ARE OLDER SAILBOATS WORSE THAN RECENT DESIGNS? (1st part) - Sailing performance and hull design

Dufour 44/45E

This is the first part of a post about the design of modern cruising sailboats, compared to designs found primarily on older boats.

The first part, this one, is about the performance of different types of hulls, the second will be about advantages and disadvantages of the different types of hulls for cruising, and the third will be about which type of boat and type of hulls is the best suited for the different types of people who cruise, keeping in mind their preferences, when it comes to sailing and cruising.

Dufour 44

It gives me too much work, but it aims to respond to the many who send me emails wanting to know which boat they should buy, and once and for all to clarify that the type of boat I cruise with, and which for me is the ideal boat, has nothing to do with other people's ideal boats, with other preferences, when it comes to sailing or cruising. In fact my preference is a minority one, in what regards  sailing and cruising.

This first post is a little technical and analytical, but it is essential to put an end to the idea that many people have that cruising sail boats, hugely beamy, with large and very wide sterns, are faster than narrower boats with smaller sterns, and it is essential for the following posts.

1 - SAILING PERFORMANCE AND HULL DESIGN

I arrived a week ago from my sailing season and one of the interesting sail moments of this season was, when offshore Itaka, beating against the wind, I had the pleasure of catching and leave behind a 60ft modern cruising sailboat, with my 41 ft cruising sailboat. It was a 7-10 year old design, one of those that at the time big brands started to put on the market, with sleeker lines and a better built than their smaller models, a line that several of them call Yacht line. Newer models would be slower. They tend do be fatter, with more beam, less ballast and larger bow entries, to maximize volume, and the space on the front cabin.

On top, 2024 Dufour 44: beam 4.45m, B/D 28%. Below,
 2003 Dufour 44/45P: beam 4.25m, B/D 33%.

From the point I catch them to the beginning of the bay that gives entrance to Vathy natural port, passed about an hour, maybe a bit more, and they were already just a tiny spot on the horizon. I sail without a wind instrument, so I cannot tell exactly wind force, but I would say 15 knots. They sailed with all the sail out, I had the main on the second reef and the 135% genoa furled to 110%.

Yes, I could had more sail out, if I was sailing with a crew (like the big boat was - they were 4 crewing the boat, not counting wives and I was sailing just with my wife), but on the Med this year's season has been complicated, with a lot of strong winds, big gusts and squalls, and my wife, that is not a sailor (even if she provides me with some help) was permanently nervous about the weather, and to make her more comfortable, this year I chose to sail in a more sedate way, with the boat far from its limits. 

Dufour 44/45 Performance

The difference in speed with all the sail my boat could carry at that moment would not be much, maybe half a knot, and sailing with less sail allows me to reef less times and sail with less heel, besides at the limit my boat, that is what was called a cruiser-racer, and now tend to be called a performance cruiser, becomes more nervous, and it demands constant small rudder and sail adjustment, that are tiring when the boat is basically solo sailed.

2006 Comet 41s

We cruise on a Comet 41s, a 18 year old design. You can have a better idea about the boat reading this sail test on the link, but I would say that even if offering better and more comfortable interiors, the hull design and performances are  something in between the ones of the First 40 and a J122e.                https://www.yachtsandyachting.co.uk/equipment/boat-tests/comet-41s-review/

In what regards cruising and sailing upwind, this type of hull, has not only advantages: 

Above, 2024 Dufour 44, below, 2003 Dufour 44 performance.

Sure, it points 7 to 10 degrees better than most cruisers, and 15 degrees (or more) better than a cruising cat, at the same angle slams much less than a typical modern cruising boat, and it  has a better weight/power relation. All this makes it much faster upwind, but it also sails with considerable more heel. I would say about more 7 to10 degrees. It has to heel more to transform in power the difference in B/D and draft (bigger B/D bigger draft) that it has over a mass production cruiser main market cruiser.

Heel is an inconvenience mostly when you are inside the boat and have to prepare some food, or when you want to use the toilet. Sure, it is not difficult to diminish heel upwind, you just have to point more to the wind, reducing the 7.5 knot speed to something like 5.5kt, but you are losing time and we rarely do it, except momentarily, because we mostly sail in small 5 to 12 hours trips, and have time for a proper meal on arrival.

When we sail upwind with medium winds, my wife, who is 73 years old, has some trouble going inside and preparing some snacks with the boat heeled, so it's me, that on those conditions, go inside and prepare a snack for lunch.

2024 Dufour 44, below
 2003 Dufour 44P

To be honest, if somebody is prone to get seasick, going fast upwind with waves can increase the problem. If you are pushing the boat against wind and waves, exploring all performance the boat has to offer, because it points much better and it is faster than a main market cruiser, it takes waves more on the bow and in a more violent way (due to the extra speed), and even if the boat is not slamming due to finer entries, that is translated in a more violent motion, specially in the med, where the waves have a very short period.

We can say that I could go at the same angle as a main market cruising boat and reduce sail to go at the same speed, in that case this boat would be way more comfortable, but the ones that like to sail a performance boat don't do that, they enjoy going as fast as possible, and that includes pointing higher and sailing faster than main market cruising boats.

Above 2024 Dufour 44, below
2003 Dufour 44 Performance.

In what regards seasickness there are the ones that are more sensitive to big ample slow movements (and in this case there is no problem with my type of boat) and the ones that get more seasick with faster jerking movements. Unfortunately my wife gets worse with this type of movements, that become worse when I go fast upwind with waves, as close to the wind as to get the better performance. 

Fortunately this year she found some kind of natural pill against seasickness and things have become much better.

Back to comparative performance, it was not the only time we have caught and out-sailed cruising sailboats 50ft and over, in fact it happens several times every year, due to the Med being a place with a huge number of sailboats, and it is not only upwind, but also in winds between 5-12 knots, in all points of sail, and smaller cruisers are even easier to out-sail. 

2003 Dufour 44 Performance Tom Tom Laferla

On a parallel story, and because I chose pictures from 

two different Dufour 44, one from 2003 and other from

2024, some will be asking themselves what is the fastest 

boat: the newer or the beamier one with a big transom, or 

the old one, with an "old" designed transom, and the question

 makes some sense, because the displacements are not very

 different, 10200kg for the new boat and 10114kg for the 21

year old design. Well, the old design would be faster in all

 points of sail and conditions and much, much faster, if we

consider overall conditions, and not only downwind sailing.

 I will talk more ahead of sailboat performance on the 

Midlle Sea race, that is a good place to access the

performance of different types of hulls in med conditions,

and you should know that a slightly modified Dufour 44p,

Tom Tom Laferla is an usual competitor. This year they

 abandoned the race very early, but last year they were the

2nd 45ft performance cruiser to finish the race, behind the

 modified First 45 Elusive, if we do not count as performance

cruisers boats much more designed for racing than cruising,

like the JPK 11.80 or the Sydney 43RS, that arrived slightly

ahead. In 2020 this Dufour 44 won the class (IRC5) and

was 3rd overall in this race. If a modern Dufour 44 made

 this race, it would finish it among the last boats to arrive.

Curiously my wife that does not particularly like sailing fast, loves to catch and out sail big boats, and on those occasions she even participates actively in the boat fine tuning. Well, women are difficult to understand. If she likes that why doesn't   she like to sail fast all the time and keeps asking me to reef the sails? I guess she is always afraid that stronger winds appear and we need to reef. That is not a problem for me, but she hates being at the helm while I reef the boat, even if it is the easiest part.

Several times while beating and tacking against the wind we noticed that we where doing the same VMG as sailboats that were motoring directly against the wind and waves, and many times we were faster sailing, than those boats motoring.

For giving you an idea I remember a 48ft Oceanis that we over sailed, also upwind but with weaker winds (maybe 8-9 kt), they with all the sail up, us just with the genoa.

We both overtook easily a Jeanneau 410 with a reef on the main (god knows why), that rapidly stayed behind. We where sailing at about the same speed and were going to the same port,as we later found out. The bigger boat stayed rapidly behind when both boats tacked. Even only with the genoa the Comet could point much better than the Oceanis (I was sailing only with the genoa because we where going to a port 10 miles away, and it did not deserved the trouble to put the main out, and most of all, to store it again in the bag).

Sure, this boat is equipped with all performance extras that
 Dufour offered as options, and it has a custom bowsprit, but
 it is has the same hull as a standard 2003 Dufour 44 P.

From performance while racing I could give you many more exemples where older designs, with the transoms with all the beam not all pulled back, have outsailed more modern sailboats with what is called modern transoms (all the beam pulled back). These examples were taken from main IRC races where the crews are all competent, not to say good.

For two decades I have been comparing the performance of different types of hulls while racing on major races and I have made some posts about the subject (links below).

For instance, last year on the Middle Sea Race I was truly impressed by the performance of a 23 old design, a J125, very narrow, lots of ballast. They didn't even got a good result in IRC due to a very high rating, but they out sailed  a Mat 12, a fast cruiser racer, and outsailed the fastest of the JPK 11.80.

This year, on the same offshore race that had typical med conditions, with lots of wind, medium winds, very weak winds, sudden squalls and types of sailing positions, I saw again huge beam performance cruisers (two Pogo 36, a Pogo 44 and a RM 1360) not doing well, being overall, slow.

Above the 27 year old J125. Below, the new Matt 1220,
 beam 3.96m, very different from the 18 year old
 Matt 12, beam 3.75m, that raced this Middle Sea race.

Regarding cruiser racers, the most impressive performance comes from a Sydney 43 GTS (4.2m beam), an Australian boat that I love and that for a short period was manufactured by Salona for Europe, without sales success. Its performance on this race is very good and he finished the race on the tail of a racing Volvo 70, leaving behind all racing class 40 and the Rapido 53XS, one of the fastest performance cruisers trimarans.

The Sydney 43 is a 13-year-old design and the only one (among older designs) that has all the beam pulled back, but with very characteristic and particular aft sections, that Ker (the designer) was the first to develop, and that later were adopted by Poli, the designer of many Italia Yachts, and now Grand Soleil, that use a somewhat similar transom design. 

13 year old designed Sydney 43GTS, 4.20m beam

The Sydney 43GTS won in IRC Class 3, also arriving first in real time and being the first 43ft to arrive, beating all racing boats of that size, or slightly smaller. The Sydney performance puts a bit on the shadow the very good performance of another cruiser-racer, a Neo 430 (4.1m beam), that arrived on the next group of boats. 

Above, Pogo 44 - beam: 4.50m

Behind the Neo came two ICE 52RS (4.65m beam, a very fast performance cruiser), an then an incredibly fast racing Elliot 35ss (3.5m beam) and quite incredibly the old modified First 45 (4.2m beam) , that left behind  an old Farr 45 racing boat (4.2m beam) and a super fast cruiser racer, a ClubSwan 42 (3.9m beam) and at some distance a new First 53 performance cruiser (5,0m beam). 

Note that even if  the Pogo has a much bigger beam, seen from above, transoms
 seem similar, both with the max beam pulled aft, but when we look at the aft
 hull sections, we can see that they are hugely different, with Sydney transom
 allowing the hull to heel without increasing drag, allowing for a better
 performance upwind, while the Pogos' one limits heeling providing a more
 stable boat downwind and providing a more efficient autopilot use.

The Clubswan 42, a 19-year-old design, was 3rd in IRC 3, arrived not far from the First 45 and ahead of the First 53 and was only beaten in real time by five cruiser-racers, all bigger the Sydney 43 GTS, a NEO 430, two ICE 52 and the modified First 45. From them, the Sydney and the ClubSwan are more pointed to racing, while all the others are what we can call performance cruisers.

It is interesting to point out that in real time the all carbon NEO 430, that made a good race (was 5th in IRC Class 3 and arrived in real time in 3rd) was only 3 hours and a half faster than the older Clubswan 42 in a 113 hours race, and the NEO 430 is a full carbon boat and the Swan 42 has only spars in carbon.

The 27-year-old J125, that had impressed me last year, was also very fast, and if we take out the 2 hours (redress time given in compensated) that lost while helping the crew of a damaged boat, they would have arrived practically at the same time as the bigger 16-year-old designed First 45, that made a fantastic race.

Mention also for an 19-year-old designed Comet 45s (4.2m beam, the big sister of my boat) that, before losing much time with damaged sails? was ahead of the new First 53, and chasing the also old and modified, First 45 the one that won the IRC class 4. It would also won in real time, arriving 3 hours before the First 53 that was second.

Above, First 45, below First 53, even if they are not
comparable due to the different in sizes, the First 53
is beamier boat (5.0m to 4.2m).

The next boat, to arrive, quite incredibly, was a 30-year-old designed Farr 30 (3.1m beam) with a relatively narrow transom that won IRC class 5 and that left the duo sailed First 36 almost 5 hours behind and the Sunfast 3300 that won class 6 at more than 13 hours. We may also point out that a J112e was only 3 hour slower than the First 36 and 7 hours and a half faster than the first of several Sunfast 3300.

Regarding very beamy performance cruisers versus narrow performance cruisers it is worth pointing out that the J112e was 19 hours faster than the Pogo 44, 24 hours faster than the RM1360, and 25 hours faster than the Pogo 36. A mention to the First 36, that won in two handed, that was 3 hours faster than the J112e, showing good potential for two handed racing.

Above First 36, beam:3.80m
Below, Pogo 36, beam: 4.00m

The First 36, that is narrower than the Pogo 36 ( 3.80m to 4.00m beam), made a great race showing a much better racing potential for duo racing than all Pogo 36 that I have seen competing in this race, but it was only 6th overall in IRC class 5. I have seen in other occasions on top races JPK and Jboats winning not only the duo handed race but also the class, and even one time being 1st overall in IRC.

Without taking the merit of the very good First 36 performance I cannot wait to see it racing against top duo or crewed JPK 10.80, that unfortunately did not happen in this race, being the competition less numerous and weaker than usual. The next fast boat in the 2handed class was a Sunfast 3300 (3rd) that was only 9th in IRC class 6.

Above, J112e, beam: 3.60m

Here you can find posts about the performance of beamier, versus narrower performance cruisers:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2023/01/2023-dusseldorf-first-36-pogo-36-j112e.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/j112e-beautifull-nimble-fast-cruiser.html

Above Dehler 30, beam: 3.28m

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/01/european-performance-cruiser-of-2017.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/03/pogo-becomes-more-comfortable-pogo-44.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/02/grand-soleil-44-versus-pogo-44-and.html

Above, Farr 30, beam: 3.08m

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/hull-designperformance-jboats-versus.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/04/solo-racing-crewed-racing-hull-design.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/03/sam-manuard-on-design-of-performance.html

Above, Comet 45s, beam 4.20m
The Comet 45s won the 2008 
 World ORC championship and in
 the 2020 Middle sea race,being
duo sailed, made 2nd in IRC class 4.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/03/saphire-27-versus-seascape-27.html

Among racers, special mention for the fastest 50ft boat in this edition of the Middle Sea Race, the 9th boat in line honors and 1st overall in ORC, a Cookson 50, a 21-year-old design with a moderate beam (4.27m) and with the max beam not all pulled to the transom. In his racing career the Cookson 50 has won many races, not only as a class winner, but overall, and many when it was already an over 10-year-old design.

Above, ClubSwan 42, beam 3.93 m

Besides many victories in ORC (2017 World ORC championship) it won overall the Middle sea race in 2016, won overall the Fastnet two times, in 2007 and 2017, won overall the Sydney Hobart in 2013 and continues competitive in 2024, with podium places and even an overall victory in ORC, in this year's  Middle Sea Race.

Above, Neo 430, beam  4.01 m, an all carbon
 cruiser racer that starts to win races but needs yet
 a major accomplishment. There is one being
 raced in Australia, maybe we can see it competing 
against the two J11.80 in the 2024 Sydney-Hobart.

The Cookson 50, that I would not call a cruiser-racer, but that can be used for cruising (it has a spartan but funcional cruising interior) arrived just behind a group of three very fast 52ft modern racers (one of them won the race), two TP52 and a Botin 56, and left behind a Botin 52, an Infinity 52, and way behind and far away, two Volvos 65, one Volvo 70 and another TP52, not to mention many other bigger racers because it was the 7th boat to finish the race. 

ClubSwan 50, beam: 4.20m

Even in compensated the Cookson 50, a 21-year -old design, has done well, finishing the race in 3rd in IRC and winning in ORC.

Looking at this year's edition of the Middle Sea Race, and at the results, boat's performances and hull shapes, we can confirm that what we observed here has happened already in some other editions, showing that many times older designs, narrower boats, with not all the beam pulled back, offer a better performance than more "modern" designs, and that hugely beamy boats do not perform well on this particular race, that is probably the one that better replicates Med conditions.

21 year old Cookson 50, beam: 4.27m
Below, a nice carbon interior.

You can have more information regarding racing, type of hull and performance, on these posts:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/03/hull-shape-bd-and-boats-performance.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/10/2022-middle-sea-race.html

Cookson 50 racing

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/07/shape-of-hull-and-boat-performance.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2017/11/hull-designperformance-jboats-versus.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/10/2020-middle-sea-race-type-of-hulls-and.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2018/10/2018-middle-sea-race-update.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/10/20114-middle-sea-ra-look-at-comparative.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2014/04/looking-at-comparative-cruising-boats.html

Of course beam or type of transom are not the only dimensions that count in what regards monohull performance, the shape of the hull on the forward and aft parts is also important as well where max beam is located, B/D, draft, keel design and displacement are elements that are important to establish the relation between power and drag on a sailboat, that is very relevant for performance, and that can vary in different points of sail, different wind and sea conditions and heel angles.

Above, Neo 430 transom,
below, ClubSwan 42

Because practically all contemporary designed racers have all the beam pulled back and a considerable beam, almost all think that a sailboat with all the max beam pulled back to the transom is faster than an older design with a smaller transom, and the thinking is mostly justified. 

For racing, on most conditions having all the beam pulled back has advantages, but on some conditions (that can be in some places the more frequent ones), namely with weak wind and upwind, it has disadvantages. 

So, why practically all racing boats use them? Because the time they can win downwind, and reaching in medium high to strong winds, vastly compensates the time they lose upwind. 

The differences in speeds downwind and beam reaching, between the two types of hulls, are way bigger than the difference in speeds in weak wind or upwind (including pointing ability), so, in most conditions it compensates to have all the beam pulled back.

Pogo 12.50 a hull similar to the one on Pogo 44. Note that, even if,
at the first look it seems similar to the NEO one, it is in fact very 
different. The NEO 430 photo does not help because it was taken
with a wide angular lens, and distorts the shape, but notice that the
transom is much more rounded, and the rounded part goes higher
 on the hull It is also interesting to look at the antifouling on the three
 hulls: the one of the Swan does not come till the transom, the one
 of the NEO does, but it is narrow there, while the one of the 40class
 racer is wider and occupies almost all the bottom.

That bigger difference is due to an easier planing with a transom with the beam pulled back, and that means you can easily explore the boat's limits and  potential, resulting in a several knots faster overall speed on those conditions. The stronger the wind, the bigger the difference in speed, except, of course upwind, were it is the opposite.

However this advantage even for racing does not regard all racing conditions, and particularly in offshore races on the Med (and other regions with similar wind conditions), where winds are varied in the direction and frequently weak, many times older designs perform better, and extremely beamy cruiser-racers or performance cruisers, like the Pogo, do not perform well, losing too much time upwind and in weaker wind conditions, while older designs like the J122e, the J112e or the First 45 perform better.

Above, Cookson 50, below TP52 (2018). As you can see the  cookson
transom is not very different from the ClubSwan42, and the one of the
TP52 is not very different from the NEO 430 one.

And we saw that on the Ocean Race, in the Mediterranean legs, the old VOR 65 were in most cases faster than the much beamier brand new flying 60ft IMOCAs, equipped with last generation foils.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/06/why-are-new-imoca-slower-than-older-vor.html

Not all types of hulls with the beam pulled aft are the same and besides the obvious distinction between narrow, moderate and beamy boats, they can have very different designs on the aft hull sections that will provide different maximization of performances in different ways. 

In offshore races where downwind and beam reaching in medium strong to strong winds are the norm, beamier boats with the beam all pulled back, have an advantage and we will see them shine while racing and not only in Transat races. 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/02/2019-caribbean-600.html

In what regards racing boats we can say that overall new designs  are faster, even if there are racing conditions where older designs can perform better, and we can also find some very successful new designs that don't have all the beam pulled back. 

The JPK 10.30, 10.80 and 11.80 or at the J112 and J99 , winners of many races and top performers in compensated and real time are good examples. All were designed in the last decade and some just some years back and none of them has the beam all pulled back.

On top the JPK 10.30, then theJ99 and below, JPK 11.80.
 They are all recent designs and winners of many races,
 winning not only in compensated time but being the
 first boat of that size finishing the race, beating much
bigger sailboats.

Regarding older designs performing sometimes better, all remember the Sydney Hobart huge battles between Wild Oats XI and Comanche, being Comanche at the time a newly designed boat, very advanced in design for its time, and 11 years younger than Wild Oats, that was a narrow boat while Comanche was a beamy boat and we all know that in most cases the performance was very close and that several times Wild Oats beat Comanche, even if Comanche also won the race several times.

Note that Comanche even if it was seen as a beamy racing boat at the time, is only moderately beamy, if we compare it with  IMOCA designs, or modern main market designs.

Or you can look at the Cookson 50, the 21-year-old design, that I mentioned above due to the very good performance on this year's Middle Sea Race, where it finished 3rd overall (IRC) and won in ORC, but besides this victory in ORC, the Cookson 50, a Farr design  from 2003, had won in 2007 and 2017 the Fastnet, in 2013 the Sydney Hobart and the Middle Sea race in 2016 and it is still a competitive racing sailboat, no matter being an old design.

(to be continued on another post about - Cruising advantages and disadvantages of different types of hulls.)

SAILING

Thanks to all that have commented posts on the blog, but from May to the end of September I am sailing, I have not time for the blog, and I will not reply.

Till October, have fun sailing, after that I will return, and maybe I will post some new articles, and I will reply to comments.

INSIEME 40, A TRUE LIVING ABOARD CRUISING SAILBOAT

Cruising boats should be equipped for cruising but, oddly, they do not come equipped to do what they should be designed for, not even expensive ones like Hallberg-Rassy. Standard, most are not even equipped for sailing. Not the case with the Insieme 40, that comes already very well equipped for sailing and cruising, and that makes it a very different offer, almost a unique one on the market.

Most cruisers are sold with the same cruising equipment boats had 50 years ago, with a low battery bank capacity, without renewable energy power sources, and if you want to cruise without going from marina to marina, to recharge your batteries everyday, or if you don't want to run your engine everyday for several hours, you will need to install, either a noisy generator, or solar panels. In any case you have to increase the battery bank size, in many cases increase the boat tankage, and to make things worse, you will find that some of these items are not on the options list, or if they are, it will be in a very limited way. And you will have to add things like full electronic instruments, radio, auto-pilot, bow thruster or good quality sails, ad so on.

Not the case with the Insieme 40, that is truly thought as a cruising boat, it comes already with all the equipment that in other boats are expensive extras, and it offers, as standard, all the stuff a cruiser needs, from solar panels to a huge battery bank, a big alternator and a relatively big tankage.

The Insieme 40 is not really a new boat, it is a super equipped and slightly reinforced Sunbeam 40.1, now made by Vilm shipyard, also a German shipyard, and under the supervision of Gerhard Schöchl, who directed previously Sunbeam yachts.

Sunbeam 40.1

The Sunbeam 40.1 is an elegant yacht and a very good sailing boat that Sunbeam stopped producing, as well as all its cruising line, to center its activity in small daysailers. Obviously they stopped producing cruising boats, after decades making them, because they were not making money, probably they were even losing money with them. The 40.1 is a 2014 design from J&J and the last one was built in 2021. They only made 14 of them, and that is an unacceptable number for a production shipyard.

Sunbeam 40.1

Nine years ago, when I reviewed the Sunbeam 40.1, I said nice things about it, even if I did not predict a big success, but from there to the shipyard having difficulty in selling them, not managing a small profit to keep going, was a real surprise.

Back in 2015 they had managed to substitute their older cruising models and had two new yachts, the 40.1 and the 46, both contemporary designs, well built, well designed, with nice and high quality interiors, good cruising sailboats, proposed at a fair price. 

Now it becomes clear that the main reason for the Sunbeam failure, in a shrinking high quality yacht market, was their refuse to hugely increase the beam to allow much more interior space, at the cost of light wind, and upwind sail performance and maybe their insistance in maintaining the quality of previous boats when costs were escalating.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2015/10/sunbeam-401-great-cruiser.html

The 40.1 has a 3.99m beam and even if that does not make it a narrow boat, it is much narrower than for instance the Hallberg-Rassy 400 (4.18m), and even more if we consider less expensive and lower quality sailboats like the new Hanse 410 (4.29m) or the Dufour 41 (4.27m). 

Above, the Insieme 40, below the
Hallberg-Rassy 40

Also the refuse to bring beam back, to give it a huge transom, may have given it a too classic look for most, in a time where huge transoms are looked as modern, even if boats like  Jboats and JPK showed, while racing, that, out of mostly downwind races, the hull shape configuration of a huge beam and all beam pulled back, is not an overall advantageous one, even less in a cruising sailboat, that normally avoid strong winds, and is normally quite loaded. However it does allow to sail with less heel.

We can see that for about the same length cockpit,
the one on the HR is much wider, particularly at
the transom

And a huge beam and transom pose problems to the one that is sailing the boat upwind in stronger conditions, that risks to fall from above, several meters to the other side of the transom (nothing that hasn't ever happened to me), and increase marina costs, because due to huge beams there is now a beam limitation around 4.0 meters. If the boat has more, even if it has only 11.99m, it passes to the superior price category.   

This new version, besides being slightly reinforced, has some detail alterations in the hull, mostly to be able to say they have a skeg rudder, that is really vestigial, and not really a skeg rudder,  but hopefully those alterations  should have not a significant effect on drag and performance. 

Basically it is the same boat even if they don't disclose the displacement neither the ballast while saying that the boat has a "high ballast ratio".

The Sunbeam 40.1 is a relatively light cruiser, with 8500kg for a ballast of 2980kg on an efficient torpedo keel with 2.00m draft. The ballast ratio at 35.1% is way better than in mass production cruisers and a good one, better that the one of the Hallberg-Rassy 400, with a better final stability, even if the overall stability of the HR is way bigger, due to its 11000kg displacement.

Above, the Insieme 40 with the 1.9m L keel
Below the Sunbeam 40.1 with the 2.00 T keel

If the Inseme was used as a bluewater boat it would gain in having a more reinforced hull and hull structure and because it is a relatively small yacht,  having a bit more displacement would not be a bad idea because it would give it a bigger overall stability. If we consider that the Insieme has over the Sundbeam 500 kg in reinforcements and extra equipment, and a  less efficient L keek with 1.90m draft, for compensating, and give it a similar final stability they will have to increase the ballast in around 3500kg, and that would bring the boat displacement to around 9500kgs.

I have asked them about the ballast and they said that with the standard cast iron L keel with 1.90m draft had 3458kg. It can also have a torpedo T keel with 2.00m draft (the same as on the Sunbeam 40.1) and in that case it will be lighter. If we consider on both yachts the standard keel efficiency into bringing the CG down,  it seems to me that the location of the CG will be very on the two Yachts.

The Insieme, like the Sunbeam 40.1 will have a good safety stability and AVS, and with 9500kg displacement and a considerable hull form stability will have a bigger overall stability than most 40ft cruisers, and a much better safety stability and AVS, more than enough to give it a big safety margin in offshore cruising.

The standard Insieme keel

They told me that they don't know yet the displacement with the alterations, and I find that a bit odd because that should relate with the needed ballast. The standard cast iron keel design looks good, even if I would prefer the T keel with more draft and a lead torpedo (that should be possible). A T keel with 2.0m draft with a lead bulb should bring the displacement to just around 9000kg.

Anyway, if not for bluewater use, the original model with 8500kg displacement is more adequate, and will provide more fun and sailing performance than an heavier and more reinforced sailboat. And doing some Atlantic crossings in the right season, and mostly cruising in the Med, Baltic or Caribbean, in the sailing season, it is not giving it a bluewater use, even if one cruises extensively, or lives permanently aboard. 

What makes the Insieme really different from the Sunbeam 40.1 and other sailboats, even expensive ones (that come already with some equipment), is the quantity and quality of the standard equipment, that makes it not only a true sail away boat, but one very well equipped for cruising. 

It comes standard with high quality cruising hydranet sails (jib and main) using a furling mast, that should not be difficult or expensive to change to a standard mast, with one line furling boom, taking the opportunity to increase sail area. A furling mast in a boat of this size for bluewater use is not a choice I would have made, and even worse with vertical battens, that give a better performance but that increase jamming possibilities, and in the case of jamming makes lowering the sail much more difficult.

It comes with a sloop configuration, but with the deck stepped mast already prepared for a cutter configuration, that is an option. It comes with 6 winches, one of them electric, Harken genoa and mainsheet travelers. A self tacking traveler for the jib is optional and will only make sense in the cutter configuration.

It comes standard with a solid bow platform that serves as anchor stand and as bowsprit for a geenaker or code 0, with a 25kg spade, 50m of 10mm chain and an anchor winch with 1700w. It also offers an acrylic windshield on an aluminum frame.

Above Insieme 40 layout, below the Sunbeam 40.1 layout.
The hull seems different but itis not. The drawing of the
 Insieme is misleading,looks odd, and I don't know why
 they have such a bad drawing in their site.

The outside storage is good, they talk about a sail locker, but it is really a big chain locker that will allow to store some fenders and the garbage, plus a side locker and a big aft locker. On the Sunbeam the interior storage space could be accessed by the outside. That is a good idea, except if the boat is used for bluewater sailing. In that case I would  prefer not to have communication, because that represents a big liability if the boat capsizes.

Regarding instruments, the Insieme comes with a Raymarine i70s instrument system package for depth, temperature, wind, and speed. Raymarine Axiom PRO 2 9-inch chartplotter, Raymarine Evolution autopilot system (ACU-400) including Raymarine Type 2 autopilot drive. Raymarine AIS700 transceiver and Raymarine Ray90 DSC VHF radio.

Above, Insieme galley and saloon, below, Sunbeam 40.1. A bigger
head with a separate shower takes some space to the saloon and
 makes imposible the nice solution on the photo below, with a central
chart table and two seats.

It comes also standard with a bow thruster and an unusually powerful 50hp Volvo-Penta with a big 300L diesel tank. The water tankage is good, given the size of the boat (HL-11.99m), 400L, and it comes standard with a 24L boiler with a hot water electric system for when the the boat is at the marina or port.

In what regards standard electric systems it makes a big difference towards other yachts, coming with a huge house lithium battery bank with 660AH, 3000VA inverter with integrated 120A charger and 400W solar panel system, integrated into the deck. It has a large 120A alternator and numerous outlets (USB + 230V).

The interior is basically the one of Sunbeam 40.1 in the two cabin version, that was a nice and good quality one, with some alterations: the storage space seems well fitted and the layout was modified to have a bigger head with a separate shower (an improvement). 

On the saloon the seats on the starboard side were removed to be substituted by a multifunctional counter with two drawers (that optionally can be a freezer) and by a pilot chart table and a dedicated seat.

Regarding this last modification, in a relatively small boat, I find that dedicated chair a waste of space. If instead of the chair it was used a multifuncional block constituted by a long seat that coming from the counter served as seat for the chart table, it could not only provide two extra places at the dining table for guests, but also an useful storage space (under the seat) for provisions. It would also look better visually providing more integration.

Good storage everywhere with  plenty cabinets.
 The storage on the large storage room can be 
probably adapted to the owner needs.

Another interesting and very useful standard feature is a Flexima comfort mattress (in the owner's cabin) and blackout blinds and mosquito nets for all the hatches, two very useful items.

Besides the extensive standard equipment they offer options that make sense for extended or bluewater cruising, some of them not offered as options in other sailboats, like an arch with additional solar modules (up to 760Wp), davits for the dinghy, a watermaker, a washing machine (3kg), additional fridge/freezer, a microwave instead of the gas stove, a diesel heater, a masthead camera including collision warning system, and an additional, complete backup autopilot system. 

A generator is not on the list of most desirable options, even if it could be mounted, since this boat offers a lot of customization. That has to do with the spirit of this yacht that is designed for the ones that like to cruise with the nature, sailing and living aboard as silently as possible, even if I doubt the washing machine is not really too much an energy waste for using out of the port, or marina.

The Sunbeam 40.1 was better built than mass produced sailboats, the Insieme 40 is probably just a bit better, and its quality probably near, or similar, to the one of GS 42LC, that would be the boat with which to compare the Insieme 40.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/02/dusseldorf-2020-grand-soleil-42-lc.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/10/grand-soleil-42lc-one-of-best-new.html

Both boats use as structure a GRP liner that is bonded and glassed to the hull, plywood bulkheads bonded and laminated to the hull, 20mm plywood on the GS, 25mm and 16mm on the Insieme. 

Both use vinylester resin for the first layers then polyester resin, using both boats a high density closed foam core on a sandwich hull, using GS an infusion vacum system, and being hand laid on the Insieme, that uses below waterline only monolithic fiberglass, while on GS, they have only monolithic fiberglass in the places where their use is more indicated, like the keel. The GS uses some carbon fibers as reinforcement in the more stressed areas.

The keel is all cast iron on the Insieme and it is cast iron with a lead bulb on the GS. I would say that the GS has slightly better built specifications, but because the Insieme 40 is not built like a production boat, eventually, that can be compensated by a superior care and more controlled quality check, but to really know that you have to visit the shipyard and see how they work and how  the quality control is done.

On top, Insieme 40 structure, above, GS 42LC

The Insieme 40 makes sense if it is cheaper than the GS equipped the same way, but that is not an easy thing to find because the Insieme 40 has some exclusive equipment, like the solar panels and the big lithium battery bank. While on the Insieme you have all this already installed on the boat, and available more dedicated options for bettering the boat for cruising, on the Grand Soleil you will have to select a lot of options, and for some equipment, that is not on the option list, they would have to out source it, probably through the dealer, and that is not the same thing as having them installed at the shipyard, neither provides the same warranty of quality and the price for each item can only be obtained after an individual budget.

Above, Insieme 40, below GS 42 LC, two
different hulls, both with fine entries but
very different aft sections and transom.

Besides that, due to the much smaller production, the Insieme 40 has a potential for customization that the GS 42LC does not have. Another factor to consider is that the the Insieme has a 11.99m HL to a GS42LC 12.95m HL and that will allow the Insieme 40 to save considerably in marinas, dry dock, or in the payment of cruising taxes, that today have started to be the norm (Croatia, Greece, Italy) because it will pay one class below, while the GS will pay in many cases the same as a much bigger boat.

There are several test sails on the Sunbeam 40.1 and they all say that the boat sails very well. with a displacement of 8500kg and an upwind sail area of  87,5m2 (with a genoa), it has a very respectable 21.4 SA/D. You can read below one of the sail tests, (link) one that impressed positively the tester:

"Sailing her in extreme conditions showed she was more than capable of taking on the 1m swell and gusts in excess of 35 knots, moreover, with the right sail configuration she handled it with aplomb. The twin-wheeled Jefa steering was smooth and light, with just the right weight and precision and she was quick to respond: forgetting the course and chasing speed, I was frequently rewarded by double figures on the log.

Insieme 40

She offers a good compromise between performance and comfort. ... She’s a comfortable, fast offshore/ocean-capable cruiser that’s rewarding to daysail, too ..she’d definitely be on my shortlist, were I in the market for a 12m yacht. If you cruise as a couple or with friends, appreciate high quality and are prepared to pay for it, then she should be on your shortlist, too."

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/yacht-reviews/sunbeam-40-1-review-32080

Grand Soleil 42 LC

Regarding how the Sunbeam will compare with the Inseme 40 I can only make an educated guess, because the displacement is not given and there is some confusion regarding sail areas. On the Insieme site they talk about a top genoa that is in fact a geenaker. I asked them about that, they confirmed it is a geenaker and they have given me for the genoa a 37.4m2 sail area, that seems to me a very small difference for the 36.1m2 jib. That would give only a 83m2 sail area, that is way less than the 87.5m2 the Sunbeam has, on a lighter boat, and therefore it would make the Insieme a considerably slower boat, specially in weaker winds.

Above, Sunbeam 40.1, below Grand Soleil 42 LC

But unless they have reduced the mast height then the genoa can be bigger and have the same size as in the Sunbeam (41m2) and the main, that is also given as being a bit smaller (45.8m2 to 46.5m2), if a non furling mast is used, can be increased in about 5 meters, so it should be possible to have a total sail area of about 92 m2 and that, considering a (estimated)  displacement of 9500kg (more 1000kg than the Sunbeam) gives a SA/D of 20.9, not far from the original Sunbeam 21.4 SA/D.

With the 2.00m T keel and a lead bulb, considering a displacement of 9000kg (weight saved by the keel superior efficiency), with the non furling mast and the bigger genoa, the SA/D will be 21.6, similar to the one of the original Sunbeam 40.1.

Comparing with the Grand Soleil 42LC, depending on using a furling mast or not, and a jib or a genoa, the SA/D can vary between 21.3 and 23.2 and that means that to have the same performance of a Grand Soleil with a furling mast, the Insieme has to have a non furling mast and a genoa, and that the GS has the potential to be faster, due to a longer LWL and optionally more sail area. But I would not be surprised if the narrower hull of the Insieme and the transom design (and aft hull shape) could compensate that, upwind or in light wind sailing. Not being truly performance cruisers, these two are fast cruisers.

Grand Soleil 42LC, above and below

As you all have already understood I like the idea, I like this boat and it makes much more sense to cruise with a smaller well equipped, well built sailboat that offers the speed, space and the seaworthiness necessary, than with a not so well equipped, not so well built bigger sailboat, whose maintenance and marina costs will be much superior, and that will cost more while new (even if not so well equipped).

As usual much is about costs and the Insieme 40, with all the equipment is expensive, at €504,000 excluding VAT while a Grand Soleil 42LC standard (without equipment) costs without VAT €349,000. That means a difference of   155,000 euros in equipment. On Insieme they say their boat has between 200,000 to 250,000 euros in extra equipment. If you have the right budget you have to check these costs out, and see if the Insieme is in fact a considerably less costly option.

With the Insieme you will have, even if you opt for more options than the equipment that comes in the standard boat, a sail away boat, as you want it, directly from the shipyard while with the GS 42 LC you will have a lot of work to outfit the boat with equipment that is not optional.

One thing is for sure, in Europe, with VAT, to have a new superior quality cruising sailboat, offshore capable, and very well equipped for cruising, you need about  600,000 euros, and that is just too much for the vast majority. In 2004/2005 when I was dreaming of changing my almost new Bavaria 36, for a bigger boat, for the retirement days, what you needed was about 350,000 euros. In 20 years yachts almost doubled their prices, and the same did not happen with average salaries.