with a similar draft (2.04/2.05 for the single keel, 1.72 for the twin keel). Like on previous models they don't announce ballast, which on the version with the twin keels, on the 1070, is 1600kg. That gives a 32.7%B/D on a keel with 1.72m.
That is not much and it will give it a safety stability and an AVS probably not better than the one on a Jeanneau SO 410 (that has good values for a main brand 40fter), and smaller than for instance the one on a Pogo 36, that has a smaller 30.3%B/D, but on a swing keel with 2.8m draft.
 |
Above, RM 1080, below RM 1070 |
However, it should be pointed out that the RM 1080, being heavier than the Pogo (5200 to 3600kg) will have a bigger overall stability. I hope that on the TM 1080 they have resisted the temptation of not increasing the ballast, otherwise the AVS and the safety stability will be worse than on the RM 1070. For having a similar AVS and safety stability the new boat should have at least around 100kg more ballast.
The new boat will have the advantage of a bigger standard tankage, water 2x150L to 186L (on the 1070) and fuel, 130L to 80L. In regards to sailing it is the opposite having, both boats with genoa, 72.0m2 for the 1080 and 77.2m2 for RM1070.
 |
Above and below, RM1070 |
Being the 1070 300kg lighter, having a bigger SA/D, with finer entries, it is a faster sailing boat. Not having the 1080 the possibility of having a gennaker winch (that can also be used to sail the boat solo with a genoa) contributes to the smaller sportiveness. Both have a 30hp engine.
Bottom point, if I had to choose, I would choose the 1070 over the 1080. Sure, the 1080 looks slightly better if we don't look at the cockpit, but I find that solution bad. If it offers some advantages while at anchor, it offers big disadvantages while sailing the boat...and it makes the boat uglier.
It displeases me to say that I find that the 1080 is not the evolution I hoped for to give a new life to RM yachts, and to continue the innovation path that had characterized RM yachts, before having derailed.
The new boat will cost at the shipyard without taxes 250,000€, and the Jeanneau costs 228,672€.
21,000 euros less but the RM has better sail hardware and you will have to spend more on the Jeanneau to have the same quality, not to mention there is not a cutter rig option for the Jeanneau, that is an option on the RM.
 |
| Above Jeanneau SO 410, below, Pogo 36 |
Both boats with taxes and fully equipped should cost in Europe a bit more than 300 000€ (VAT between 19 and 23%) and being different boats can be a choice for a sailor that has a budget of less than 350,000€ and wants a relatively fast cruising boat.
Being the Jeanneau SO 410 the fastest among 39/40ft main brands mass-produced sailboats, and offering also an option for a swing keel (that is also possible on the RM1080) it is a natural competitor.
.jpg)
A different type of cruising, less pointed for family cruising and more for solo or a very sportive couple.
But no doubt, some of the ones who will consider choosing the RM1080 as a cruising boat will also consider the Pogo 36, but not the same that will consider a choice between the RM 1080 and the Jeanneau SO 410.
