32 to 35FT: BAVARIA, BENETEAU, JEANNEAU, HANSE or DUFOUR?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hanse 348

Some decades ago this was a very important market, today it is difficult to find interesting boats in this range that are not hugely expensive, and that are not in contradiction with the major goal for this size: cruising with the family at smaller costs.

Above Bavaria Cruiser 34, below, Hanse 348

Today most new cruising boats that reach the market are between 42 and 50ft and are bought by 50-year-cruisers (or older), looking already at retirement days, or are boats intended as a second house, for living at weekends, or for living some months in the summer doing coastal cruising.

Sure, there are also cruising boats bought for living aboard permanently, boats bought to cross oceans and sail extensively, and also cruising boats bought for enjoying sailing and racing, but they are a small minority in what regards sold sailing boats. 

Above Hanse 348, below Sun Odyssey 349

There are also cruisers bought by younger people, and those are not yet thinking about retirement, but about enjoying life with the family (or racing) in a sailboat. Those buy smaller boats, most of them smaller than 32ft, but some want a boat that has already good offshore seaworthiness (class A),  and that will allow them to cruise on the weekends, and spend the holidays sailing with the kids, cruising out of home waters, with comfort.

In fact, more than 20 years ago I have done that, enjoying for 8 years a new 36ft boat, before starting to look for a bigger boat for my retirement days.

Today the choice is smaller and these models tend to be substituted much less frequently than bigger models. Let's look at them, at the cheapest, smallest class-A sailboats in the market, with adequate size for family comfort, and see what they have to offer.

But before you say that what I wrote about the comparative sail performance of these sailboats does not ring true with what is said in sail tests, let me tell you that if you look at sail test pictures, you will see that these boats are being tested by three or four experienced sailors, and always deploying big gennakers, and that is not their standard configuration.

Above, Oceanis 34.1, below, Dufour 37

Most sailors that use these boats for cruising and sailing are still at a very early stage, they are learning, sailing the boat solo, or with a little help from the wife, and are not using gennakers, which are difficult sails to handle solo, and are expensive, fragile sails. Test sailors do a bad service to the sailing community never referring in the tests to the comparative performance of these sailboats in standard configuration, that is the way they are used by most cruisers.

Performance with standard configuration, with the sails they are sold with, is the sail performance I am referring on this post. They all will have a better performance with a gennaker, which will be easier to deploy and use in a beamy boat than on a narrower one.

It makes no sense to sell these boats with a small jib on a self-tacking rail, to make sail easier, implying they are sold mainly to inexperienced sailors, and then test them with a gennaker and talk only about their performance in that configuration.

Above, Bavaria cruiser 34, below, Hanse 348

Experienced sailors that want to sail fast in small sailboats will be interested in another type of sailboat, performance cruisers, or cruiser-racers and those are the ones that will be interested in sailing with gennakers and code 0. Those boats are much faster, more rewarding boats to sail, but do not offer the same family cruising potential, with comfort and safety, at the same cost.

Let's start with Bavaria, which has always had nice small cruisers, and now has in that range the Cruiser 34, which in fact is a 32.0 ft boat, certified as Class A  (A6 ). It has a very nice hull, designed by Farr, before the mania to increase the hull beam as much as possible (at cost of light wind and upwind performance), for interior volume. 

Above, SO 349 below, Oceanis 34.1 

With a beam of 3.42m, a modern cast iron bulbed keel with 2.0m draft and 25.7% B/D, for a 5298kg displacement, it is a  relatively heavy boat for its size, as are all in this category. A modern hull, with fine entries and moderate beam, will provide a good sail performance, except upwind with stronger winds and waves, where the small ballast will not be enough to give it a good performance.

Above Oceanis 34.1, below, Dufour 37

It has a modest 17.0 SA/D, (that the narrow hull will maximize), an interior with plenty of cabinets and storage, it is nice, interesting, and comfortable.

In regards to running rigging, it has the possibility of having 6 winches, which allow for easy sailing, even with the standard genoa. It comes standard with a genoa track.

It costs 110 665 euros without VAT at the shipyard and that makes it a very interesting sailboat. It is really a pity the 34 does not have more ballast, but that would increase the price, and I can understand why they have chosen to design the boat like it is, allowing for the less expensive boat in the category, but even so, one of the more rewarding to sail. 

Hanse has the 348, that curiously has a Class A certification with less crew (A4). It is a 32.8 ft boat with a 3.50m beam displacing 6560kg, having 2300kg ballast (35%B/D), on an L bulbed cast iron keel, with a 2.0m draft.

Bavaria 34

It is difficult to understand why the Bavaria 34, with a lot less ballast on a similar keel, is certified as A6 while the Hanse is certified as A4. Still, if the technical characteristics are right, the Hanse 348 has a lot more stability than Bavaria, including final stability and a better AVS.

They have different hulls, the one from the Hanse considerably beamier (3.42 to 3.50m) and with larger bow entries, but even so, a nice hull designed by Judel & Vrolijk. All in all the Hanse is a very well-balanced cruiser, offering a bigger interior than the Bavaria 34 on a nicely designed sailboat, that looks bigger than it is. It offers a 4-winch setup,  more stiffness (sail power), even though it has a smaller upwind SA/D than the Bavaria 34 (16.2 to 17.0).

Hanse 348

Between the two, if the price were the same, I would choose clearly the Hanse 348, but there is a reason for Bavaria being designed the way it is, and that is the price: the Bavaria costs 110 665 euros and the Hanse 137 900 euros. The Bavaria in weak winds and downwind is probably faster than the Hanse, it will give more fun to sail, but will lose clearly in seaworthiness, and with strong winds the Hanse will be much faster upwind, being easier to sail downwind.

Both boats have a good interior with plenty of cabinets, offering the Hanse a bigger forward cabin and a bigger toilet area. Only you know if what Bavaria offers in what regards forward cabin space is enough, taking into consideration that the aft cabin is big. If that is the case the Bavaria, costing considerably less, can make more sense.

Above, SO 349, below, Oceanis 34.1

If there is no shortage of money or if the boat is to keep for more years, and if the need for a bigger boat is not previewed in the future, then the Hanse 348 makes more sense. In fact, it will offer much more potential as a cruising boat to sail anywhere, without safety concerns.

Jeanneau has the Sun Odyssey 349, one of the more, if not the most popular cruiser in this segment. It is a 32.7ft boat with 5340kg displacement and a 29.6%B/D with a cast iron L keel, with about 2.0m draft, on a hull with a 3.44 m beam.

Above, Oceanis 34.1, below, Dufour 37

The hull is very well designed by Marc Lombard, with narrow entries and almost all the beam pulled aft. It is certified as Class A (A6) and it offers a good sail performance, with an 18.4 SA/D, slightly more that the one of Hanse and it costs 123 500 euros. It is hard to beat what the 349 offers at that price, and it is easier to see why it is a best-seller, but even so, the Bavaria is considerably less expensive and the Hanse offers superior seaworthiness and bigger overall stability, feeling like a bigger boat.

In what regards interior, the SO 349 offers a head as good as the one in the Hanse, a smaller front cabin (due to a small and protruding anchor locker) and an interior that even if it is very nice offers fewer cabinets than the Bavaria or the Hanse. It should also be said that, from the above, it is the only one that offers a true bowsprit, which makes its image more sportive and contributes to a better use of a gennaker or a code 0.

It comes standard with a genoa, but not with a genoa rail. As an option, it can have an efficient but more difficult to use 3d cable system, for controlling genoa shape. It comes without a backstay but it can have one as an option. You should always look at boat prices with the equipment you want because that can turn an apparently cheaper boat into a more expensive one.

Bavaria cruiser 34

A very interesting proposition, with a price in between the one of the Bavaria and the Hanse, not as much boat as the Hanse (not the same overall stability or safety stability), but a faster one in most conditions, and also faster than the cheaper Bavaria, even if in light winds, they should be very close, and with Bavaria using a gennaker or a code 0,  I doubt very much it will be the case (in light wind).

Beneteau offers the Oceanis 34.1 which is also a 32.7ft boat, also designed by Marc Lombard. It has a very different hull than the Jeanneau, basically because it is much beamier (3.57m to 3.44m). It displaces just a bit more (5470kg to 5340), for a smaller 28.9%B/D, on a similar L cast iron keel with the same draft (2.00).

Above, Hanse 348, below, Jeanneau 349

It has a slightly overall bigger stability (more hull form stability) for a slightly worse safety stability and AVS. With a 15.9 SA/D (with the bigger mainsail and the standard self-taking jib) it will be till now the slowest of all considered boats, especially because the smaller SA/D corresponds to a bigger drag. On this one a genoa is really needed and that will give it a 17.9 SA/D, but that implies a more expensive boat, with two additional travelers and a bigger sail (as on the Hanse, for mounting a genoa).

Above Jeanneau 394, below Oceanis 34.1

The Hanse and the Oceanis are the beamier boats (3.50 and 3.57), the ones that will sail slower in light wind but also the ones that will heel less while sailing and that means a more comfortable boat for cruising, even if one less rewarding for sailing. 

The main difference between the Oceanis and the Hanse, besides the bigger Oceanis beam, is the displacement, the ballast and the B/D, all with influence on the boat stability, being in the overall one, the safety stability or AVS.

The Oceanis will have a bigger hull form stability due to a bigger beam, but that will be more than compensated by the bigger Hanse displacement (6560kg to 5470kg) and for the result, the big B/D difference (35.0% to 28.9%) (with similar keels) will have in the overall stability. 

That difference in B/D will have a bigger impact on the safety stability and AVS, which is considerably better on the Hanse.

Dufour 37

Like the Jeanneau, the Oceanis has an interior with fewer cabinets than the Hanse or Bavaria (even less than the Jeanneau), and the interior is a lot less nice than the one of the Jeanneau. The front cabin is as bigger as the one of the Hanse and even if the chain locker is bigger than the Jeanneau one, it also protrudes inside the forward cabin. Like the Jeanneau it can have a fixed bowsprit, (but only as an option) and has no backstay, not even an optional one.

Regarding the backstay, that both Hanse and Bavaria have, don't let them convince you that not having a backstay has any advantage, other than allowing for bigger top squared mainsails (that is not the case here, at least standard), and being cheaper. Really sportive or race boats, with square top mainsail have two backstays and use one or another depending on mainsail position.

Bavaria cruiser 34

In fact not having a backstay implies that the spreaders are much more brought aft and that means you can open very little the main while sailing downwind, making it much less effective, it means also that you cannot trim the frontal sail pulling the mast back, or allowing it forward (spreaders less pulled aft) sailing upwind. Obviously, it will also give the rig less stability and less safety.

The Oceanis 34.1 costs 5700 euros more than the Jeanneau (129 200 euros) and I cannot see why. Maybe because the Jeanneau 349 is an older model. But I would say that, if you want a boat that sails with less heel and with a bigger overall stability, you should buy the Hanse 348. It sails better upwind and has a nicer interior with more storage.

Above, Hanse 348, below SO 349

The small price difference seems more than justified to me, for a better boat in all aspects, maybe except outside looks, where the Oceanis looks more aggressive and the Hanse more classic.

Dufour has the 32, which is an interesting sailboat, with more SA/D than these ones, but it is only a 30.7ft yacht that does not offer the interior comfort these boats offer. It is a remake of the older 310 (a great boat), with a cheaper finish, a smaller boat that costs 8000 euros more than Bavaria, and only 5000 euros less than the Jeanneau 349. I talked about it here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2022/02/incredible-new-dufour-32.html

Dufour has also the 37, which, incredibly, is only a 32.8ft yacht, the same size as the Hanse 348, for instance. I have seen much misleading information provided by boat builders, but calling a 32.8ft sailboat a 37, beats them all!

The Dufour 37 is a hugely beamy boat, much more than the Oceanis (3.57 to 3.80) that tries to justify the name (37) by a big interior volume, not only due to the beam but because, contrary to the Oceanis, the bow entries are huge. An exercise about how much volume you can put on a given length, signed by Felci yachts, even if I doubt Felci himself designed such an aberration (as a sailboat).

Oceanis 34.1

The Dufour displaces 6737kg, has a 27.6%B/D on a 1.90m draft L cast iron bulbed keel and has a single rudder that has almost the same depth as the keel. The big rudder is necessary due to such a beamy hull. In this case, it is hard to understand why Felci did not opt for twin rudders (cost?). This rudder will be very exposed while med mooring.

The interior is nice, with as many cabinets as the Bavaria or the Hanse, with a pleasant design, but with a 16.8 SA/D, already with a genoa, this is a slow sailboat, that will not please anybody that likes sailing, but due to the huge interior volume will please those who want the more voluminous sailboat for the money, but don't have the money for a cat.

Dufour 37

And even so I don't know about that, because at 156.000 €, I find it expensive, for what it offers, except if you really value interior volume above all things, and cannot have a longer boat.

The Dufour price will be increased by 9 000 euros if you want a backstay, a much-needed genoa, and a 3d system similar to the one offered by Jeanneau for genoa shape control.

I have not mentioned building differences between them because, being some of them models with some years on the market, the specifications I can find can be outdated, and after 5 or 6 years after its launch, hulls can be built in a different way, as I am almost sure it is the case for some. Anyway, the building materials and techniques are very similar.

Above, integral contre-moule, below integral grid system

They are built using monolithic hulls and equivalent quality polyester resins, being the internal structure typically or a kind of integral contre-moulle, in the French boats, and a monolithic integral grid on the german boats, using all plywood bulkheads and basically they have all parts put together by bonding agents. For now, you will have to check personally, and I would advise a visit to the shipyard because I am quite sure dealers will not know more than this.

Normally in this size of boat, there are fewer structural problems than in bigger boats: they flex less, the ballasts are a lot smaller, as well as the involved forces. Only if one wants to build a lighter sailboat (with the same strength), other materials, and techniques are justified (because they are much more expensive).

As an option to these you have better built, lighter and faster sailboats, with an interior volume smaller than the one offered by the Dufour and that are also more expensive, like the Salona 35 (34.1ft), the Elan E4 (34.8ft), the Dehler 34 (33.8ft) or the RM 970 (31.8ft). We will have a look at them in another post.

FROM AN OLD YARD, A BEAUTIFUL CRUISER: CR 490DS

Many have never heard of CR yachts but, in fact, it is a prestigious old brand that was founded in 1989 by Charles Rutgersson. Before that, he had worked for 15 years for Hallberg Rassy. But the history of the shipyard is much older, CR are now built in the Malo yard. Malo yachts (and yard) was founded in 1939, in Kungsviken, on the historic island of Orust (Sweeden), famous for its century-old boat-building history.

Now CR yachts are managed by Charles's son, Mattias Rutgersson, and not only CR but Sweden yacht group, which reunites several old and very prestigious high-quality brands, that continue to be built also in the shipyard, namely Sweden Yachts, Malo Yachts, and Regina Yachts.

Sweden Yachts, founded in 1976, is a brand of high-quality performance cruisers, and today, because the line has not been actualized for years, produces beautiful slightly outdated yachts, that have become classics, and are still fast as performance cruisers, even by today's parameters.

                                                                                     https://swedenyachtsgroup.se/

Malo and Najad, were for many years the two main Hallberg-Rassy contenders, fighting for the same market, and there was a time when Malo was, from the three, the one that had a slightly more modern design. But Hallberg-Rassy moved on, while Malo did not modernize its range, that today is constituted by older designs, solid luxurious and seaworthy, but outdated.

Regina is an old brand of Deck-saloon boats. The yachts are heavy, seaworthy, and old design with the most luxurious interior and finish that I have ever seen in a sailboat. Today the designs seem even older, but the interior quality and the conservative interior design, are as good as it ever was.

CR was, of the four, the one that produced more modern boats, they produced aft cockpit sailboats and deck-saloons, even if the more popular were the deck-saloons, which are fast and seaworthy boats, considering the type. I remember that when Arcona produced deck saloons the CR could match their quality and speed, offering a better-finished interior (at a bigger price).

Their best seller was for many years the 400 DS, but more than 20 years after its launch the boat is outdated and its successor, the 410, did not look much more modern. But things changed radically in the yard with the introduction of the new CR 490DS, designed by Ben Rogerson, a young talented NA, and the design looks not only modern but gorgeous. 

Without sacrificing any of the values that made the 400DS famous, like sailing ability, quality and seaworthiness, the 490 offers the same typology: a true deck saloon, offering a panoramic view when seated in the salon, and a true interior pilot station (with joystick), one that offers very good visibility all around.

The proposed interiors look great to me, particularly the one with a dinghy garage, that I would turn into a 2 cabin boat, with the smaller aft cabin turned into a technical and storage space.

They don't give the HL and it seems to me that the LOA (15.50m) includes the bowsprit with an anchor stand. The LWL (13.82m) indicates that the HL should be near the 49ft mark (14.9m). 

The beam is big (4.71m) but not as big as in a Hallberg Rassy 50 (5.01m), and the bow entry lines are narrow and for that reason the forward cabin has a sail locker ahead, to allow a good width in the forward part of the cabin.

I like the hull shape that without having anything particularly remarkable provides a lot of hull form stability, but also allows a good performance upwind. The standard keel, which seems to be a traditional bulbed lead one, has a relatively shallow draft (2.25m). and they announce 6500kg ballast for a 17600kg displacement (36.9% B/D). That will provide an AVS over 120º, good final stability, and small inverted stability, as well as a good stiffness to sail in more demanding conditions.

The standard keel can be substituted as an option by a modern hydraulic swing keel, that extended has a 3.30m draft, and 1.10 m when up. That keel, besides convenience (if they give the same RM to the boat), will offer not only better upwind performance as well as a lighter and faster sailboat, because the keel will need less ballast, for the same GZ stability curve.

The hull has a two-rudder setup that will provide additional safety and reliability, in case of a broken rudder, and also much more convenience while med mooring to a quay, where the smaller rudder drafts would be much appreciated, being most of the time the depth at the quay considerable less than the depth at the keel area. 

The inconvenience of the two-rudder setup is smaller maneuverability at the marina, but boats of this size are today always equipped with a bow thruster, and this one has one as standard equipment,  and that will solve almost any problem.

With a rig offering optionally two fixed sails on stays, a jib on a self-taking traveler and a genoa (in a Solent rig) it will allow a lot of flexibility, and easy sailing with a small crew. Personally to sail the boat solo or with a small crew I would prefer a bigger 135% genoa, dispensing the big gennaker (160m2) that is never easy to be set and controlled by a single sailor, especially if it is well over  50 years of age, the average age of CR yacht clients.

The CR490DS has a relatively small SA/D with the small genoa, and even smaller with the auto-taking jib (17.6 and 18.8) and that is why if I had the boat I would want a bigger 135% genoa, which would give it a 21.8 SA/D and would make it a faster boat.

Sure, you can have the original set-up and have a Code 0, but like the gennaker, it is not easy to mount, launch and control for a single sailor and many of these boats even if sailed by a couple are in fact almost solo sailed and using it out of very light winds is complicated. Many times light winds are changeable in direction, and that makes the use of that sail hardworking and not rewarding. 

In fact most cruisers I know that sail in a couple, rarely use that kind of sail, especially if they sail big fast-performance cruisers, where those sails are huge. That does not mean that one has not a gennaker (I have one) but that considering it (or a code 0) as the main solution (with a small jib) does not make much sense if the boat is over 38ft (I use the gennaker maybe three or four times a year).

Modifying the rig for a 135% genoa should not be a problem in a semi-custom boat, and all that is needed (besides the sail) is a longer genoa rail. Another thing I really don't like is the winch at the mast, which is an outdated solution, being today all manoeuvers done in the cockpit. I would have preferred a different rigging with two more winches.

Maybe two winches can be mounted over the cabin, serving for controlling, the reefing system, and the main sail halyard, as well as the boom-topping lift and the cunningham, with the four aft winches controlling the forward sails (including a gennaker) and the boom traveler. 

I also don't like the small space between the wheel and the seat, as well as the small space to be seated on the side (due to the seat), while steering, but that can be easily solved with the removal of the two seats behind the wheels.

The ones that will want the boat for crossing oceans will be concerned with the relatively big window surfaces (that are smaller than in other boats that are not even true deck saloons), and I can only hope the CRs are built by the son the same way they were built by the father. 20 years ago I remember having a talk about the big windows with Charles Rutgersson, and I was impressed with the care and work they had to warrant the solidity of those glass surfaces, and also remember Charles complaining about the price it cost doing it the right way. 

He mentioned the price to me, I don't remember exactly, but it was a very substantial amount of money, one that I did not imagine possible. I don't know if they still do it the same way. The problem is not the glass, which is almost bulletproof and double (for isolation), but the way the frames are secured to the fiberglass and the strength of the frames.

Sure, they have decades of experience in what regards that, but it also seems to me that they are trying to lower the price of this boat as much as possible, and as a negative point they do not use vinylester or epoxy resins resin in the sandwich composites, but ISO polyester resins, that do not offer the same no-water-absorption, but, even so, offer better mechanical resistance than other polyester resins.

They don't also use contemporary techniques like vacuum infusion, which, if well made, allows for lighter sailboats, but hand-laid glass. Of course, one or the other technique can result in very different quality hulls, depending on how well it is done, and before thinking that the CR building has a low-quality boat building, it is good to remember that Hallberg Rassy hulls are built the same way, with a  foam sandwich, hand-laid glass, and good quality polyester resins.

The CR490DS offers a big water and fuel tankage (600 and 400L) and a big 80hp engine, and it comes standard with many pieces of equipment that are optional in most sailboats, like a sprayhood, diesel heating, electric WC pumps, water-cooled fridge, boiler and hot water, bow thruster, Pentex sails, epoxy hull protection, anti-fouling and with all needed electronics including autopilot.

All that would make it difficult to compare in price with other cruisers that don't come standard ready to sail, and you would have to join to the standard price all the expensive equipment, that anyway is needed, that comes already standard in this boat. The price without VAT will be about 835 700 euros, expensive, as all high-quality boats, especially the ones built in Sweden, but even so much less expensive than a Hallberg- Rassy that costs well over a million euros.

All in all, a very interesting sailboat, one that continues the almost extinct deck-saloon typology while almost all boats of this size (and bigger) that use that denomination, or outside visual outlook, are in reality not deck-saloons, but boats that use the higher cabin and big windows to have an interior with more light, and a huge interior height, giving a house like sensation in what regards space.

A boat that I will follow closely and that I hope becomes a success, a well-deserved one: CR yachts have been building high-quality yachts for many years, never having abandoned the deck-saloon concept (with a pilot station) for a house volume interior (as so many others), and now dares to offer to a very conservative clientele, a modern designed cruiser, and for that matter, a beautiful one.

SHOGUN 43, A DREAM BOAT

Dreamboats are not the same for all sailors, and what is a dream for one, just does not make any sense to another, depending on their requirements for the ideal cruising sailboat. Most will value cruising amenities and interior volume over sail ability and sail fun. For those, this will not be a dreamboat and they will have difficulty understanding how this can be a dream sailboat for anybody, except a racer.

And then there are the few to whom this boat offers enough cruising amenities for a couple, with a spare cabin to be used occasionally by guests, and another for storage and being satisfied that requirement, all priorities go to having fun while sailing, to performance, and to beauty, the one that kind of makes you proud of owning a truly beautiful and exceptional thing, being it a car, a motorcycle, a jewel or a house. 

Beauty is a value in itself and in regards to sailboats and cars it is related to speed, fast is almost always beautiful, from the fast (in their time) J Class, to contemporary racing boats, and no doubt, Shogun 43 shapes have speed as a direct function.

All on the outside is speed-oriented, not so in the interior where a naked spartan racing interior gives place to an almost luxurious treatment of surfaces, offering a cozy and comfortable interior.

Of course, this is a semi-custom boat that can be more specified for racing (where the interior will be very spartan to save all the possible weight) or more as a cruising boat, which eventually will make some races (cruiser-racer), and in that case, the interior will be the one in the drawings, the bowsprit will be redesigned to offer an anchor stand, a furler will be installed for the forward sails and, for the ones that desire it, a carbon boom furler for the main.

Clearly, the first produced boat is racing-oriented, and maybe that is why they did not show the interior (or because it is not finished), but what they show is more than what I would have expected.

I never thought this boat would see the light of day because today very expensive boats are almost exclusively offered starting at the 50ft range, and there is some logic in that. The ones that buy them want to spend money on something that is impressive, and that gives them status, and a relatively small yacht like the Shogun 43, costing the same as a luxury 50ft, will only impress the ones that truly know and like fast sailboats and very fast performance cruisers, and those are few. 

Most people will not even understand why the boat has such a high price, which will be  940 000 euros, at the shipyard, without taxes, sails, or electronics.

I had already posted about the Shogun 43, when it was a project, and about its bigger sister, the Shogun 50, already on the water, and if you want to know more about the dimensions and comments about the hull and performances, have a look here, because I am not going to repeat what I have already said:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/05/shogun-43-as-fast-as-it-looks.html

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

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/03/shogun-50.html

Personally, I find the 43 more interesting than the 50. An extreme 50ft performance cruiser-racer of this type can hardly be sailed solo, or with a short crew, unless we are talking about professional racing sailors, or extremely good and fit racing amateur sailors, and even so far from the potential the boat will have if sailed by a crew, but the Shogun 43 is another story, and the size of the sails makes it manageable by a good sailor, used to sail performance cruisers solo, and more so by a duo.

The running rigging, which can be set for a crew, can also be set for short-handed sailing, and this boat should not be much more difficult to sail solo than my own sailboat, a Comet 41s, which has not a very different sail area, even if a bit less (107m2 to 114m2), more 1.900kg of displacement, but less ballast (2.500kg to 2690kg) and much less draft, on a much less efficient keel (2.20 to 2.40 or 2.70m), for a much shorter water length (10.90 to 12.30m) and curiously more beam (3.92 to 3.70m).

Comet 41S

It would heel more than my sailboat, but after 20º of heel it will become increasingly stiffer, to become very stiff at 30º of heel, knifing water and waves as only a narrow boat can do. It will heel more because it has less beam and less displacement, but due to a huge ballast (43.6% B/D), on a very efficient carbon keel with a lead torpedo (2.40 or 2.70m draft), when heeled it will be rock solid, giving a great sense of security, not to mention the huge safety stability, the big AVS, and the very small inverted stability.

Pogo 12.50

My forward sail is a big 135% genoa, that is bigger (52 to 49m2) than the (big) Jib used on Shogun (due to a mast pulled aft), mounted on a self-tacking rail, and that will make the Shogun easier to handle and to reef. The more obvious difference is the size of the main (55 to 65m2), due to the bigger size of the mast and boom, but a big main, if with well-mounted reefs (or a boom furler), is easier to handle and reef than a big genoa, and contrary to the genoa does not lose performance when reefed.

In this case, assuming that the ballast is the same for the two keel versions (2660kg), contrary to what I usually prefer, I would choose the version with the smaller draft, not only because it offers more cruising possibilities, in what regards ports and anchorages, but because in a relative narrowboat, a huge RM coming from the keel, not compensated by a huge hull form stability (large beam), can be tricky to handle, especially downwind, or with waves and little wind, inducing roll movements.

Anyway, the stiffness provided by that hull and a 43.6% ballast, with the ballast on a 2.4m keel, will be already plenty big, and more than enough. More will only be useful for racing with a good crew.

However it should be said that a boat that sails with considerable heel is not for all, some love it and some hate it, and it is certainly not the best and most comfortable cruiser to cook, eat or sleep while sailing (out of downwind sailing) but it should also be said that it is much more comfortable and safer to steer this boat with heel than a large beamed boat like Pogo or one of the many cruisers that today have large beams, with all beam pulled aft. I am not referring to safety, as in what regards stability, but in what regards the safety of the one that is steering the boat.

On those boats, when the boat is deeply heeled it is scary to look at the other end of the steep transom while being seated on the opposite side, and I imagine that I would not be the only one that in demanding conditions, had been thrown off by a wave, to the other side of the boat, dragging sadly my ass over the cockpit floor.

Not a nice sensation, but my boat has not the max beam pulled aft and it has only a 3.90 beam, while a smaller Pogo 12.50 has all beam aft and a 4.50m beam and then the fall will be much bigger. It is a bit scary to sail fast, close upwind in that type of boat, even if they lose very little if they open a bit more, and sail less close to the wind, with less heel, but then there is the lost pleasure of really sailing very close to the wind.

Anyway, a Pogo, or any fast boat with a large beam and a considerable ballast, has only the advantage of sailing very close to the wind if there are no waves. With waves, the wave drag (and pounding) of a Pogo will be so big that the boat will be faster with a much more open course, where it would sail with more speed.

The Shogun 43 is all about sailing fast upwind and its small beam and very narrow entries will allow it to knife the waves, passing with little drag and no pounding, really close to the wind. The Shogun 43 will be very fast in all circumstances but will be excelling sailing upwind, and on light winds where the performance should be phenomenal, making wind and sailing much above wind speed.

I love the Shogun 43 and it is on my very short list of dreamboats, but then, what I like to do is to sail for 4 to 8 hours each day, stopping in a nice cove to enjoy life at anchor, have a swim, a nice dinner on the boat (or at a beach restaurant) and to sleep without worries.

Not that sometimes I don't sail for 24 hours or even 3 days non-stop, but that usually happens 3 or 4 times a year, and does not justify a more comfortable boat to sail, easier on the autopilot, and one that sails with less heel. I would not trade the superior fun while sailing most of the time, for convenience on some relatively few occasions.

And for short 4 to 8 hours jumps, there is nothing more pleasant than sailing a boat like this, taking into consideration that if you don't sail in the trade winds, most of the time, you will sail upwind, especially in a boat with such a great ability to make wind.

To cross oceans in the trade winds the Shogun 43 is not the most comfortable boat due to a bigger heel than others, a heel that is always uncomfortable while cooking, eating and sleeping, and if that would be the type of sailing and cruising I would enjoy more to do, I would prefer a boat like the Pogo 44 or the JPK45, but that does not mean that a younger, and more radical sailor, would not prefer the Shogun 43 over those boats for doing that. 

I know a good sailor that sails extensively and crossed the Atlantic several times, always very fast, always in a narrow sailboat (Luffe 37 - Faurby 363), outsailing many bigger sailboats, and he sails that type of boat, not because by chance he has one, but because he prefers them, and the way they sail.

The Shogun 43, in regards to cruising, offers a very nice and comfortable interior, a 2.40m draft, that will allow it to enter most ports and marinas not constituting a problem to stay on anchor in almost all anchorages, and a two-rudder setup, that will come in very handy when med mooring, because most of the time the depth at the rudder is one meter less than the depth at the keel, and a deep spade rudder, almost the length of the keel, can be a liability, touching ground first, before the keel.

I will not enter detailed comments about the boat's dimensions and characteristics, having done it already here:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/05/shogun-43-as-fast-as-it-looks.html

But it should be pointed out that this is an all-carbon boat, including furniture, that has a layer of oak veneer over it to give it a warmer feeling. The building quality is similar to the one of a top racing boat, being the deck and hull glassed together, forming a very strong closed shell.

With all hull, structure, keel support, and bulkheads made in carbon sandwich, with some monolithic small areas, with carbon spars, the Shogun 43 can be very light (6 100kg), and yet very strong. Unfortunately, the cost of producing a boat like this, without any compromise regarding cutting corners, is very high, and even if the Shogun 43 will be a dream boat for many, few will be able to afford it.