LUFFE 40.20: NARROW, FAST, BEAUTIFUL AND CLASSIC

This is a yacht for lovers, not for the ones that are rational about interior space, cruising amenities or even overall top speed, for a 40ft cruiser-racer. No, this boat is about sailing fast, but in a particular sailing spirit, a traditional one, where the boats are supposed to heel and glide over the water, slicing the waves, going fast with small sails.

As you can imagine I am a sailboat lover and 16 years ago I fell in love with the first version of this yacht, the Luffe 40.04, then a new model, and went to the shipyard, in Kolding, Denmark to see how the boats were built, to have a talk with the owner and builder, Oluf Jørgensen and to see how it sailed.

The part of the talk did not go so well because Oluf did not speak English, and we had to communicate with the help of a shipyard worker, that was not fluent in English, but the shipyard told me a lot about the way the boats were made, and about Oluf passion for yachts and for building them. I was quite impressed.

Then he took us to the nearby marina where he had the first 40.04, his personal yacht, that as I have found later was fully equipped for racing. It was a windy and cold morning blowing over 20 knots, gusting 30 but the waters of the Kolding Fjord were protected, and we (me and my wife) were used to sail in strong winds. 

We had changed 3 years ago from a traditional 80-year-old heavy wooden sailboat to a brand new Bavaria 36 equipped with all sorts of extras to make it a better sailboat (lead keel, bigger mast, top cruising offshore sails). We had already made many thousands of miles, enough to know that, contrary to what we had thought, the Bavaria was not the perfect sailboat, neither the boat we would keep for the retirement days.

The Bavaria 36 was a 2003 model bought in 2002, in Palma de Maiorca, and sailed home by us to Portugal. Equipped as it was it had many qualities: it was very light, sailed very well in light to medium winds, was fast downwind, but with strong wind and waves, against the wind, it was a deception: it had not the power or stability to sail close to the wind, and I had to open the angle a lot to generate the power to sail, resulting in a very poor VMG. 

Because I was faster than friends that had similar boats (faster upwind than an Oceanis 393) I soon understood that it was not about the Bavaria but about the type of design, beamy boats with a low B/D, and my trip to Denmark, to test the Luffe 40.04, had to do with finding out how it would be to sail a boat that was the opposite from the Bavaria, narrow and with much more ballast, one that I was sure would have not the problem Bavaria had, sailing upwind, in strong conditions.

The 36ft Bavaria had 3.60m beam, the 39,4ft Luffe had 3.40m, the Bavaria displaced 4700 kg, while the Luffe displaced 6000kg. The Bavaria had a 28.5% B/D on a non bulbed lead keel (option), with 1.95m draft and the Luffe a 40%B/D on a lead keel with a kind of torpedo, meaning a keel with a low CG with more draft (2.08) and much more ballast.

When Oluf took the Luffe out of the Marina and started to pull the main out I was really surprised: it was a racing 3D carbon sail with no reefs! I had no idea how he was going to sail the boat with that big sail with no reefs in a strong wind. 

I would have certainly not tried, but Oluf is a great sailor, an accomplished racer, and only with the main up he managed to sail the Luffe, depowering the sail when it was needed, and that means almost all the time. 

Well, we could not only see how the boat sailed but we also learned one or two things about sailing on the limit, like if the Luffe was a dinghy. 

Luffe 40.04

Even if not with the right sails, we could see that the boat went fast on all points of sail, but it was really the ability to close on the wind, even without the proper sail set-up, that really surprised us. Probably something like 10º or 15º closer than with the Bavaria, very fast and with the kind of power that would keep it going even against waves.

I loved the boat and the way it sailed but my wife, that knew already something about boats (we had already tried several different types of sailboats), excluded it right away from the list of possible replacements for the Bavaria: 

The Luffe, out of light winds is a boat that sails always with a considerable heel, and on that particularly windy day, it heeled a lot, even more, to depower the sails, with Oluf having fun, and never losing control.

The narrow hull gives a lot less form stability than a beamy one but to the bigger stability corresponds a bigger drag and the need for bigger sails. Because the Luffe had a much bigger B/D on a deeper and more efficient keel, the power/drag was much bigger than the one on our Bavaria, and the motion upwind more comfortable, due to finer entries and less beam but to get power the Luffe needs to heel, to maximize the ballast effect.

For a cruising 40ft sailboat the Luffe 40.20 offers a minimalist interior, one that probably would not be bigger than the one of the current 36ft Bavaria (C38) that has 3.98m beam! a 24.3% B/D! on a cast iron keel with a torpedo and 2.05m draft. 

The difference between the way this Bavaria will sail, compared to the Luffe, will be bigger than the one with my older Bavaria, and the difference in speed, in most situations, also. I find this Bavaria a mystery and it is hard to understand how the 2003 Bavaria 36 displaced 4700kg and the C38 (also a 36ft) displaces 9070kg. 

                                                     Below Bavaria C38

The Luffe 40.20 is in fact the same hull I sailed 16 years ago but with some nice alterations like a new and more modern cabin design, 5 cm more freeboard to increase the interior height, an even better-looking interior, a bowsprit with an integrated anchor stand, two steering wheels (continues to have a tiller as an option) and a swimming platform.

The 40.20 looks gorgeous even if I find that a more modern bow would make it look better and improve the performance slightly, by increasing the LWL. And about performance, I bet that by now what many would really like to know is what the overall sail performance of the Luffe really is, if compared with other well-known fast yachts.

Well, in light wind it has really a very good and sweet performance, one that amazed the test sailors from the European biggest sail magazine, and they test a huge amount of sailboats each year. They have also found that the rudder sensibility was great, even in those conditions, when the feeling is many times lacking. If you read german you can download the full test on the link, if not you can at least watch the video. https://www.yacht.de/yachten_jollen/bootstests/im-test-luffe-4020-facelift-eines-ausnahmebootes-127744

But the best information, as usual, is from racing and a Luffe 40.04 has made the last Middle Sea Race, the boat on the photo, Prettynama2, with full track decks and with the crew not even bothering seating on the rail while going close upwind. 

That shows on the results, being the Luffe overall only 25th in 34 that finished the race, but even if we know that the boat was not sailed as well as others, the comparative results in real-time can give some good information, especially because we can access the times in different phases of the race, with different wind and points of sail.

If we consider the full race, which had many different points of sail and wind conditions, the  Luffe in real time made it in 5 days, 16 hours, and 38 minutes, slower by 4 hours and a half than a very well sailed J109 (8th overall), one hour and a half and two hours faster than the other two J109, also better sailed (13th and 14th overall).

It was about one and a half-hour faster than a Sunfast  3200 and a JPK 10.10, also better sailed (11th and 12th overall). It was slower than a J122E by 18 hours and slower than a JPK 10.80 by 12 hours, but these two boats were extremely well sailed, and that's why they were 4th and 5th overall, while the Luffe was only 25th overall. 

There was also a Pogo 36 racing, with a duo crew. They finished the race but retired after finishing, probably because the results were bad. On a race without strong winds, the Pogo 36 was always slower than the Luffe on all points of sail, and on all intermediate points, losing more, upwind, and curiously downwind with weak to medium-weak winds.

If we look at the first part of the race, which was raced with very weak winds, mostly upwind, we can see from the real times at the end of the Messina Strait, that, even if in the overall provisional classification the Luffe was only 23th, in real-time it was faster than the JPK 10.80, faster than all J109 and only 16 minutes slower than the J122E, with 1 day, 3hours and 29 minutes of racing time.

From the Messina Strait till rounding Stromboli Island, it was almost always close to the wind with stronger winds and even if the Luffe was not making a great race (19th overall) in real-time was now one hour and a half slower than the J122E (14th), but half an hour faster than the better sailed JPK 10.80 (9th) and considerably faster than all other supra mentioned boats.

To understand how good Luffe is in light wind and upwind performance if compared with the lighter but much beamier Pogo style sailboats, even racing ones, we can see that in Stromboli the top racing Class 40 "Made in Midi", professionally skippered by Kito de Pavant, with a full crew,  had only 4 hours and a half advantage (in 38 hours of racing) and the Luffe was 2 hours and a half faster than Vaquita, the other racing Class 40 and 4 hours faster than the Pogo 36.

It is good to remember that the Class 40 is a full racing boat, very light, almost without interior, huge draft, water ballasts, the Pogo 36 is much lighter than the Luffe with a very spartan interior, and that the Luffe 40.04 had teak on the deck, over the cabin and cockpit and had a very high-quality cruising interior.   

It was on the last part of the race, beam reaching and downwind, that the Luffe lost more for the J122E and the JPK 10.80, maybe more than it was expected due to probably a tired crew, because they were also losing more in compensated time. But this gives a pretty good idea of the Luffe performance, outstanding in light wind, very good upwind, and fast, but less good than beamier fast yachts, beam reaching and downwind (out of light winds).

Overall a J122E or an XP38 are faster than a Luffe 40.20, except in light wind; downwind with medium-high winds and strong winds the Pogo 36 will be much faster, but not faster in what regards to overall performance, depending on wind strength. In what regards to sailing performance maximization it is pretty much the opposite of the Pogo, having a stellar performance where the Pogo is weaker, and vice-versa.

The Luffe is a pretty fast little boat but it is not only about sailing fast, but about going fast with style and in a minimal way. Being so narrow gives you the sensation of sailing a very nimble smaller yacht, with smaller sails, and a smaller but incredibly beautiful and well-finished interior.

The interior, the galley, the head and the cabins would be the size you would expect on a 36ft boat and smaller than the one of the very beamy 36ft boats, like the Bavaria C38 or a Pogo 36.

The kind of sailor that will choose a Luffe 40.02 will be a very particular one, kind of a romantic guy that doesn't need much space to live, but will not dispense the coziness and quality of the Luffe interior as well as the particular way the boat sails, fast, either while racing or cruising.

The sailors that would buy a Pogo 36 or a Luffe 40.02 have in common the love for fast sailing, but a different type of fast sailing, and the ones that will buy a Pogo would never buy a Luffe, and vice-versa. Having in common being fast the two yachts are opposed in many sailing performance aspects and in the interior concept, as a cruising boat.

Both sailors will not need much to be happy while cruising, but the guy that likes the Pogo enjoys having much more space, doesn't mind a spartan interior, the guy with the Luffe, doesn't mind having a much smaller interior, but would not miss a luxurious and cozy interior, the kind of guy that prefers small and perfect, than bigger, even if functional. 

Ideally, a boat for a couple, or a couple with kids, being the aft cabin surprisingly big for a boat of this size, while still having a sufficient outside storage space, even for extended cruising. The water tankage is low, with only 160L but it should be possible to add a 100L supplementary tank.

Bavaria C38

The 30hp engine will be able to drive the sleek boat at decent speeds with a low diesel consumption and that, and the huge sailing potential with light winds, explains the small diesel tankage: 90L. This is a boat for sailors and the ones that use this boat as a sailing boat use the engine as an auxiliary one.

Having a Luffe 40.20 has another advantage: the hull is 17 years old and it looks almost as well now as it looked 17 years ago and the boat performance, 17 years later, continues to be a great one. How many boats will look that good 17 years after their launch? And presumably, it will look as good 17 years from now, simply because that type of hull, maximized for light wind and upwind sailing has reached a plateau, many years ago.

The only comparable boat is the Faurby 400, a very similar boat, curiously also built in Denmark and not very far from the Luffe shipyard. The building quality is high and very similar, both boats using a steel grid as structure, having sandwich hulls and decks, vinylester for the Faurby, vinylester or epoxy for the Luffe, divinycel as core for both and instead of bonding agents they use lamination for fixing the structure and bulkheads to the hull and deck.

The finish is amazing in both boats being the Faurby more traditional on the interior design and cabin design. The Luffe is just a bit more performance-oriented and with a better regatta track record, but in what regards cruising I would say that they are pointed to the same type of sailor, the boat dimensions are very similar.

If not for using it mostly as a racing boat, the choice between them will be a question of personal taste since what they offer in sail performance, cruising amenities and prices is not very different. The new 40.02 looks just a bit less classic than the Faurby 400.

Faurby 400

For the quality, the prices seem correct, taking into account that these boats are very well built, have an incredible finish, have 6 winches, a lot of equipment and the prices, contrary to most other yachts, refer to boats on the water and ready to sail away with sails, basic electronics in the case of the Faurby.

The Luffe costs standard 243 624 € and the Faurby 277 143 €, the Faurby seems to come with slightly more equipment standard but both boats have a big list of options that will be needed to make them look like the ones on the photos. Both prices are at the shipyard without taxes. Beauty, perfection and quality do not come cheap, that's for sure.

Faurby 400

Anyway, the equipment offered on the sail away version is different on both boats and only a comparison with similar equipment will provide a more accurate price difference, but I would say it would not be over the price that one should buy one or another.

These boats offer Hallberg Rassy quality, if not superior (in fact in what regards hull building they have a superior quality) and because they are much narrower and with a much smaller interior they offer a better performance/interior quality/ price ratio and will be an interesting choice for individualists that have very particular tastes, as different from the herd as these cruisers are different from all others.

Faurby 400

The survival of both brands through decades shows that sailors with a passion for narrow beautiful performance yachts, mixing a luxury finish with a particular type of superior sail performance, never mind the small interior, continue to exist, and justify the existence of both shipyards. 

And I am very happy that is the case, it would be a shame that such beautiful boats like Luffe or Faurby ceased to exist. The boat market would be poorer without these two family brands, still owned by the same sail enthusiasts that had created them.

Their sailboats remind us of the true meaning of the word yacht, by opposition to sailboat cruiser, remembering us that a yacht was once always connected with a luxury finish, perfection, and beauty.

  

 

HALLBERG RASSY 40C VERSUS SAARE 41CC2

Apparently, the logical choice would be to compare the Hallberg Rassy 40C with the Najad 395CC, the other recent 40ft central cockpit on the market (2018), but I really dislike the Najad to the point of finding the previous model, the Najad 410 (2009), more elegant and with a nicer interior.

Najad 395CC, above, Saare 41CC2, below HR40C

I find it hard that someone would spend a small fortune on an ugly boat and because the HR is a beautiful boat with a very nice interior, it is difficult to understand how the Najad 395CC would be an option, not to mention that the HR sails better and faster, being less heavy and having more sail area. 

So, instead of making what seems a useless comparison with a boat that I don't find interesting, I prefer to compare it with a boat that I like, an older and less known boat, the Saare 41CC2. 

The "2" stands for an MKII version that arrived a few years ago and provided the Saare with a much better-looking interior, with an option for light European oak, which is really an improvement over the dark mahogany of the first boats. 

The hull is from 2008 but the MKII, besides the better-looking interior, has improved outside storage, with a bigger sail-locker. The interior storage was also improved with a big wet locker (accessible from the outside) as well as more overall storage cabinets.

The interior finish and layout were always good but the lighter wood, and some improvements in design, really make it not only look better, besides being almost perfect in regards to functionality. One great addition was the freezer that occupies the center of the saloon table. It looks not only nice and integrated as it is a great idea to store at hand the cold beer and white wine, a perfect location to keep on drinking, while seated at the table with friends.

In regards to sailing potential what matters are the boat dimensions and technical characteristics: the Saare is a bit longer with a 12.50m hull length to 12.30m, but the HR has a bigger LWL, with 11.74 for 11.20m, due mostly to a more modern bow design. But the bigger difference regards beam and displacement, having the Saare a 3.92 beam for 4.18m on the HR, and while the Saare displaces 9500kg the HR displaces 1500kg more (11000kg).

The keels are of a similar design, bulbed lead keels, with the Saare having just a bit more draft (2.00 to 1.92m). The Saare has a 41.1%B/D the HR a 33.2% B/D. The bigger displacement will give the HR bigger overall stability but the Saare has a better AVS, over 130º, one that starts to be unusual, and a better dynamic and safety stability.

Above HR40C, below Saare 41CC2

It is true that the HR has a more modern hull, but in this case, the difference in the type of hull is much more important than an eventually small hull evolution in design. Besides the Saare hull was designed by Karl-Johan Stråhlmann, best known for designing fast-cruiser racers, among them the Finngulf, and it is a very nice hull, from the family of the one of the new J45, and not very different.

In regards to sailing power/weight, the Saare compensates the HR bigger hull stability with a superior RM coming from the keel, due not only to more draft but also to a bigger B/D. But it is in what regards power/drag that the Saare will make the difference in performance to the HR, having less wetted area, due to being lighter, finner entries, less beam and a transom designed to minimize drag, especially in lighter winds and upwind.

Less displacement, less drag and almost the same sail area upwind (Saare 87.6, HR 90.1m2) will give the Saare a superior sailing performance, especially upwind and in lighter wind situations. But most of all it is necessary to understand that the yachts will sail in a different way, the Saare (out of the light wind) with more heel, to be able to take advantage of the bigger B/D, with more roll downwind, and having a more comfortable motion upwind with waves, slamming less.

On top Saare 41CC, above HR40C

With medium-high to high winds, on a beam reach or downwind, the HR will have a very good performance, being easier on the auto-pilot, sailing with less heel, less roll on the waves and probably going at the same speed as the Saare. Upwind, on those conditions, the Saare will sail faster, closer to the wind, slamming less, even if with more heel. Under lighter winds, the Saare will always be faster, no matter the point of sail.

So, it is up to you to know what the conditions are in which you sail most, and if sailing with some more degrees of heel is or isn't a problem, to know what type of hull and type of boat will suit you better. But one thing is for sure, you will have to use the engine more often on the HR, due to his worst performance in light winds.

It is fair to say that the HR offers optionally more sail area (96.6m2) but the Saare is much more adapted to use a big genoa (135%) as a forward sail. The genoa track is over the cabin is much more centered than the one on the HR (that is on the deck on a beamier hull). Using or not a big genoa as the standard sail has all to do with the setup you will use for lighter wind: You can use a 135% genoa for light and heavier wind (furled), or a 105% genoa for heavier wind and a gennaker or code 0 for light winds.

The genoa on the Saare will certainly give it a much better-pointed ability than a Code 0 on the Hallberg Rassy. A Code 0 with a 105% genoa is probably a better solution in what regards overall performance, although not in all situations. But having two sails instead of one, being one of them huge and removable, gives a lot more work, especially if the crew is an old couple or inexperienced sailors. 

Compared to a 135% genoa it is not as practical, demanding frequent changes of sail, versus furling the genoa. Out of sportive sailors, I see almost no cruising boats of this size sailed by aged couples using gennaker or Code 0. Something you should take into consideration when choosing the sail setup you are going to use on the boat. A big genoa gives a bit more work tacking, but nothing compared with the extra work for using two sails. On smaller and lighter boats the much smaller sail size makes the 2nd option more practical. 

Anyway, for using the gennaker or code 0 the HR40C comes already with a very nicely designed integrated bowsprit, one that has the disadvantage of increasing the boat size for marinas, making them more expensive (42.9ft versus 41ft for the Saare). 

The Saare offers optionally a less nice, but more practical, traditional nordic designed bowsprit/bow platform, that with the use of an integrated small stair allows easy access to the boat from the bow. 

This allows on marinas that do not have a lateral pontoon, like the ones on the med, to have the yacht bow to the pontoon, preserving the intimacy of the cockpit from passing pedestrians.

Both come standard with one-line reefing through the boom, the HR with 3 winches, the Saare with 6. The beamier HR has a twin rudder system the Saare has a deeper single one, and both offer standard about the same equipment, more than what it is normal on less expensive sailboats.

The Saare offers true deck ventilators, a very rare thing on yachts these days, particularly with this dimension. The ones forward are protected by a bench that is also useful to reach the boom and the mainsail. These ventilators while being unnecessary on hot summer days, are very useful to sail or live on the boat out of season, particularly on rainy days.

Both boats offer the same engine as standard, a 60hp Volvo Penta, with the possibility of having optionally a 75hp engine. The HR40C offers as tankage 400L diesel and 520L water while the Saare offers 320+100L diesel and 300+100L water, being the extra 100L an option.

Regarding layout, the Saare offers a better one and it is truly a 2 cabin, 2 head yacht, being both heads accessible from the cabins. The HR is a two cabin one-head boat and to make things worse, the single head is on the yacht's opposite side of the main cabin.

The galleys are of a different design but both are big and with a lot of storage, both chart tables are also big, good and of similar size. Due to the bigger beam, the saloon is wider on the HR, allowing for an optional solution with two very nice armchairs, while the Saare has a traditional saloon solution similar to the one in the standard HR.

But besides the two cabins - two heads solution, where the Saare really makes the difference is on the outside storage space, which is much bigger than on the HR. Not only the bow locker is much bigger, with a separate big hatch, a true sail locker, as the wet locker is much bigger than the one on the HR, and being accessed from the outside,  it can be used to store fenders or other material.

On top HR40C, above Saare 41CC2

The two stern storage spaces on the Saare are also considerably bigger than the ones on the HR. On the HR they chose to use more lateral space in the king-size cabin, which is bigger than the one on the Saare, at the cost of the exterior storage and also due to a larger transom.

While considering the outside storage space, I would not have a problem doing extended cruising on the Saare, I would not be happy doing the same with what the HR offers, and I am not the type that sails or lives with a lot of stuff, but as all that live for long periods on a sailboat and stay considerable periods at anchor know, a lot of material is needed, from ropes to fenders, to maintenance and cleaning products, bucket and bowls, tools, spares, sometimes bicycles or scooters, a big shade for the cockpit, a geenaker and so on.

Saare 41CC2 sail locker

But, even if I prefer the Saare in many aspects, I have to agree that the HR40C interior and exterior looks are very hard to beat and on both counts, I would say that the HR looks better than the Saare. While the Saare is a bit too much "classical" the HR looks decidedly modern and up-to-date. Who would have imagined that from HR a decade ago? You can judge by yourself and see both interiors in virtual reality in the two links below:

https://www.hallberg-rassy.com/static_content/360grader/HR40C-Imacis-Ver2/index.html

https://saareyachts.com/en/saare-41cc/

HR40C - European oak

Regarding the outside, the more classical approach of the Saare is not without appeal, with very clean lines. In the inside, it is not a question of quality and finish, but truly a question of superior design quality, and I am not talking about style but how well a given style is worked on.

I don't find the Saare interior badly designed but the one of the Hallberg Rassy is of exceptional design quality and as saloon space, the optional layout with the two armchairs is really perfect for a boat of this size. The one of the Saare has at least a similar quality of finish, it is cozy and nice but has not the same appeal. One would find it very nice before seeing and falling in love with the one of the HR.

Saare 41CC2 - mahogany version

But if the HR interior design is better, in what concerns hull deck and structure, the Saare is built with better materials and better techniques. Not meaning that HR has not a high-quality building, but while more money is spent by HR on the interior looks, more money is spent by Saare in building the hull, and that's why the Saare weighs 1500kg less than the HR.

The Hallberg Rassy uses polyester resins with vinylester only on the outside coat, the Saare is built entirely using vynilester based epoxy resins. While HR uses a hand lay-up method, Saare uses vacuum infusion technology, and that allows for a perfect fiber saturation using less resin, with a final product that is lighter, and at least as good as the one using the hand-laid method. The better quality vinylester resin also allows savings in weight, for the same composite strength.

Saare 41CC2 - oak version

Both yachts use composite sandwich hulls and decks, using the same core material, Divinycel, which is a high-quality foam. On the keel area and engine area as well as in all through the hull passages, solid monolithic laminate is used. 

The boat structure is not very different, in both cases a solid GRP structure, that is strongly laminated to the hull. Both use marine-grade plywood for bulkheads, that are bonded and laminated to the hull. The deck is also bonded and laminated to the hull.

Probably because it is made in Estonia, one of the Baltic small countries, the Saare 41CC2, even if slightly bigger, is a bit less expensive than the Hallberg Rassy 40C, which is made in Sweden, where manpower is more expensive. 

Saare 41CC2 structure: remarkably well laminated

But it is not a huge difference, because both boats are very similar in quality, and quality does not come cheap. The Halberg Rassy costs about 420 000 € and the Saare about 400 000 €, both prices standard, on the shipyard and without VAT.

I find that for many sailing programs a Saare 41CC2 would make more sense than the Hallberg Rassy 41C, but the fact that HR is a very prestigious brand and the Saare has a slightly outdated look, will make the HR 40C much more popular as a choice. 

HR 40C hull structure

One can only hope that Saare decides to substitute the 41 CC2 for a 42fter, a sailboat with similar characteristics but with a more modern transom and bow, an integrated bowsprit and a more modern look. And if possible with a more modern keel that would make it even lighter and faster. 

Why a 42ft boat? Because with a bigger cockpit, a slightly bigger technical space, a dedicated locker for the liferaft on the transom and a swimming platform, this boat would be even better. The problem with small boat builders is that due to much smaller production, the costs of having a new model are proportionally much bigger than on a big or medium production builder, which can distribute those costs for many more sailboats. But one can dream ;-)

NEW HALLBERG RASSY 400 VERSUS HR 40C

Well, half new, because it is not really a new sailboat but an aft-cockpit version of the 40C, which is a central cockpit boat. Except for the different cockpit position and interior layout, all is the same, the hull, sail area, tankage, engine, hull, rudders, keel ballast and draft.

I have done a comparison between the  HR 40C and the HR 412 here: 

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-hallberg-rassy-40c-versus-hr-412.html

Now that the HR 412 has been retired and substituted by the HR 400, a 41.4ft boat being substituted by a slightly smaller yacht (40.4ft), but with a bigger waterline and more beam (4.18 to 4.11m), the comparison that matters now is between the HR 400 and the 40C.

The HR 400 has a bigger cockpit, even if not as big as it could have been. On the 40C the passage from the steering post to the rest of the cockpit is more difficult but all sailing controls are at the reach of the helmsman and are easier to use, while on the 400C only 2 of the four winches are at the direct reach of the helmsman even if the passage to the other two is facilitated by a two rudder setup.

Difficult to understand why the winches on the 400 are not more aft and why the second winch is not closer to the one near the wheel. The way it is, it does not only prevent the helmsman from reaching it from the wheel position as its operation intrudes with "passengers" sitting on the cockpit.

The mainsail control on the 40C is more intuitive, quicker and better, through a purchase system on a traveller at easy reach. On the 400 the traveller is over the cabin and for controlling the mainsail you will have to do it on the winches that are out of reach, as well as the lines for controlling the mainsail traveller.

On top of all this, the helmsman seating position is better on the 40C. Normally in this size of boat, I would prefer an AC cockpit to a CC one, but in this case, while the 40C is exceptionally well designed, the 400 leaves much to be desired, particularly the winch position and the treatment of the aft part of the cockpit.

The 400 has an odd transom with two transom small seats that will be uncomfortable with the boat heeled (and the boat is heeled most of the time). The only lateral possible sitting places are very narrow and high, so narrow and high that I doubt they would be of any use due to discomfort, even if most normally sit laterally when sailing the boat upwind, or with any considerable degree of heel.

I don't understand why the back seats don't start at the transom, allowing the wheels to come further aft, increasing the length of the cockpit seats, and allowing more space to lie down. Don't understand either why the swimming platform is not bigger, closing the cockpit. Saving money using the 40C swimming platform, on a boat this expensive should not be a reason.

One of the disadvantages of the 40C is having more difficult access to the swimming platform, and a small one, by limitations due to the type of design (CC). The 400 has not those limitations but it has a small swimming platform anyway, as if a bigger one was not an advantage.

Regarding outside storage, the 400, in the 3 cabin version, has little storage and should only be considered if small cruises or marina to marina cruising will be the owner's main program. The 40C offers more storage space, with two bigger stern sail lockers. The 400 two under the seat cockpit lockers (one on the 40C) will not compensate for the bigger overall outside storage space on the 40C.

But things will change radically if we consider the 400 two-cabin version (the 40C has only a two-cabin version) and in this case, the outside storage space is huge, with practically one of the aft cabins turned into storage, but being that storage space accessed exclusively from the cockpit. 

But huge is not the same thing as practical or usable and the only outside access and its huge deep size make it not as functional as it should be, and unnecessarily big. 

This approximate size and type of sailboat, rarely is used for charter, and with a bigger percentage of owners using it more often for extensive cruising should have ideally two heads, two good cabins, a big galley and good interior and exterior storage space.

Regarding this ideal, neither of the boats comes out with flying colours, and I believe either one could have a better layout: the 40C offers a great galley, one magnificent aft cabin, a good bow cabin but offers only one head, and the only head, weirdly, is far from the bigger cabin and almost integrated into the smaller one.

The 400 offers the same forward cabin and head, as on the 40C, a second and much bigger head but a smaller aft cabin. The aft cabin could be much bigger if transversal, with the technical space situated not behind the engine, but laterally, on part of the space that was occupied by the 2nd cabin, and that is now, a huge undivided storage space. 

The only disadvantage to this solution would be the impossibility to mount an optional stern thruster, but who needs a bow thruster and a stern thruster, on a boat of this size? The outside storage space would still be much increased regarding the three-cabin layout and could be turned into a more usable one.

The 40C galley is much bigger than the one in the 400. The 400 galley could also be made bigger if a transversal aft cabin was considered. On the 400 it is hard to understand the lack of interior access to the main storage space due to the head layout, which has the toilet where that passage could be made.

Both saloons have the same space and distribution both can have two individual armchairs, only the position of the chart table and size varies, being considerably bigger on the 40C. The 400 has in fact an interior that is not smaller than the one of the bigger 412, with the exception of the chart table that is smaller,  and that is no small feat.

Between the two, the 40C seems better designed, however, not having a second head and the only one being a relatively small one, is really a big negative point. Maybe the size is wrong, maybe they should have started without a pre-determined size and tried to have the smaller possible yacht with two heads, two good cabins and a good galley. I guess that they would have ended with a 41ft yacht even if I find that the 40C layout could be easily bettered. 

A pity that for so little extra length, and for a small difference in price, they were not able to offer the smallest, and yet perfect, two cabin/two head cruising yacht. If that is very hard to manage or impossible to manage on a 40ft CC yacht, in what regards a 40 AC, that seems not so difficult, with the right compromises between outside storage and interior space, but in this case, the aft cabin seems too small for perfection and the outside storage space unnecessarily big.

Both are beautiful yachts with great quality and design interior, well built and yachts that will make their owners proud. Test sails have been very positive (40C) and this is a great size to be sailed solo with confidence, and for not being overwhelmed when those automatic systems, that allow a solo sailor to sail bigger yachts, fail, or when things just go wrong.

HR 40C Sail Tests available on-line: https://marina.ch/fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-F.pdf 

 https://marina.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Logbuch-HR40C-130-D.pdf

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/reviews/yacht-reviews/hallberg-rassy-40c-the-best-sailing-boat-h-r-have-ever-built 

https://www.magzter.com/stories/Boating-Sailing/Yachting-Monthly/FIRST-TEST-HALLBERG-RASSY-40C

https://www.velaemotore.it/test-prova-hallberg-rassy-40c-navigazione-pregi-difetti-19187

 

The price, like the quality, is high and the difference in price between the two boats is negligible. The prices are originally in Swedish Crowns and have small variations due to money exchange, with both boats costing between 400 000 and 420 000 €, without VAT, standard at the shipyard.