JPK 39 FAST CRUISER VERSUS JPK 11.80 CRUISER RACER

When this boat was being built I made a post about the JPK 39FC, the successor of a great performance cruiser, the JPK 38FC. There is also a complete post about the 38FC:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/05/jpk-39fc-best-small-fast-voyage-cruiser.html

http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/01/jpk-38fc.html

But now that it was launched, and has even been tested by a sailing magazine, a new post makes sense, even if not only to look at the real thing, and not just the drawings.

And the real thing looks much better than in the drawings, a beautiful boat, nicer than the previous one, with a not very different hull, in fact in what regards sailing performance it will be very close, but the 39FC is just a bit better in everything, from sail area, to interior space and cruising amenities.

Valer (the NA) and JPK resisted the temptation to increase volume increasing beam (as almost every brand is doing) and this boat has about the same beam as the previous model (3.98m to 3.99m).

We would be tempted to say that the 38 was even slightly beamier, taking into account this one is longer, but it would not be fair to look at beam and interior volume only in what regards maximum beam, especially in this case because the 39 has fuller bow sections and fuller stern sections, allowing for a larger front cabin but losing a bit in what regards bow finesse.

But if we compare JPK 39FC with the Bavaria C42, two cruising boats with a not very different hull length (11.72m to 11.99m) we will see that the difference in beam is huge (3.98m to 4.30m). If we compare the JPK 39FC beam with the one of a Pogo 12.50 (that contrary to what it looks has not a much bigger hull length – 11.72m to 12.18m) we can see that the difference in beam is even bigger (3.98m to 4.50m).

Of course, the Pogo and the Bavaria are completely different sailboats, the Bavaria displacing more than 10T, the Pogo 5.5T (the Pogo displacement similar to the one of the JPK) and having bow entries much finer than the ones in Bavaria. In fact the Pogo has the hull of an older Pogo Class40 racer and it is, like the JPK 39FC, a very fast performance cruiser.

So, what does that huge difference in beam between the JPK and the Pogo mean? It means that the Pogo is very much maximized (like all 40class racers) for downwind sailing, transats or trade wind sailing, that is what the 40class racers are all about, while the JPK 39 has a much more all around balanced performance, even if in the design of the transom does not diverge much from the one in the Pogo, a design that increases rapidly hull form stability (and drag) with heeling, making it a very stable platform for solo or short crew sailing and easier to be steered by an autopilot especially when sailing fast.

There is a common misconception, that has been serving to justify, performance-wise, the huge increase of beam in cruising sailboats, and even in performance cruisers, the brands stating that this huge increase in beam is favorable to sail performance and that the reason why racing boats are narrower is to make them competitive in IRC/ORC handicap racing, implying that beamier boats, not being designed specifically to be competitive under those rules, are faster.  That’s a publicity stunt (considering overall sailing performance).

That misconception, in what regards performance cruisers, is particularly strong in what regards Pogo cruisers, that on the wind conditions for which they are maximized to perform best (trade winds) are almost unbeatable (size by size), but that in mixed conditions, even when they are strong ones, are not as fast as those performance cruisers that supposedly where only fast on the paper (IRC /ORC), not on the water.

Journalists have been responsible for this misconception, even if I remember that on one of the first test sails of the boat that would be called Pogo 12,50, a comparative test with a Dufour 40p, they had made a simulated a race, upwind and downwind, to find with surprise that even if on the water the Pogo speed was higher, both boats ended showing a similar performance, due to the Dufour better pointing and ability to sail downwind at bigger angles….and the Dufour 40p it is not a particularly fast performance cruiser, being considerably slower than a J122.

JPK 39FC

I have posted many race results (in elapsed time) to show this, and the results in the last Middle Sea Race, that was raced in medium and strong but variable winds, show once more that the Pogo 12.50 is not as fast (in real time) as fast cruiser-racers , when the wind conditions are varied.

In the last Middle Sea Race there was a Pogo12.50 racing, and making it in 3days, 16 hours and 20 minutes, two JPK 11.80 made it in 3d 0h 22m and 3d 8h 21m, a First 40 (3d 9h 52m), 4 J122 (3d 10h 32m, 3d 10h 35m, 3d 10h 48m, 3d 12h 38m) and a JPK 45FC, that made it in 3d 9h 19m, a surprisingly good result, especially because it is an Australian boat, probably equipped for bluewater sailing.

JPK 11.80

A pity the Pogo 50 from Fast Sailing did not race on this edition, it would be interesting to compare the performance with the JPK 45FC, which I believe would not be very different, even if the Pogo is a bigger boat. The JPK 45FC, like the smaller sister, the 39FC, are not so maximized for downwind sailing, as the Pogo, and that would translate in better results, size for size, in a race with mixed winds.

Anyway, the point here is that the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK 45FC and would be certainly be faster than the JPK39FC. So let’s have a look at those two designs to understand why the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK39C.

The JPK 11.80 is the most successful 39ft cruiser-racer in a long time, having won this year the Fastnet and would have won the Middle Sea Race, if they had not changed the finish line. It had won already that race back in 2018, among many other races and regattas.

The JPK 11.80 is a cruiser-racer designed for racing and winning, and the hull is designed for maximizing performance, the JPK 39FC is a performance cruiser, designed to be fast but also to have a maximized interior space (and storage) and to be easy to sail, especially with a short crew.

Transom design: JPK 39FC and JPK 11.80

This comparison is very interesting because both boats have not only a close hull length and LWL (first the 39FC, then the 11.80): 11.72m-11.00/11.80-10.39m, but also a similar max beam, 3.98/3.95m. 

What differs is the hull design, having the 11.80 finer entries, the beam not quite all pulled back, and a very different transom design, a less voluminous one that allows more heel, without increasing drag so much.

Surprisingly, even if the hull length of the 11.80 is bigger, the 39FC LWL is considerably bigger that the 11.80 one. This has probably to do with the 11.80 being designed for sailing with more heel, and while heeling the LWL will be considerably increased asymmetrically, between one of the rudders and the bow.

While the JPK39FC hull has more hull form stability, the 11.80 hull assures a better power/drag relation, and it is that what makes it a faster sailboat. The 11.80 has less hull form stability but more coming from the bigger ballast, when the boat heels.

Curiously the 39FC is the lightest of the two (5500kg/5900kg) probably due to the two boats being built in a similar way and with similar materials and the 39FC, having considerably less ballast (1900kg/2650kg).

This difference in ballast, that is translated in a 34.6% B/D versus a 44.9% one, more than compensates the difference in hull form stability and that, and a slimmer hull, are responsible for the considerable bigger Power/Drag ratio on the 11.80.

Note that the draft is also smaller on the 39FC, 2.15m/2.34m but the ballast on the 11.80 probably refers to the IRC keel, without torpedo (can have a torpedo as an option) and the difference in draft probably roughly corresponds in RM to the difference in efficiency of the two keels (with a torpedo and an IRC keel), in lowering the CG.

First, JPK 39FC, then JPK 11.80

It is not about the power, but about power/drag that fast sailboats are about. Beamy hulls increase much drag, especially wave drag, and reduce light air performance, while if the hull is too narrow, it will go more deeply in the water and will make the boat more difficult to attain planning speeds.

To the hull design you have to add the right ballast, knowing that, with too much ballast, the boat will be slower with light winds and that with less than desirable ballast, it will have less power upwind and on a beam reach.

To complicate things, depending on points of sail and wind intensity the requirements for maximizing performance are often contradictory, and when you improve on a given performance, you lose on another.

JPK39FC

The different compromises are today evaluated through computer programs (CFD) and many hull variations are tested to try to get the better option for overall performance, but the truth is that only through racing will we know for sure, if the computer got it right or not, and the funny thing is that Jacques Valer, the magician that designs the JPK, the most successful IRC racers of the last years, is known to have come late to assisted computer design, and can be considered an old-timer, in what concerns using a computer for sailboat design. Of course, what counts are results and nobody designs boats that win more races than Valer.

JPK 11.80

I use to post SA/D and  D/L as a measure of boat performance, but the comparison of those ratios, between these two boats, serves mostly to show that those ratios have to be seen with caution, because they exclude a very important piece of information, the  power/drag relation.

The SA/D gives you an approximate measure of sail power, but displacement, even if important as a measure of drag, excludes the shape of the hull, and hulls with the same displacement, but with less beam, finer entries, and less full transoms, has, for the same displacement, a lot less drag than beamier hulls, especially if wave drag is considered. They need a lot more sail for the same performance.

JPK 11.80

D/L gives you a measure of the boat lightness but does not give you a measure of how much of the weight is used on ballast to increase boat power.

If we consider these two ratios as an absolute measure of boat performance we will be surprised to find out that according to them the JPK39FC is faster than the JPK 11.80, when we know that it is not the case, quite the contrary and by a large margin. The 39FC has an upwind 26.8 SA/D, a downwind 45.1 SA/D for a 115D/L and the 11.80 has an upwind 24.9 SA/D, a downwind 43.0  SA/D for a 146.5 D/L.

What makes the design of the 11.80 truly amazing is the success in combining these different requirements and different compromises in a way that makes the boat really fast in a very variable set of conditions, from the low middle to high winds, downwind, and upwind. 

The weakest sailing condition regards very light winds, but the performance is not so weak as it would be expected, due to the very good performance with medium and stronger winds, obtained through the maximization for those conditions. That’s the overall balance that makes it a winner.                     JPK 11.80

JPK 39FC

What makes the 39FC an amazing design is the ability to offer an excellent spacious cruising interior without compromising too much sail performance, a balanced performance, having in weak winds the weakest spot (worse than the 11.80). As strong points, the easiness in sailing fast with medium to strong winds (due mostly to hull transom design that limits heeling, making it a steady sailing platform), and the easiness in sailing fast on autopilot.

Both boats are very well built, using vacuum infusion, cored hulls with and airex core, vinylester resin on the 11.80, vinylester and polyester on the 39FC, both have a hull structure integrated on the infusion process (and becoming part of the hull), both have cored composite bulkheads stratified and bonded to the hull and deck.

I bet the JPK 39C, that allies cruising sailing performance to a very nice spacious interior with all-around views (and manages that without becoming ugly), is going to be elected by the European sail press as European Yacht of the year, probably on the performance cruiser category.

The price is fair for the quality and without VAT, standard, at the shipyard the 11.80 costs 209958€ and the 39FC costs with the standard keel 196887€ and 216748€ with the swing keel, with all ballast on the keel.

THE STRANGE CHANGE OF WINNER IN THE 2021 MIDDLE SEA RACE

For the ones who don't know it, the Middle Sea Race is the most important of all Med races, an IRC race that started more than 50 years ago and that on this edition counted well over 100 entries, and boats like Comanche, Rambler, the new Swan 125ft racer and 3 trimarans MOD 70.

This edition was great, with varied and strong winds, and, when all the yachts that had potentially the possibility of winning the race had arrived, the victory was provisorily attributed to Sunrise, a relatively small JPK 11.80, that had made a fantastic race and an incredible final part.

Mysteriously, several hours after the victory be provisionally attributed to the JPK 11.80, they changed the classification and the victory was now attributed to Comanche, the maxi yacht that now is owned by the Australian millionaire Jim Cooney.

 

For several days no explanation for this change was given by the organization, till they come out with an unbelievable one: Sunrise, the JPK 11.89 would have in fact won the race if they had not shortened it to an alternative finish line, one that was never used in the 53 years of this race, not even in editions with far worse weather conditions.

To make all this even more strange, the finish line was changed after almost all racers have finished the race, and only 19 yachts finished the race on the alternative finish line (that shortened the race) and probably all, or almost all would not have any problem in finishing the race because the conditions were disagreeable (wind on the nose) but far from being dangerous or impossible.

 

What really surprises me is that this very strange abnormal "situation" did not deserve any special comment from the nautical press, as if this was all normal, as well as an official explanation is given only 3 days after they have changed the leader from Sunrise (JPK 11.80) to Comanche.

They said on 20/09: "Despite a tricky final few miles to and through the South Comino Channel, the JPK 1180 has squeezed into the overall lead of the 2021 Rolex Middle Sea Race and is on the cusp of a remarkable double. Needing to finish by 1338 CEST on Tuesday to beat Comanche, nearly three times her waterline length and rating almost twice as high, the British yacht passed Race Control at Tigné Point at 1323 CEST, to grab a 16-minute lead in the overall standings."

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617835b8e2f080000080d4d8?year=2021&month=October#

 

 

And 3 days later: The 30.48m/100ft Maxi Comanche (CAY) has been confirmed as the overall winner of the 42nd Rolex Middle Sea Race....Comanche finished the race on the morning of Monday 25 October and was in pole position until the arrival of the JPK 1180 Sunrise on the afternoon of Tuesday 26 October. The race narrative then altered in the early hours of Wednesday 27 October, with some 23 boats still on the racecourse. A serious and adverse change to the weather forecast led the Royal Malta Yacht Club Race Committee to invoke the alternative finish line, as per the sailing instructions.

....“ SI 11.3 enables the Race Committee to use an alternative finish line in the South Comino Channel if severe weather conditions make it unsafe to enter Marsamxett Harbour. The rule was written specifically in anticipation of the forecast severe north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter. For that reason, we made the call, which was announced to all competitors whether finished or racing, in accordance with rules.”

 

According to available records, this is the first time in the 53-year history of the Rolex Middle Sea Race that the alternative finish line has had to be used. 19 yachts have been able to finish the race using this line. As a consequence of the decision, all yachts taking part have been scored for the purposes of time correction using the alternative finish line. Competing in IRC Class One, Comanche’s corrected time to the alternative finish line of three days six hours 30 minutes and 20 seconds has proved just over an hour faster than second-placed Sunrise (IRC Class Five).....

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617be0ea6d1ecd0000cda403?year=2021&month=October#

You can see here on the race tracker the conditions that supported the shortening of the race for safety reasons, that "north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter", mostly 25kt on the nose, and you can see that ALL YACHTS, except one, entered the Marsamxett harbour (after having finished the race). They all passed Comino Channel, did not enter Gozo port (that is on the Channel), and all entered Marsamxett harbour. 

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/tracker?

CONTEST 49/50CS, A NEW YACHT FROM A GREAT BRAND

A new Contest is always good news, a sign that the biggest Dutch shipyard is well and that the Dutch continue making great quality cruising boats. The first yachts, several centuries ago, were Dutch, (as well as the origin of the word Yacht) and the Dutch always had a big tradition in what regards builders and yacht designers.

49CS

But in the last decades many Dutch brands disappeared and even the Contest, once designed by a Dutch designer, are now designed by Judel & Vrolijk, a German cabinet (even if Rolf Vrolijk was born in Nederland).

This design comes in the same line as the 42CS, a good sailing boat with a very high-quality cruising interior, but I don't like this design as much as the one of the 42CS, even if I understand what makes Contest propose a design with these characteristics:  a very beamy boat, with a huge freeboard, huge interior volume and very high interior standing height.

50CS

In fact, it is ridiculous talking about standing height because those heights have nothing to do with standing, and are more typical of a house than a boat, even if I miss the point of having a Yacht interior that looks like an apartment interior, especially in what regards huge standing heights.

The reason why they seem to have opted for a lower B/D than the one in the other Contest is less understandable.  They tried to hide that with a published stability curve that, unlike all the others for the other yachts, has an interval between 90º and 135º (instead of 100º to 150º) to try to make it less evident that the AVS is lower than on the other Contest, that generally have it around 125º.

50CS

The 49/50CS AVS seems to be a bit less than 120º. A smaller AVS seems to be today a tendency in sailboat yachts over 45ft, much due to RCD that allows smaller AVS on a bigger yacht. High-quality brands resisted that, but they are now doing the same to lower costs. The Halberg Rassy 50 has an AVS of about 115º and the Amel 50 does not disclose it, but it should be much less than that.

49CS

Contest announced the 49CS as a new yacht, but it is basically the 50CS with a different interior layout and a slightly different cockpit arrangement. The 50CS offers a huge aft cabin, typical in center cockpits (even if this boat is a hybrid), while the 49CS offers two smaller aft cabins and a dinghy garage.

There is also a small aesthetical difference on the transom inclination, that results in the 50ft being slightly longer, but having the same deck length and LWL as the 49. The extra cms don't result in any significant useful interior space gain.

Above, the 50CS, below, the 49CS

I find the 49CS layout flawed by the lack of storage under the cockpit and by the lack of space for technical equipment (generator, water-maker, and so on). There is a big space for a dinghy garage but that space is necessarily a semi-wet compartment, not suitable for this type of equipment, and besides, if you have a dinghy there you will have space for little else.

This can be solved by having a single aft cabin on the 49CS, that can be bigger than any of the two, and by reserving the rest of the space, now occupied by the other cabin, for technical equipment.

On the cockpit, both boats have a similar solution with a deep protected central cockpit, separated from the helming station by two steps. This gives an unusually high helming position, offering little protection, and worst, very low uncomfortable side seats for helming the boat. The seats behind the wheels on the 50CS are also low and uncomfortable.

I don’t see any need of helming central seats on a boat that will be used almost all the time in auto-pilot, but I don’t like the low uncomfortable lateral seats, that are more useful than the central ones, and, without those, it is created a very nice aft deck space, very well suited for deck chairs and relaxation near the swimming platform. 

The yacht is built with the traditional Contest high quality, with a sandwich hull with monolithic, where it offers an advantage. They use vinylester resins on all laminates and an infusion vacuum process. The structural bulkheads are in sandwich composite, stratified to the hull and deck, and they use carbon fibers to reinforce the boat structure.

From the top: 50CS, 49CS, Swan 48,
 Swan 50 Club Racer, TP 52

Contest is one of the few traditional high-quality brands that have fully accompanied technical building yacht evolution, and the yachts are built with the best techniques available. If we compare with Hallberg-Rassy we will see that while HR still uses hand laminate while Contest uses vacuum infusion (and they started using it more than 20 years ago!).

Contest uses vinylster for all lamination, HR only on the outer layers, Contest uses sandwich structural bulkheads, HR does not say, and probably they are made of high-quality plywood, Contest uses Carbon for structural reinforcement, HR doesn't.

The only thing I prefer about the HR building is the PVC core. Contest does not say, on this, and other yachts, what is used as a core, but I suppose it is balsa, as it was before. Balsa has very good mechanical properties but it is prone to rot, if there is a water intrusion on the core, and in the last years almost all quality builders changed balsa for high-quality polyester foam.

Above 50CS, below 49CS

But it is also true that many boats still use balsa as core without problems, and that Contest has a very advanced building system: unlike in most yachts, the infusion system is a single shot one, including the outer layer, the core, and the inside layer. That allows for a more integral and better waterproof sandwich, not to mention the use of vinylester (a water-proof resin) everywhere.

Regarding interior quality, it is as good, or better, as the one on HR, but with a different style.

 Let’s look at what many here want to know, how about sailing performance?

Well, this is one of those very beamy boats with high freeboards and, from what I saw in the Hanse 460 comments, some think that does not have a negative impact on the sail performance, but it has.

Above HR 50, Below Amel 50

Just look at the shape (beam/length) of a Transpac 52, which was initially drawn for sailing mostly downwind (and that was considered beamy) and that proved to be a very fast racer, in almost all conditions. Look at the beam/length of a Swam 50, which has proven to be very fast (in real-time) while racing, and compare it with the B/L of the swan 48, which is a compromise between interior space and performance.

The Contest 49CS, the Halberg Rassy 50, and the Amel 50, are also a compromise between interior space and performance, but a much BIGGER compromise.

The Contest 49/50CS is not the only fat boat among these types of high-quality cruisers. Unfortunately, it seems to be a strong tendency. Amel and Halberg Rassy went for the same type of very beamy hulls with a high, or very high freeboard, to have the biggest possible interior. I am not saying that those sailboats sail badly, they are all designed by very competent NAs, but they have their sailing potential limited by the hull choice, especially in regards to light wind sailing and upwind sailing.

Halberg Rassy 44

These three yachts have similar hull lengths, being the longest the Amel (15.51m), and the smallest the C49CS (15.20). The HR and the Contest have not very different beams ( 4.90 - 5.00m), while the Amel 50, is narrower,  4.79m.

They have similar displacements, 21500kg for the Contest, 21000 for the HR, 20555 for the Amel, and they have similar SA/D, respectively 17.5, 17.6 and 17.1, offering the HR a sail maximized version with a substantial bigger 20 SA/D.

Amel 50

Apparently,  Amel, due to a smaller beam, should sail better upwind and in light wind (considering the HR with similar SA/D), but it is handicapped by the smallest B/D of them all (by far) 26%, and that with the shortest keel and the less beamy hull. 

The HR with a 35% B/D  (or the Contest) will be able to get much more power from heeling and will be more stiff, due to a bigger hull form stability.

Swan 48

With medium to stronger winds, the HR and the Contest, will sail better upwind than the Amel, and also better downwind with strong winds, while with light winds the Amel should be faster, but not faster than the HR version with a bigger SA/D. The Contest has also the stiffness that allows it to carry more sail area, but a version with maximized sail area is not announced.

On the Contest, sadly, they don’t give the ballast, but we can see on the published stability curve, that the AVS is a bit less than 120º, while the HR one is about 115º. Having both yachts similar keels, with similar drafts, the Contest B/D should not be less than the one on the HR.

Contest 49/50CS

If the HR with a 35% B/D has a 115º AVS we can only guess what would be the AVS on the Amel 50, which has much less draft and a much lower 26% B/D. Probably it would not be as low as we can imagine, because the very high freeboard and the high superstructure will contribute to increasing the AVS, but will not increase the RM at 80/90º, which will be much lower than on the HR or Contest. And the RM at big heel angles is as important or more than the AVS, in what regards to safety stability.

Surprisingly, the Contest 49CS at 1.053 million €, seems to cost a bit less than the HR 50 (1.160 million €) and understandably more than the Amel 50 (0.9 million €), all boats at the shipyard without taxes.

Contest 49/50CS

Of course, boat prices, equipped and with taxes, will be much higher and it is impossible to know the real price, and who will be more or less expensive, without having them equipped the same way because the standard equipment and prices of extras are different.

If you like sailing fast and want a quality luxury cruiser from a prestigious brand, for about the same price, have a Swan 48 instead, I mean, if your wife can live in a yacht with a beautiful high-quality boat-like interior.

Swan 48

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

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/swan-48-dusseldorf-2020.html

If she requires a house-like interior, with the biggest possible interior volume and a huge standing height, then you will have to sacrifice sailing potential, and have one of these. I would then choose between the Contest and the Halberg Rassy.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/hallberg-rassy-50-most-beautifull-hr.html

NEW 460, A HANSE THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A HANSE

And with good reason. The Hanse were designed by Judel/Vrolijk, this one is designed by Berret/Racopeau, and the previous 458 now becomes the 460.

The 460 is slightly longer (HL 13.87 – 13.55m) much more beamier (4.79 – 4.38m),  fatter, with less finer entries,  considerably higher freeboards, heavier (12,560 – 11.700kg) and with less B/D (26.7% - 28.9%), for a similar L keel with the same draft (2.25m).

Obviously, the objective was increasing the interior volume and cockpit space and that was surely attained: not only is the boat much beamier as it has all beam pulled aft, not to mention the bigger freeboard, that will give it a superior interior height.

Of course, these substantial alterations are reflected in sail performance: the new boat will sail worse with light winds, will go slower upwind and probably will go faster downwind with strong winds, will roll a bit less, and will sail with slightly less heel.

Above the 460, below the 458

SA/D shows this, especially on the version with a classic mast where the 458 has upwind a 20.3 SA/D while the 460 has 19.9 SA/D (both with self-tacking jib). With the in-furling mast the difference is not so big because the new furling mast has considerably more sail area (if they don’t change the data like Bavaria did on the C42) than the one on the 458. In this case, the 458 has 18.0 SA/D and the 460 has 19.0.

But this does not mean that the 460, compared with this version, will have a better upwind performance, because it has less fine entries, a much bigger beam and a transom with all beam pulled back and a design that limits heeling. All this will add a lot of drag if compared with the 458 that has a considerably bigger B/D (28.9% to 26.7%). The two things put together will give a much better upwind power to drag on the 458, in light wind, and even more with stronger winds and waves.

Downwind the 458 has respectively  43.4 SA/D and 40.1 SA/D (classic and furling mast) and the 460 will have 44.0 SA/D and 43.0 SA/D. Here, especially on the classic mast version the increase in downwind sail area will not be enough to make the 458 faster in light winds. Only in stronger winds will the 460  be faster due to its huge hull form stability.

A big freeboard does not contribute to a sailboat beauty (quite the contrary) but in this case that increase is well disguised and will only be apparent in some positions. A modern slightly inverted bow and a well-designed integrated bowsprit as well as a nice transom design contribute to making the boat look contemporary, and disguises well the increase in beam and the higher freeboards.

However, the design created a cut with traditional Hanse shapes that allowed to recognize a Hanse from  other yachts. This Hanse lost identity and even if it is nice, it looks now more like an Oceanis than a Hanse.

The Solent rig, which appears on the first images,  is a positive introduction and it makes a lot of sense because this boat does need a lot more sail area to sail with weak winds than the 458. 

In situations where the self-tacking jib was enough on the 458, the 460, having more drag, will need a bigger sail to sail effectively. That is why a big genoa will be much more needed on the 460. and therefore the need of the Solent alongside with the self-tacking jib.

However the Solent rig increases the yacht price, and in this case, the small distance between the two furlers, will make it mandatory to roll the genoa when tacking, deploying it again on the other tack. If this looks easy with light winds, with medium winds (where the genoa can be used advantageously), it will not be so easy and will imply a lot of work in coastal sailing, where tacks are frequent.

On the positive side of things, it seems that this boat will have a cored hull. The 458 was announced with one (foam core) but later they changed to a monolithic hull. A cored hull will increase the boat rigidity, but the core of this one will be balsa, which has very good mechanical properties, it is cheaper than other good cores but can rot if there is water intrusion.

Also positive is the increase in interior volume. The most interesting alterations and use of the extra space are especially interesting for charter use. Regarding an owner’s use, the most interesting alteration is the possibility of having three good cabins, with three heads.

But this option, which I am sure will be the one that will sell more among owners, will only be suited for short-range cruising, or marina to marina use because the storage space aft (that is bigger than on the 458) will be necessary as technical space for the generator and other equipment.

The forward cabin is much bigger, especially the bed as well as the aft cabins, and I am sure that this will make this yacht much more successful than the 458.

But what is good for charter many times does not suit other uses and in what regards aft cabins I would have preferred the aft cabins to be slightly smaller (that would still make them as big as in the 458) and to create behind the engine a technical space for generator, water maker and other technical equipment.

Having the technical equipment in the aft cockpit locker is not a good idea in what regards accessibility and mixing storage space with technical space.

The galley on the 3 cabin/three-head version, is slightly smaller than the one on the 458 but much worse for using while sailing. On the other version, the galley is huge but even less adapted to be used while sailing. That is not necessarily bad, it depends on the use that it is given to the boat.

If the boat is used in relatively short jumps between marinas or anchorages the galley will not be used while in navigation and at anchor or in the marina that huge galley will be very much appreciated by the ones that cook or wash the dishes. Anyway, that is the way that most that cruise use their boats, including charter use, so I would say it makes sense for many, probably the majority.

First the 460, above, the 458

The interior 460 style and design seem more modern and pleasant, but I do not like that big "door" from the saloon to the cabin, cut on the main bulkhead. They are going to say that is all controlled, but it seems obvious that the bulkhead resistance will not be the same. Sure, there are ways to make the bulkhead stronger, but all that I know imply very expensive reinforcements and different, more expensive materials, and I don’t believe it is the case with the Hanse 460.

The 460 will be more expensive than the 458. Standard on the shipyard, without VAT, the 460 will cost 237.022€ (the 458 costs 212.925€). That was to be expected because the 460 is a bigger yacht, beamier and slightly longer, including a fixed bowsprit.

BAVARIA C42: THE CHANGES YOU DON’T SEE

I posted very positive information regarding the Bavaria C42, and it was not only me; the press followed with very flattering test sails and electing it the Family European yacht  2021.

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

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

Because I was one of the first to point some very interesting features on C42 design and specifications, when compared to the competition, it is fair to be the one to point some unnoticed modifications that diminish that difference to almost nothing. The C42 specification file, which was used till mid 2021 (that included the price list), gave a 9678kg displacement on a torpedo keel with 2698kg of ballast, the data from the Cossutti boat project.

https://www.cossutti.it/en/portfolio-item/bavaria-c42-the-cossutti-yacht-design-project/

Now the specifications have changed and for displacement instead of 9678kg they give 10.070 kg and for ballast instead of 2698kg they changed it for 2622kg. The increase in weight should not be a normal thing, but it, unfortunately, is among boat builders. Almost all brands refer to the projected displacement and even if in some cases there are huge differences they never rectify the numbers and this is particularly true regarding French brands.

https://www.kiriacoulis.com/sales/BavariaC42_price.pdf

The diminishing of the projected ballast ( Cossutti says 2700kg bulb weight) to a keel weight of 2622kg is just odd, and I ask myself what was the data used to certify the boat, because even not considering a 2700kg bulb, but the previously released keel weight of 2698kg, the new data has significant repercussions on the boat stability and AVS.

The B/D, with the same draft and keel design, passed from 28% to 26% and that’s probably due to the diminution of the RM that it implies, that they changed the sail area upwind, shortening the mast. The mast has half a meter less and the sail area upwind, less 2.6m2 on the traditional mast (more sportive version), and 10.3m2 on the in-mast furling version. On the last version, the more popular, it is a huge difference.

Probably the excess in weight has to do with Bavaria having discontinued on the C42 the positive innovations that they had brought to the C-line. Contrary to what happens on the C45 they don’t use vacuum infusion (they use hand-laid), even if they still use a cored hull. That makes the boat considerably heavier.

Cossutti has projected the boat for using, like the others in C-line, the “Modutech” assembly system, a system developed by him based on a strong grid where all furniture and bulkheads were integrated, a system also used on Italia Yachts and on the Swan 48. Instead, Bavaria used on C42 the old system, with all furniture glassed or bonded to the hull.

So, the Bavaria 42 is still an interesting sailing boat, with an innovative bow that will increase hull form stability allowing it a better performance downwind, and on a beam reach, but in what regards the projected boat leaves much to be desired, namely with a not so good performance upwind, especially with medium to high wind, with worse safety stability and AVS, that are now similar with what the competition offers.

J/45 IN DETAIL

I had already made an extensive and detailed comparison, in what regards design characteristics and dimensions, between the J45 and the competition, giving some information about their meaning in what regards sail performance. You can access it here: https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/12/j-45e-new-performance-cruiser-by-jboats.html 

Now we have images of the boat sailing, a description of its sailing characteristics by Benjamin Dutreux, a French professional racer (9th on the Vendee Globe), that after having sailed the J/45 for 400 miles (a weekend) pretty much confirms what I was expecting and said, taking into account the design parameters.

We have also images from the interior that looks great for a cruising sailboat. I would have chosen other woods and Corian (colors), but certainly, they will be available on-demand or as options. 

As it is, it is already a beautiful sailboat and one that will be very hard to beat for sailing on the Med, Baltic, or in any other place with variable winds. Not the boat that I would choose to sail on the trade winds, but unless you are going to make a circumnavigation from West to East, or crossing many times the Atlantic, those are not the winds that are more common while cruising, and the ability of this boat to sail with very weak winds will give it a great sailing potential and will make rare the need to use the engine.

Ok, I am biased, this is a sailboat very similar in sailing characteristics with my own (Comet 41S): https://www.yachtsandyachting.co.uk/equipment/boat-tests/comet-41s-review/ 

This year I sailed directly from Marmaris, in Turkey to Siracusa, in Sicily and it was all the time upwind, sometimes with strong wind, sometimes with very weak wind and I rarely had to use the engine. 

I filled the tank in Marmaris and then again in Sciacca, near the end of the South coast of Sicily, and wasted 60L of diesel. Take into consideration that I use the engine for supplementing the energy from the solar panels when needed (no generator) and that I practically didn't charge the batteries in marinas (because I rarely go there). 

Considering that many times it was beating against the wind the sailing distance was well over 1000 nm. I know that most cruisers don't sail this way and prefer to use the engine instead of beating (that by the way, if the sea and wind are strong, is not faster than sailing, and certainly more uncomfortable), that many choose days without wind to have flat seas for motoring and that some will motor most of the time anyway (each year I overtake several sailboats that were motoring, while I was sailing). 

For all that use the engine a lot while cruising this is the wrong sailboat (why pay more for a better sailing boat if you are not using its potential?), but for the ones that really like sailing, that want to motor as little as possible, that go upwind sailing and sail mostly out of the trade winds, this is certainly one of the best options on the market, and I don't need to wait for the test sails to know that. This boat will be particularly good in light and strong winds (in strong winds particularly sailing upwind).

But for the ones that want to use it for cruising and racing or just for racing, we will have to wait for racing results. I have no doubt that the J/45 is fast, but how fast and how well it will sail to the handicap, or in real-time against boats like the Solaris 44, the X 4-6 or the Grand Soleil 44, we will have to wait and see, even if I think that in most conditions it will be slightly faster than most of them, or all of them.

The price is proportional to the quality and should be about the same as the one of the X4-6, that notwithstanding the designation, is a slightly smaller yacht. An expensive yacht (it has to be) but one that I am sure will make any owner proud.