BENTE24, FOCUS750, VIKO26 - THE LESS EXPENSIVE

For what I can sense this comparative will interest many: the ones that want a boat that sails well, has the ability to do some coastal cruising with a cruising interior suited for weekend or week cruising and don't really want a top performance boat (too expensive) even if some will be interested in doing some low key racing. The best 24/26ft cruiser for the money.

Focus750

And certainly these three ones are interesting boats for what they can offer for the price.

The Viko hull length is 7.80m, the Focus has 7.50, on the Bente it is hard to say since they only give the LOA (7.55) and the LWL (7.15). The hull size should be between the two.

Regarding beam the Viko has 2.80m, the Focus 2.50 and the Bente 2.75m. More hull form stability for the Bente and the Viko at the cost of some problems in what regards using a trailer on the road since most countries have 2.55m as maximum normal trailer width. A boat with a 2.8m width can still be transported on a trailer but on most countries more requirements are needed.

Viko 26S

It is worth to point out that beam, beam pulled aft and very clear hard chines are important  on these boats not only because they increase stability but also because they diminish roll. As these boats are small and light they have to have a bigger B/D than bigger boats to be seaworthy and a bigger B/D on a narrow beam will increase roll when the wind is light or non existent or when the boat is motoring.

All these boats can have a fixed keel or a retractable keel but almost all owners will want it as a trailerable boat and that excludes the fixed keel.

Viko 26s

Here starts the problems since most builders offer less ballast  on the lifting keel versions than on the fixed keel ones making those versions more adapted for lake sailing or sheltered waters than for coastal cruising. To make things worse they are not very clear regarding the ballast on the lifting keels.

The available data on the Viko is vague. They say that the boat weight can go from 1650 to 1950kg, the minimum draft varies  from 0.35 to 0.5m, that the max draft goes from 1.45 to  1,65m and the ballast goes from 600 to 800 kg, not saying what part is inside the boat (if any) and what part is on the keel.

If we assume that they are talking about two lifting keels, one with 1.45m draft other with 1.65m and that the different ballasts corresponds to each one, having the boats a similar stability curve, then we will have for the version with 1.65m draft a 36.4% B/D  that is not a bad number if all ballast is on the keel but I doubt it since on the movie we can see that the Viko is not able to transform gusts of wind in speed, heeling and forcing the skipper to spill wind from the sails.

The Viko has a nice design a bit spoiled by the huge freeboard specially on the transom and it offers a very god interior for the price. That huge freeboard allows for a surprisingly big interior with standing height of 1.80m on the highest part of the cabin. The best interior at the cost of  the worst sailing performance.

The Viko, made in Poland, is the less expensive of the three boats and not surprisingly the one with a lower tech building, with a monolithic  hull, being for that reason considerably heavier than the other two. The Viko 26 costs at the factory 19 000 euro without tax or extras, but the boat comes already with sails.

http://vikoyachts.de/viko-yachten/viko16.html#technischeDaten

The Focus 750 is a good looking boat that has three versions, all with the same draft (1.50m) but with different keel configuration and all with the same ballast, 600kg but with varying CG and able to generate substantially different RM.

The stiffest boat is the one with the fixed keel that has 100kg ballast inside the boat and 500 on a lead torpedo keel. Then there is a version with a lifting keel with a lead torpedo, having 250kg inside the boat and 350 on the keel and finally a version with a foiled keel without bulb with 300kg inside the boat and 300kg on the keel.

The last one has considerable less stability and I would not recommend its use for offshore sailing. Surprisingly, if we consider the boat price, the hull is a cored one (foam) and they use infusion vacuum technology. This allows them to lower the weight of the boat to 1300kg. The Focus has a 46.2% B/D but the stiffness of the boat will be very different on the three versions depending where the ballast CG is located.

On this movie that I assume is made with the lifting keel with a torpedo keel we can see that the boat sails much better than the Viko 26. With the version with the fixed keel it should be even better specially upwind and on a beam reach.

Not surprisingly due to the smaller freeboard and smaller beam the Focus compared with the Viko offers a not so good interior, with simpler furniture and having as main disadvantage the standing height and not having a separate head compartment ( a chemical head is under the cockpit stairs).

The Focus 750 is built in Poland and it costs in its standard version 24 000 euros, at the factory without tax. But this price regards the non bulbed lifting keel and does not include several interior equipment that is standard on the Viko 26S. Even so a very good price.                                http://yacht-focus.pl/en/focus-750-brochure-en/#folder-en/page8

The Bente 24 is the most distinctive of the three, with a fixed spraywood and an inverted bow, looks decidedly modern and different. Regarding interior space it has more than the Focus 750 (due to more beam and more freeboard ) and less than the Viko 26s (due to less freeboard) but most of all it is a different space that does not try to be similar to the one on a bigger yacht (like on the Viko) but that is assumingly a camping boat but a very good one as that.

Contrary to the Focus 750 it offers a head with privacy even if not a completely closed compartment, it offers a big social ample saloon from where a basic galley can be pushed, using as water basin the same that is used on the head, that also slides into position. obviously a lot of thought being put on that boat and the accessories.

Like on the Focus the hull is a cored one using vacuum infusion and that allows it to be lighter, weighting 1400kg on the standard version. The Bente has three different keel options: two of identical design, with a torpedo, but with different drafts (standard 1.45m and 1,80m) and a lifting one also with torpedo and 1.45m. The boat can be 200kg lighter  with the bigger draft and even lighter if a superior quality resin is used.

On the standard version with a 1,45m draft,  the boat has 600kg ballast, all on the keel  (42.9% B/D) and that added to the bigger hull form stability, due to more beam and a larger transom (compared with the Focus), makes it the boat with more stability and the best offshore boat.

It is also a fast sailingboat as we can see from the images on these movies made by two Yacht magazines:

The Bente 24 is made in Germany and has a surprising low price for the quality: 27 500 euros for a standard boat ready to sail, at the factory (without VAT). The standard boat is the one with a fixed keel and a lifting keel will cost 5210 euros. A full extras interior 11 260 euro more  and a carbon bowsprit 2857 euros. With all those items the boat would cost 46 827 euros without VAT.

That's the problem with the boats, they rarely include extras but the good thing regarding this one is that you can just buy a bare boat and with time add the extras since they are not things that have to be mounted  while the boat is built.

All those extra items cost almost as much as the boat itself, sails and all, but you don't really need them to do coastal sailing. I have done it for years with a boat of that size with an empty interior with camping stuff inside. You can do the same or even develop a boat "interior" by yourself, little by little. 

To be road trailerable this boat, with a 2.70m beam, poses some problems that they creatively resolved with a trailer that can cant the boat thus diminishing the width to legal dimensions.

And talking about creativity just look at this amazing cockpit cover:

http://www.bente24.com/wp/24ben/

REACHER 780: INEXPENSIVE FAST RACING AND FUN CRUISING

This year in Dusseldorf one of the strongest points of interest were small fast trailerable cruiser-racers showing the vitality of the market on that segment. In fact it makes all the sense: if you are not close to the retiring days what sense would it make to buy an expensive big cruiser and to pay a lot for the marina, insurance and maintenance, if you have only a month holiday plus some weekends?

I bought a new 36ft boat while still working full time but if I knew what I know now probably I would have opted to buy a new fast small trailerable coastal cruiser for weekend fun, doing charter each year for a month on the Med or Baltic only buying a bigger cruiser when near retiring time. It would have been cheaper and would have allowed me to sail during my holiday month in better and more enjoyable cruising grounds.

The truth is that at that time this type of trailerable boats were not on the market. Trailer boats were not fast boats and had little in common with boats like the Reacher 780 or the Seascape 27, kind of seaworthy very fast small cruiser-racers  that are well suited for weekend cruising or even week cruising on a kind of camping style.  Boats that you can't look at without  feeling the will to go out sailing.
As you can see on this comparative chart  there are lots of fast interesting sailboats on this "new" camping cruising-racing trailerable category and among them the Reacher 780 and the Seascape 27 are the ones with a bigger stability (the B/D on the Life 7.5 is wrong it is 39% and not 47%). The Life 7.5 even if a beautiful great little boat is more of a luxury fast daysailer, more expensive and having less interior space.

The Reacher 780 and the Seascape 27 are category B4 (offshore) and the Reacher 780 has enough stability to be approved category A2 with some small modifications, like making the entry smaller to allow for a bigger downflooding angle. The AVS is around 138º, the inverted stability very small and at 90º heel the boat is generating significantly more RM than at 30º.

Note that all these trailerable boats are not very beamy and probably if they were not limited in beam (due to the limitations imposed by road code) they would have more. Just for comparison the Django 7.70, that is one of the smallest category A2 sailboats, has 2.99 m beam while the Reacher  and the Seascape have 2.54m. That's for compensating the smaller hull form stability that the Reacher and the Seascape have such an unusually  big B/D ( 46% and 44%). The Django 7.70 has only 34%.B/D.

But the smaller beam, even if it makes them less easier boats to control downwind (than the Django), coupled with the big B/D gives them a great performance reaching and upwind, overall probably faster than the Django one, on all points of sail, specially upwind. Off course the Django big disadvantage  is that it is not trailerable (due to excessive beam for the road) even if it has a true cruising interior (and not a camping one). 

Between the Seascape and the Reacher the biggest differences reside on the type of keel, a swing one versus a lifting torpedo, on the length, being the Seascape slightly longer (19cm), on the draft, the Seascape having more (1.95 to 1.8m), on the weight, being the Reacher lighter (1150 to 1380kg), on the freeboard and interior space, more interior space on the Reacher, less windage and more elegance on the Seascape.

The sail performance of the two boats should be  very similar since they have exactly the same SA/D upwind and downwind, a huge one supported by the big stability (35 and 78). We can see on the movie the little Reacher going faster than the huge Jeanneau 64. That is the kind of performance that these boats can deliver, one that will put a big smile on the skipper's face and will annoy sailors on bigger boats, that will be unable to match the performance.

The performance in light winds is good but the boat really shines over 8kt wind reaching and broad reaching over 14kt. With 8kt wind the boat can make 7.4kt, with 12kt wind 9.1kt speed, with 16kt wind 11.4 speed!! and with 20kt wind 14.1kt speed!!!

Regarding cruising this boat offers a really BIG interior for the size, due to the big freeboard and a smart interior division that allows the use of a chemical head with some privacy (using a removable screen). The interior has much more volume than the one of the Seascape and also more useful space, namely a huge back cabin. Like on the Seascape, as an option, they have studied all the equipment that will allow to live on the boat for a few days with camping comfort.

This is a great boat regarding the program it was designed to: "A fast, versatile and trailerable racer-cruiser equally suited for full-on racing one weekend, and taking your family for a cruise on the next one. Fast, fun and simple sailing".... and cruising. The designer, Andrej Justin managed to put together a boat that conciliates opposing design criteria (racing and cruising) with remarkable success. Even if the big freeboard is noticeable the design looks nice viewed from most angles.

The Reacher has a high quality build employing vinylester resins on a sandwich hull using a vacuum infusion process. The boat structure and all the "furniture" is built outside on a single piece and then bonded and laminated to the hull. The keel lifting structure is carbon made and part of the boat structure. The keel is made of steel with a lead antimony torpedo. The lifting of the keel is made manually with a cabin winch and there is an integrated system that reduces by 4 the needed force regarding the ballast weight (525kg).

The first boats were built in Croatia but to keep the prices down the next ones will be made in Hungary. The price is a very reasonable one, about 25% smaller than the one of Seascape 27. The basic boat costs about 47 000 euros, tax not included.

https://www.reacher780.com/

WHERE TO CHARTER A NON CHARTER BOAT ON THE MED?

By other words, where to find a charter sailboat, on the Med, that is not a main market mass production  boat (designed for charter) but a smaller series yacht designed for sailing very well and for fast cruising, a modern performance cruiser. Many that follow this thread like performance cruisers but don't have one yet and they do charter on the holidays. So why not charter a performance cruiser instead of a typical charter boat? Where to find performance cruisers for charter?

If we look at the charter companies that operate on the Med, very few have performance boats, for several reasons: they carry less people and they are more expensive to own and to operate. They are less attractive for most since the charter price will have to be bigger to compensate the extra costs. If we look well we can find some advertisements, mostly from not very expensive or very fast performance cruisers like a Dehler 38, an Elan 350 or some Salona but they are very rare and the boats are already some years old.

However there are two charter companies with considerable fleets, of mostly new boats, that are specialized on the charter of fast or even very fast cruisers, one in Greece, the other in Croatia. I am talking about FastSailing in Greece  and More charter in Croaria, both operating near international airports. Fastsailing base is in Lavrio, near Athens and More yachts in Primosten a beautiful old village near Split.

More 55

More Yachts offer, beside the two boats that they build, the More 40 and More 55, the older fleet of Salonas: eleven Salona 38, one 41 and four 44. Prices in June for week go from 6000 euro on the More 55 down to 2000 euro for a Salona 38. 

                                     http://morecharter.com/fleet

FastSailing, that started some years ago with a Pogo 12.50, has now a considerable fleet of very fast performance cruisers (and a cruiser-racer) plus a fleet of fast performance cruisers, a bit better on the luxury side than the More, even if slower. 

They have on the first fleet one Pogo 50, four Pogo 12.50, one Pogo 36 and one Sydney 43GTS cruiser-racer (the cover image). On the second fleet they have one X4 and a X50 both from X-yachts and with a great quality interior.

X4

In June, the week charter prices on the very fast performance cruising line, go from 7900 euro on the Pogo 50 down  to 3300 on the Pogo 36. On the other fleet the X4 costs 4900 and the X50, that is only chartered with a skipper, costs 6900 euro. They offer also training courses in March and November at interesting prices, 1250 euros for person for a week.

                             http://www.fastsailing.gr/fast-sailing-in-greece/

If we compare these charter prices with the ones of new main market mass production sailboats we will see that the prices are not high, specially considering the difference on the new price of the boats: In June charter a recent Dufour 520 will cost 5300 euros and a Dufour 382 will cost 2650 euro.

Why not join the pleasure of sailing fast and have fun to the pleasure of sailing with the family? Between boats I have done this myself chartering in 2011 a then brand new performance  Salona 41,  a very nice boat to sail and cruise. I liked it so much that I bought a similar type cruiser.

THE MAGIC CHART TABLE

One of the most interesting things I saw this year at the Dusseldorf  boat show was a chart table. I am one of those that think that the big dedicated chart table is a thing of the past. They were needed and justifiable when for coastal navigation we had to have big charts and had to do a lot of graphic work just to know where we were. Offshore, after using a sextant,  a lot of calculations were need to be made and  tables consulted to determine position. All of that took not only time but needed a dedicated space.

Today a chart is used as a backup to the plotter, or laptop, where the navigation is done. The chart is used not only for confirmation but also because the small size of the plotter does not allow a global picture covering the space where we are to where we want to sail. A lot of zooms are needed and sometimes, somewhere along the route marked by the "go to",  reefs or sandbars can escape our eyes.

Also where a lot of islands or reefs exist, a small plotter can be difficult to work with, in what regards choosing the best courses around the obstacles. That's where the bigger chart is still very handy allowing to do that quickly.

And what if the plotter were as big as the chart? And if it did not serve only as a plotter but also as a screen for TV, movies, games and as a computer? That would be perfect and sometime in the future it will happen on small yachts. No, WRONG, it will not be in the future, there was on Dusseldorf a relatively small yacht equipped with not one but two of those systems, a sort of overkill LOL.

The Allures 45.9, a French voyage aluminum boat had mounted the first of these new  multi function chart tables designed for yachts, produced by another French manufacturer, Kara technologies, that makes multi touch screens with an incorporated computer for different types of users, now for sailors as well.

And chart tables is a way of saying it because on Allures not only the chart table is one of those screens but also the saloon table. This allows a new definition of spaces on the boat with the possibility of part of the saloon table or even all of it to have a new function, dispensing for good the conventional chart table. Off course a space has to be previewed for storing papel charts (as a backup).

I tried the chart table (well, much more than a chart table) and it is a pleasure to use. The only drawback, a big one, is the price that is relatively high (a plotter of that size is not much cheaper), about 12 500 euros for one of those babies including telescopic lift, tilting hinge and software. It is a very resistant system with an anti-scratch screen, prof shock (IK10), with a high resistance to water (IP 65) and a consumption of 12.5 Amps (42''). The consumption is not as bad as it looks since the system enters in sleep mode  consuming almost nothing when not in use while most plotters are draining energy all the time.

 A touch screen with a computer included of about the same size costs less than 6 time that price but will not be suitable for this use without a complete modification and a costly one. I hope  that the price of these wonders will come down, as it always happens with electronics, because this is certainly the way to go.

The movie is self explanatory regarding the multifunctionality of the "chart table":

http://kara.technology/en/table-tactile-kara/

MORE 40, YES, THE BEST PRICE/QUALITY!!!

Following the previous evaluation post on the More 40: 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.de/2018/01/more-40-best-quality-price.html and after visiting it at Dusseldorf boat show, having as guide the boat engineer (Leo Curin) I have more information suplemented by the data I got in an exchange of emails with the only journalists that had sail tested the boat, namely Vedran Rozic (whom I thank) from the Croatian sail magazine More (more means sea in Croatian). 

So, first of all the interior: "Is it good?" After having visited the More 40 I visited the also new Hanse 548 and I can tell that the quality is better on the More. Not a very innovative interior, I would even say that the materials seem better than the design, that is not bad, just a bit bland, but very practical. In fact it looks better than on the photos. 

The main design issue has to do with the portholes that  are too low (regarding the design) and too small. Also a black floor that absorbs too much light making the interior a lot less luminous than it could be. I am sure that the floor boards can be of another color. The finish of the ones on the More 55 would suit very well this interior.

Regarding those panels, the color may not be the best but it would be very dificult to beat its quality even on very expensive boats: not to lose shape or twist with time and use those boards are sandwich made having as core aluminium honeycomb!!!

 There are lots of practical interior details, the chart table can turn around and be transformed in part of a continuous bigger settee, the stove will raise from the position that you see on the photo, to protect the sides of the corian working bench from the heat. Behind the stove there is a corian panel that can be brought over the stove forming a continuous bench. 

The floor on the More 55

There is plenty of storage on cabinets and the boat can have two fridges even if the energy for that will only be possible while at the port or marina, unless one chooses to motor. The outside storage is very good, with two side lockers, and a big central locker (under the cockpit). 

I had a look at the boat structure (stainless steel frame) and it is even more impressive than the one on the 55. Kind of inspires you confidence to know that the keel is bolted to that and not to a fiberglass floor. Leo said that the guys from Swan visited the boat and were impressed. Not easy to impress those guys.

Hull and deck is made with E-glass fiber using vacuum infused technology on a sandwich with a closed cell foam core. Epoxy based vinyl ester resins are used as well as a carbon reinforced on inner liners of the boat structure. GRP frames are laminated and glued, all bulkheads are laminated to deck and hull. All of this makes the boat very stiff and gives a great structure resistance against torsions.

The chain locker has a decent size and can be accessed from the cockpit. I don't like the anchor stand that is on the side nor visually neither in what regards effectiveness.

 It seems that the intention was to get it out of the way of the geenaker pole that will be mounted on the other side but I really don't see the need and even if the hull is reinforced internally on the supports it is much more difficult to make it strong than it would be if it was mounted the traditional way, over a stand that would serve also as a geenaker pole (X-yacht style).

In fact, on the other side of the hull, opposed to the anchor stand there is a removable fiberglass panel that will allow a spinnaker pole to be mounted. You can see it on the movie made by "Yachting World (on the bottom). It could be justifiable, I mean the anchor stand on the side and even interesting if the spinacker pole was a retractile one, like on some Elan or J boats but it seems not to be the case. This way only if the boat is used for serious racing it will make sense, including the detachable anchor stand on the size

Everything on the deck is very well done and finished, from the teak deck (option), to the quality of the sail hardware and the big swimming platform, that closes the transom. The GFC steering wheels have a nice touch and they are associated to nicely designed pedestals with solid hand grabs on the back. The cockpit table is nice, solid, easily removable and can be stowed on one of the cockpit lockers.

The engine is a 40hp Yanmar and it has a big diesel tank (for this type of boat) with 250 liters. The standard water tankage is not so good (250 liters) but an additional tank can be mounted.

 www.schwern-yachten.de/pic/upload/MORE-40-Specification.pdf

The information I have regarding the ones that sailed the boat is in accordance with what would be expected from the design: the boat has a great performance on light winds, is stiff, was sailed on 40kt wind at 11k (without spi or geenaker) and it behaved well.

The Polar speed chart is impressive with the boat doing 5kt speed with 4kt wind, 7kt with 8kt wind and 9kt with 16kt wind. Of course these numbers refer to a light boat sailing on flat seas. On a normally loaded cruising boat the numbers will not be so good but still it will be a very fast cruising boat.

I had a look at the stability curve and it is also good, especially considering that this is a boat with considerably less freeboard than mass production main market cruisers: the AVS is almost 120º and the righting moment at 90º is about the same as it is at 30º and that means a lot of RM. It is never too much to emphasize the importance of having a lot of RM at 90º since it means a rapid recovery from a knock down.The inverted stability is about half of the positive stability.

So, is this the best boat regarding price quality? I know a lot of them and I am not seeing anything that can compare, except the bigger brother, the 55. If I had to nominate another I would say the Maxi 1200, not better built, with less sail hardware, a slower boat (even if a fast cruiser)  but with a superior quality interior. It should cost about 50 to 70 000 euros more than the More 40.

Don't miss the "Yachting World" movie made on the boat show that shows many of the things I talk about on the post:  https://www.facebook.com/yachtingworldmagazine/videos/1608977529185513/
Boat tests here:
https://www.yachtrevue.at/yachten/segelboottests/more-55-fahrbericht-test-7878232
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30k4q1acw6iqozs/More%2055%20review%20in%20More%20magazine.pdf?dl=0
https://www.yacht.de/yachten_jollen/testberichte/more-40-smarter-performance-cruiser-aus-kroatien/a120229.html

AMEL 50 - 2018 EUROPEAN YACHT OF THE YEAR?????

This year’s European boats of the year choices leave me a bit concerned about the way test sailors and sail magazine directors are viewing the industry, consumer needs and the way sailboats respond to them.

On the more prestigious category the Luxury Cruiser one, that was won by the Amel 50, they nominated more two boats, the Halberg Rassy 44 and the ICE 60....except that the ICE 60 is a performance cruiser and has nothing to do with the Amel or the Halberg-Rassy. It is a mystery why the ICE 60 was included in this category and not on the category where it belongs, the one of Performance Cruisers.

It can be said that on this class all cruisers, including performance cruisers, can be included if they have a price tag and a finish that makes them a luxury product, but then the Swan 50, for its price, finish and the clients that it is aimed for, should have been included here. If we consider the luxury market, the Swan 50 is from all yachts nominated the one more aimed at the luxury market.

The lack of definition in what is valued in this class leads to arbitrary choices: what is more valued, luxury, finish and the boat interior design or seaworthiness, sail ability and yacht exterior design? Or as it seems fit to me all these things balanced together with a bit more emphasis on the last group?

Why more on the last group? Because a seaworthy sailboat with a good sail performance and a not so good interior can still be a good cruising sailboat but an unseaworthy sailboat with a bad sail performance even if with a very good interior can never be a good cruising sailboat.

If this was the perspective the boats were looked upon, the choice of the Amel 50 over the Halberg Rassy 44 makes no sense. Sure there are points where the Amel is stronger namely a very spacious high quality interior very well designed but at the cost of a huge freeboard and a huge beam that results in a lot of windage, less finer entries and finer forward sections, making it a very massive boat that hardly has the visual finesse of lines that characterize 50fters and bigger boats.

Compared with the narrower and lower HR the superior Amel’s windage, the much bigger beam, the larger forward sections and the consequent bigger prismatic coefficient will result not only in more pounding upwind, bigger drag, particularly wave drag upwind. To match the HR performance the Amel will need much more power and it will be always at the cost of comfort and sea motion. And the Amel is not a more powerful boat than the HR, quite the contrary.

We cannot compare directly, due to the difference in size, but I can put things in perspective if I say that the Amel 50 has about the same beam as the beamiest of all mass production boats, about the same as an Oceanis 51.1, while the Oceanis 45 has 4.50 that compares with only 4.20m on the Halberg Rassy, a considerably less beamier boat.

But that is not the worst of it: contrary to what was usual on older Amels, the Amel 50 has a B/D similar to mass production boats, a factor that is aggravated by a smaller draft and in most cases a less efficient keel. That’s true that a beamier boat needs less ballast to sail since more stability comes from hull form but in what regards safety stability at big angles of heel and AVS, hull form stability is irrelevant and detrimental in what regards inverted stability. For that what counts is the boat lower CG that is obtained trough ballast and draft.

The HR 44 has a B/D of 39.9% with a 2.1m draft keel, the Amel 50 has a ballast of 28.5% with 2,15m draft. If we compare with a mass production boat with just a bit less beam (4.75 to 4.78m), the Hanse 505, we will see that the 28%B/D is close, having the Hanse a much lower CG on that ballast due to more draft (2.35 to 2.15m) and to a much more efficient (in lowering the CG) torpedo keel. That means that actually the Hanse has a higher B/D than the one of the Amel if we consider draft and type of keel.

We can also look at the Jeanneau 509 that with a less beamy hull (4.69 to 4.78m), more draft (2.36 to 2.15m) and a 29.6% B/D compared with 28.5% on the Amel . Note that to be of similar effect the B/D of the Amel should be considerably bigger (not smaller) than the one of the Jeanneau to compensate the difference in draft, when in reality is smaller.

This means that the AVS of the Amel, as well as its safety stability is smaller while the inverted stability is bigger than the ones of the Jeanneau and Hanse and much smaller than the one on the HR.

These are not the only disadvantages of having a boat with a lower B/D than the ideal one. These boats if beamy and well designed sail well in light or medium conditions, even upwind. But with stronger conditions upwind, when waves start to grow, because of the large beam and beamy forward sections, the wave drag grows much more rapidly than on a narrower boat, with finer bow sections and much more power will be needed.

On strong conditions upwind the extra power has to come from the ballast while the boat heels, except that on the Amel´s case not much will happen when the boat heels, the power will not be there due to the low B/D and low draft.

The difference between the Amel and the HR in what regards sailing upwind in strong conditions will be simply huge as it is big the difference in what regards safety stability, AVS and inverted stability.

If we look at other expensive similar type of boats like Najad, Discovery, Halberg Rassy, Oyster we will see that the Amel 50 is an exception, that all the others have a B/D superior to the ones of mass production boats and much superior to the one of the Amel. In fact that is normal because it is not only a safety factor but also one that increases the boat power and stiffness.

The reason why all boats don’t have the most desirable B/D regarding the type of design, namely the less expensive ones, has to do with costs. It is expensive to increase the ballast on the boat not because of the cost of the keel or ballast itself but due to the increasing in forces transmitted by the keel to the hull. Also more power means more sail area and that results in bigger efforts on the rig that are transmitted to the hull. All these extra efforts need a stronger hull and a stronger hull structure to absorb them and that is what is expensive.

Finally we arrive to the much praised big fixed dodger of the Amel 50 with a big armchair for the sailor that seats in front of the wheel facing a lot of buttons to command all the winches that are way back on the central cockpit.

Except that this type of set up, big chair and all is used on motorboats or cats, boats that don’t heel. Even with a moderate heel of 15º seating, with all the body weight to one side, is not comfortable, much less for a long time.

 And most of all how can someone adjust the sails under a big fixed dodger without being able to see the main and seeing poorly the trim of the frontal sails?

It is assumed by the ones that have chosen the boat as a winner that this setup, kind of cat style, is the ideal setup for a skipper while sailing on a cruising monohull. I doubt very much.

 If that was the case we would have seen long ago many boats adapting this set up, namely the ones designed as offshore ones. It seems to me that the steering position on the HR is much better than the one on the Amel, with the winch and the traveler at easy reach of the sailor, seated on the high side of the boat with a much better view forward.

ICE 60

On the few occasions that it will be more comfortable or agreeable for the sailor not to hand steer the boat or sail it from near the wheel he can sit under a big removable dodger and command the boat from there the same way the Amel is sailed, with the exception that he will be sailing on autopilot or using a portable autopilot control device to steer the boat.

It would be expected all this to be taken into consideration regarding the comparison between the AMEL and the HR but obviously it was not. I would say that we can all have a look at the sailboat interior and see the differences and our preferences, what is expected of test sails and specialized reviews is the information most cannot see regarding the differences between boats.

And one of those differences that a test sail can help to clear is how different boats sail, except that sailing the boat once or twice, especially if the conditions were light (as it was the case) will only give information regarding those conditions and eventually how the boat feels at the steering wheel and nothing regarding all other sailing conditions.

So, it is not possible to have a good idea of how a given boat will sail on all conditions without testing it? No, it is quite possible to have a good general impression and that is why I am saying that the HR will sail upwind very well with strong winds and the Amel will do it badly. Also that, comparatively to the boat weight, the Halberg Rassy will be able to carry more sail and will reef considerably later than the Amel. To be able to know this all it is needed is to know enough about sailboat design and have comparative data.

If we add to those sailing performance advantages the ones regarding a better safety stability, a better recovery from a knock-down, a better AVS and lower inverted stability, we can say In few words, that the HR is a much better offshore sailboat than the Amel.

While the Amel 50 is in some aspects worse than old designed Amel, the Halberg Rassy 44 is one of the best HR ever made, one that unites the good building and seaworthiness of previous boats to the better speed a modern hull design has allowed.

And the confusion continues on the Performance Cruiser class. Here they nominated three boats: The Swan Club 50 that is used almost exclusively for racing and that does not even have an anchor stand, having a very small galley.

The Grand Soleil 34 points much more for sportive sailing and racing than for cruising, it does not have an anchor stand (much less problematic than on a 50fter) but has a better interior for cruising than the Swan (sizes apart), with a comparatively bigger galley.

The third one, the JPK 45 is a very fast boat with all the needed equipment even for long range cruising without handicapping performance, a kind of a Pogo with a smaller beam, with a much more comfortable interior and better equipped for cruising.

And they chose as 2018 Performance Cruiser the yacht that is designed and used almost exclusively for racing, the Swan club 50!!!

Not meaning that the Swan 50 is not a great and innovative boat but certainly not a performance cruiser. Putting it on this category and not on the category of Special Yachts makes not any sense. Choosing it as the best Performance Cruiser, even less.

This is providing bad information to the public: a performance cruiser is a boat that has as clients the ones that like to cruise in a performance way, fast, having fun while doing it. The Swan club 50 is a boat that has as client rich racers that like to race in a kind of social way and therefore the name Club racer, a top one no doubt in what regards that.