Many have said that the VOR 65 was outdated, too heavy, and they would expect
the last generation of IMOCA, on foils,to leave the VOR 65 behind but very few would expect that on the Med leg between Valencia and Genova the differences were so big.
Maybe the ones that had doubts start to believe that the hugely beamy Imoca hulls are only suited to a very small set of conditions, the ones you can find on the trade winds. Even in what regards downwind sailing and beam reaching the IMOCAS seem only to be faster over 20kt winds.
VOR 65 (drawing by Francois Chevalier)
Downwind with medium winds IMOCA and VOR 65 seem to have a very similar performance but upwind and in lighter wind the VOR 65 is much faster. For an overall use the VOR 65 is a faster boat, being the IMOCA only faster in a small set of conditions.
Of course the VOR65 has a crew more than two times bigger than the one of an IMOCA, but there is no reason for the running of a VOR 65 (and sails) to be adapted to be sailed by four, and I believe that if the four were top sailors, the boat would lose a bit in speed, but it would be still overall faster than a top IMOCA.
And if we look at the hull of the older VOR 70 Groupama, the faster of all VORs, we will see that it is even narrower that the VOR 65. The 65 is probably more adapted to trade wind sailing, but if we compare the sailing results in IRC offshore races (real time) we will see that the VOR 70, under several names, has been consistently faster than the VOR 65 and in IRC has won many big races.
IMOCA 11th Hour (drawing by Francois chevalier)
So, as I have been saying it makes no sense to use hulls with shapes derived from IMOCA on cruising boats, even less in performance cruising boats (in what regards sail performance), but what happens is precisely the opposite with designers claiming they are using on cruising sailboats faster hull shapes, not limited by handicap rules and derived from offshore solo racers.
Sure, it makes a lot of sense to use very beamy hulls for maximizing interior space, but when someone tells you that those hulls are also used to maximize sail performance, be suspicious: those hulls can make sailing easier, with less heel and less roll, but will not maximize performance, except on a very limited set of conditions and will lose a lot, sailing with low winds or upwind.
Like every year, I stop posting when the sailing season begins, normally from April to October. I sail and cruise on those months and I am having too much fun to "lose" time making posts. The comments will take more time to be published and I will try to reply, but it will take longer than what is usual.
And in what regards losing time, when you are looking at posts, see if you can click on some of the adds , because it is the only way I receive some money for the effort, a ridiculously small amount for the work involved.
I am already at Kusadasi (Turkey) and should be sailing and cruising in about a week or so.
These beautiful narrow yachts are a breath of fresh air in a yacht design panorama more and more dominated by very beamy boats. The fact that most of them are very beamy has nothing to do with sail performance, but with managing the biggest interior volume for a given size, and these days even cruiser-racers are becoming beamier and beamier.
Very beamy light sailboats with very narrow entries and a high B/D are a good recipe for solo downwind fast sailing, but these downwind maximized hulls don't sail well out of a very particular set of wind strength and directions. They have become the dominant tendency in cruising sailboat design, even if most of those sailboats are not sailed predominantly on those conditions.
Their shape has the advantage of being visually associated with solo racing sailboats, probably the most popular form of sail racing today, and their large beam allows not only that visual racing connotation, as it also provides a bigger interior.
They are also less expensive to build because beamy boats dispense a bigger B/D to sail relatively well (although not for having good safety stability and AVS) and that allows less reinforced hulls and a lighter keel structure.
Narrow sailboats have many disadvantages, they offer a much smaller interior for the length, in some marinas pay a lot more (for the same interior space), sail with more heel, need a bigger B/D but offer also an easily driven hull, that provides a way of sailing fast with smaller sails, better light wind performance and a sailing pleasure that is very different from the one that is experienced on a beamier sailboat, a very particular one, related to the one that was experienced in narrow classic era racers.
Smaller sails for the same speed are a cruising advantage, which is very underrated these days but that is a very considerable one. The smaller the sails the easier dealing with them in all circumstances, but especially when things get rough and winds are high. The huge safety stability and big AVS these boats provide is also an advantage, that has as a drawback, the smaller overall stability due to a smaller hull form stability.
Some months ago, when I first saw Aspect 45's first drawings, I found them beautiful, but honestly thought the boat would never be built: it was too radical, too much a love affair, but guess what, I was wrong! Cheers to the Nordic sailors and designers that keep this tradition of beautiful narrow fast yachts alive.
Swing keel
The Aspect 45 has many things in common with the Shogun 43 and 50, but also some differences and the first big one is having a modern hydraulic swing keel, with all the ballast on the keel.
The Shogun 50 has a lifting keel (draft from 3.5 to 2.0m), but the Aspect 45 has a 3.5m draft keel that can be folded or brought to intermediate positions, modifying the longitudinal CG to get the right balance for better performance on different wind directions, wind strength, and sail set up. That keel will also swing if the boat hits a submerged rock, absorbing the impact force and preventing or diminishing damages on the hull structure or on the keel.
This yacht has a 13,70m LOA, 12,50m LWL, 3,68m beam, 3,50 m draft (with keel swinged aft 2.08 - 1.40m), 5600kg displacement, 2500kg ballast, 44.6% B/D, 40.3! SA/D upwind, and a 79.8 D/L.
Longer than the Shogun 43, having less beam (3.68 to 3.70m), more draft 3.50 to 2.70m (on a less efficient keel), bigger B/D, 44.6% to 42%, bigger SA/D 40.3 to 35.3% and a smaller D/L 79.8 to 94.4 (meaning that it is proportionally lighter), this yacht is more extreme and powerful than the Shogun 43!
The hull looks great and the transom is gorgeous. The only thing that raises some doubts is the Carbon/epoxy monolithic hull. Unusual in carbon boats or even in sportive sailboats (that normally use a sandwich hull). They say that they prefer to use a monolithic hull to allow more resistance in groundings with rocks, but due to the brittle characteristic of carbon when laminated in big thickness, I cannot see any advantage over a sandwich hull with Kevlar on the outer layer, in strategic places. Probably the real reason is cutting costs.
Anyway, on such a narrow boat with carbon bulkheads and the hull reinforced with stiffeners probably the hull will be stiff enough and will not flex much. However, hull rigidity is much improved on a sandwich hull, so much that weight is saved if compared with any other solution to give the same hull rigidity.
It is hard to understand why the boat has not a sandwich carbon hull with kevlar reinforcements on the points where impacts would eventually take place if the hull eventually hit any rock or substantial floating debris.
The layout seems very good for such a narrowboat, with good storage space in the stern (access through the cockpit) that probably will allow the three cabins to be used for cruising. The galley is good, the head not bad and a good-sized cabinet for wet clothes is provided. If there is something to criticize it would be the small bow sail locker, integrated into the anchor chain locker.
Of course, the interior has not the space of a "normal" 45ft boat, more the one of a 41 ft boat, but for a couple with kids to cruise seems perfectly adequate.
A single deep rudder is used, connected to a tiller (enough due to the small beam). A steering wheel is optional. The boat comes standard with 4 big electric 3 speed harken winches and has lots of operations that work with hydraulic assistance, they don't give much details but say:
"Seven unique hydraulic functions to simplify sailing: Hydraulically regulated swing keel • Hydraulic solution for a self-tacking, overlapping jib. • Hydraulic systems for the mainsheet, jib lead height, backstay and boom vang. The hydraulics are controlled either by the panels beside the helmsman or with a remote control. Features can be programmed for quicker rig changes and simplified trimming of sails. The remote control can even be operated by a crew member hiking on the rail."
The unusual solutions on a standard 45ft boat do not end in the hydraulics, they have electrically heated helmsman seats (that should make a lot of sense in Sweden, out of the short summer), a carbon cockpit table that can be used to close the cockpit aft, a U-shaped kitchen counter in rose-polished titanium, a trim-tab on the keel for reducing leeway, providing better performance up-wind and a deck-mounted carbon mast that has the advantages of allowing for a better interior while not losing the ability to be trimmable like a keel stepped mast. For allowing this "the mast support rises 80 cm above the deck and is part of the boat’s structure. The mast continues down over the mast support and rests on a ball at gooseneck height."
But "the tour de force is" at the top of the mast where a horizontal extension goes 75 cm backwards and 25 cm forward, allowing for a larger fathead mainsail without the problems associated with a traditional fathead sail in what regards backstays and allows an easier forestay tension regulation: if the backstay is tightened by 1.5 tonnes, the forestay tension will be 4.5 tonnes!
The propulsion is one of the few electric engines systems that make sense to me, for extensive cruising use. In fact it is a hybrid system: "The hybrid engine consists of a 27hp 3-cylinder
Lombardini diesel engine and a 15hp electric motor, a total of 42hp.
The hybrid assembly has 2 modes – generator and
hybrid operation. In generator mode, the batteries can be charged
with around 7kW without the propeller connected.
In hybrid mode, the boat can run on ...electricity (only) up to 6 knots, at higher speeds the diesel engine will automatically switch in. ... Everything is managed automatically just like a modern hybrid car".
The yacht comes standard with a LiFePo4 battery pack, 48V / 10.5 kWh + 24V / 3.5 kWh. It offers a lot more unusual equipment standard, including hydraulic systems, swing keel, insulation with Aerogel, Electric ventilation, heating elements in the cabins, galley, and head (controlled by a central thermostat), two refrigerators in the galley, and on deck and cockpit, recessed EVA foam deck grip panels, electric heated seats for the helmsman, 4 big 3 speed Harken electric winches, carbon spars, including the partially removable bowsprit.
From an initial mild interest in this boat, due to the very scarce information and the odd swing keel design (on the drawings - not profiled and with a much bigger width up than down), I become very curious about this yacht, that presents many and very interesting innovative solutions that can make a lot of sense...if they work well.
The ones responsible for the project and design are part of an eclectic group that includes the mentor, Rolf Tannergård. He was the one responsible for a previous Aspect 40 (2010) that was an ugly yacht, but one that proved to be fast and do well in racing. This time the design team is bigger and the Aspect 45 looks much better than the older 40 even if the looks of the boat are not as ambitious as the boat itself. Their ambition is to make the Aspect 45 faster than the Shogun 50! That would be difficult, being the Shogun 50 a bigger yacht. The Aspect 45 technical characteristics are awesome, but even if it comes only close, swing keel and all, it would be a blast.
The information provided is scarce, the few drawings available (specially in what concerns the underwater part of the hull, keel and the interior) do not allow a fair assessment of the boat potential, as a racing and cruising boat, but the price, 950 000 euros without tax, taking into account what is offered considering the fully hydraulic integrated system and swing keel, all functions controlled by a joystick, is a reasonable price.
I don't mean that it is not a very expensive yacht, of course it is, but taking into account the complexity of technical systems and what is offered (if the interiors are top quality as they say) it seems an interesting price. Anyway, several top carbon new and very interesting sailboats being developed in Scandinavia are great news to all that like beautiful and fast yachts. Cheers to them 👍.
It is not yet on the water, so how do I know that it is as fast as it looks? Well, the design parameters are not very different from its bigger sister, the Shogun 50 and that one has already made the European ORC championship, and more than its 6th place, which probably indicates that it is not very good for handicap racing, its the real-time performance that shows how fast this cruiser-racer is if compared with a true racing boat.
And in what regards that the comparisons with a bigger racing boat, a TP52, very well raced (2nd on the championship), are particularly interesting: if we look at results of the only offshore race on the ORC championship we will see that Shogun 50 made 4th in compensated, but second in real-time, having lost (in an 11-hour race) 56 minutes for the TP52, the fastest in real-time, and left the Swan 45 (that won in compensated) at 1 hour and 6 minutes.
The results in the smaller races show the same sailing speed, the Shogun 50 has a performance in between a TP52 e a Swan 45 and that is a very good performance for a cruiser-racer. But the Shogun 50, and the 42, are not only about speed but about luxury and a taste for sailing in narrow very elegant sailboats. More than an absolute sailing performance, the Shogun 42 is about top performance with style.
The drawings of the 42 interiors and layout have not yet been released but we can be sure they will be pretty much custom and high quality, with carbon furniture embedded in the hull.
But we know that this boat will have a more traditional layout (the 50 had the galley and salon on the front part of the hull), with a bow cabin and one or two aft with the galley and head in the central part of the yacht.
This is an all-carbon boat curiously made by an old traditional shipyard, Rosättra Boatyard, specialized in traditionally designed but high-performance cruisers, the Linjett, with the collaboration of composite specialists, Vaxholm Komposite and Marstrom Composite.
This is an all Carbon sandwich boat, including the interior where carbon with an oak veneer is used. The boat structure is directly infused in the hull and the carbon cabin is laminated into the hull to form a rigid shell and therefore allowing fewer bulkheads and a more free and open interior.
Shogun 50
The Shogun 43 has a narrow hull (3.7 m beam) it has a 12.3 m LWL, 6330 kg displacement, 42% B/D, a 2.7 or 2.4m draft, a 35.3 SA/D and a 94.4 D/L. It would be easy for me to fall in love with this boat...if I had the money for it, but this is one of these cases when if you ask how much it costs, almost for sure is out of your budget. A dreamboat for almost everybody.
With a customizable interior, 260 L water tankage and 160 L diesel (that taking into account the low consumption of a 40hp engine and the very good performance in light wind, will be enough), this sailboat can be used almost for anything, from coastal to offshore regattas, coastal cruising or bluewater cruising...if you like to cruise in a Ferrari, and among them, on a very sportive one.
If this was a car this yacht would look like a Lamborghini, or something ultra-modern, sportive, and fast. Does the Sunbeam 32.1 have only the looks or has it what it takes to be as fast on the sea as a Lambo on the roads? Meaning a big engine and the means to control all that power.
On a sailboat, the engines are the sails and the stability that allows resisting the heeling forces. The bigger the stability, also called stiffness (for the smaller heel angles, the ones that are used for sailing) the bigger the sails the boat will be able to carry and more power will be available.
The engine is not the only relevant part, the other is the proportion between drag and power and if we were talking about cars, drag would correspond mostly to the weight and aerodynamic performance, on boats it is a bit more complex because water is much denser than air.
Sunbeam 32.1
Regarding hydrodynamics, not only the wetted area is important (related to weight) as other factors assume bigger importance, factors that have to do with boat underwater shape while heeling, hull form coefficients and wave drag, not to mention windage.
But let's keep it simple and basic: regarding hull form the Sunbeam 32.1 is sleek, with fine entries and a relatively narrow hull. It looks the hull of a fast boat, but if we look at the rocker and at the shape of the underwater hull, we will see that they are very different from the ones of sailing "Ferraris", or "Porsches", and the hull does not look like anymore to the hull of a very fast boat.
Comparing it with the hulls of Dehler 30OD and JPK 10.30 the differences are evident, and the Sunbeam 32.l underwater body looks pregnant and with a bigger freeboard, that is very well disguised by two chines. Evidently, the much bigger wetted surface on the Sunbeam has to do with a very different displacement, 4150kg for the Sunbeam, 2800kg for the Dehler and 3776kg for the JPK.
On top Dehler 30OD then JPK 1030
The Sunbeam, with 29ft length, is the smallest, the Dehler has 30ft and the JPK 33ft. The Dehler has 3.28m beam, the JPK 3.24m and the Sunbeam is the narrowest, with 2.98m. That means that for having the same power it has to compensate with extra ballast, but it is the opposite, the Sunbeam has not only less draft, on a similar T keel (1,80m to 2.2m and 2.0m) as is the one with the smaller B/D, 30.1% for 33.6% on the Dehler and 39.7% on the JPK.
Oceanis 30.1
So, the Sunbeam has a bigger wetted surface, less hull form stability, less RM coming from the keel and from the Lamborghini shape, if compared to a "Ferrari" and a "Porsche".....it remains only the shape, not the substance.
If we continue and extend this comparison to the sail area, sail control and running rigging we will reach the same conclusion: this boat was designed to look like a real sports boat but not to sail like one.
The rigging is a very simplified one, without a traveler for the mainsail or for the genoa, with a self-taking rail for a jib and only two winches to deal with the sails and reefing. I asked if more winches or a genoa and main traveler could be mounted and received no answer.
Above, Sunbeam 32.1, below Oceanis 30.1
On the technical data they talk about an optional genoa, but genoa rails are not shown anywhere and a genoa with a german mainsheet system and only two winches will be very hard to operate, not to mention the single line reefing system. A german mainsheet system makes not any sense for a boat this size. If an aft mainsheet is used on a boat this size, the more practical and efficient system is a direct mainsheet system with blocks.
I assume that a genoa is not possible, at least in a practical way, because two more winches would be necessary for a different and more complex running rigging, and they were not previewed.
To a much smaller stability (stiffness) corresponds a much smaller SA/D: the Dehler has a 32.0 SA/D for a 109.9 D/L, the JPK has 29.8 SA/D for a 119.3 D/L, the Sunbeam has 22.1 SA/D for a 167.1 D/L.
So, no doubt about that, those aggressive high-performance looks have no correspondence to the boat performance, and if we look better we will see that the main hull chine serves nothing other than an aesthetic purpose since it does not correspond to the waterline, on any heeling angle.
In fact, if we look at the transom, which is not clearly shown in any of the pictures we can see that it is not a modern one, a U shaped transom like the ones that were common more than a decade ago and that the chine has no place in that type of hull or transom.
The not related U shaped transom and chine
The superior chine is more interesting and although I believe it was designed mostly to serve an aesthetic purpose, it will probably be useful in deflecting the spray and water when the boat sails fast upwind with waves.
Finally, showing the difference in stability and seaworthiness, both the Dehler and the JPK are certified class A boats while the Sunbeam 32.1 is only certifiable as a class B sailboat.
But if we compare this boat, which is marketed as a daysailer, with the slightly smaller Oceanis 30.1, also only certified class B sailboat, the stability differences, on a not very different hull (finer entries on the Sunbeam) are huge and this time in Sunbeam's favor.
In what regards LWL the Sunbeam has only 21cm more than the Oceanis, the beam is identical (2.98 to 2.99m) and the draft as well (1.80 to 1.88), but the much more efficient Sunbeam torpedo keel will much more than compensate the extra 8cm the Oceanis has in draft.
An even if both boats are only certifiable in class B the Sunbeam offers a lot more stability and seaworthiness, having not only a keel that maximizes the lowering of the CG but also a much bigger B/D: 30.1% to 24.3%. This allows also the Sunbeam to carry more sail and to be a more powerful and fast sailboat (except maybe downwind). This difference in performance results very clear if we look at the SA/D and D/L: The Sunbeam has a 22.1 SA/D for a 167.1 D/L while the Oceanis has 18.6 SA/D for a 170.8 LWL.
So, yes, The Sunbeam will sail a lot better than an Oceanis 30.1, a sailboat that has been highly acclaimed by the press (and that I don't like) and it has a similar program, daysailing with some weekend cruising.
The Oceanis is built the same way all Oceanis are built, with single skin and a counter molded structure. The Sunbeams are better built than the Oceanis but the information they gave regarding this boat is scarce, besides mentioning a self-supporting structure (?) and a sandwich hull.
The interior, if we look at the drawings, seems very nice even if the one of the Oceanis seems more practical and bigger. If well built the Sunbeam interior can be very interesting for the type of sailing and cruising that is on the program. It is not only the interior that is very nicely designed, the cockpit space too, with everything well done, functional and ergonomic, including a beautifully designed bimini/cockpit cover.
The outside space is maximized at the cost of interior space and the Sunbeam cockpit is really big. The way the swimming platform is integrated on the cockpit deck is a bright touch, allowing for a space that is suitable for deck chairs and it is unseen on this size of boats.
The problem I see with this sailboat is that instead of calling for an innovative naval architect to design a contemporary top-performance hull and sailing boat, then asking a top general designer to treat the living spaces, they started the opposite way. They asked first the general designer to design the boat and the one responsible for the hull design, and for the sailboat, is not even mentioned.
I believe this video says it all in what regards boat design directives: The main designer is not a yacht designer, in fact in his works I cannot find any other sailboat and the main design directives, as you can see, have nothing to do with sailing but with using the boat as a living space. For that purpose, this boat looks great....not so much as a sailing boat, even if as a sailboat it is way better than the Oceanis.
But that is natural when you start thinking first about designing a beautiful boat and only later making it a sailboat too. They first looked at living spaces and design shapes and only after to sailing performance. This approach is not unseen and it is more and more common, but makes less sense on a daysailer, which is many times used just for sailing and where sailing performance and sailing fun is probably more important than any other design criteria.
Sunbeam 32.1
The Sunbeam 32.1 looks good, the design work is innovative but as a sailboat there is nothing new about it, quite the contrary, the hull is unnecessarily narrow, for performance, the transom design dated and the sail running rigging and sail hardware is limited, as well as the sail performance.
That does not mean it is a bad sailboat, just that it is not as fast or innovative as it looks, and while many of these expensive daysailers point to sailors that have the money for a luxury finish, they point also to sailors that like to have fun sailing a powerful fast and beautiful yacht, with all sail controls to give the sails a perfect shape, and that it is not certainly the case with the Sunbeam 32.1, that has no backstay, no rail for the main, no rail for the genoa, only two winches for all the sails and for reefing.
The Sunbeam 32.1 offers uncomplicated simple sailing for a beginner, and even if offering better sail performance than an Oceanis, there are plenty of luxury small daysailers that offer much better performance and much more sailing fun as well as some potential for racing.
The Sunbeam 32.1 standard yacht costs about 167 000 euros, excluding VAT, the Beneteau Oceanis 30.1 72 192€. The Sunbeam offers the same program as Oceanis, with a luxury finish and high-quality design, on a sailboat that sails better than the Oceanis, but that is not a performance sailboat and not pointed to the ones that will use it to have fun while sailing, and occasionally will race it.
In 2007 I was still looking for the boat to substitute my 5-year-old Bavaria 36, not because the boat had any problem, or because I wanted a newer one but because the Bavaria was not what wanted as a yacht for the retirement days, nothing to do with the interior, cruising amenities or even storage space, but with the upwind potential with stronger conditions. I explained the "problem" on the Luffe post, here:
So, one year after having sailed the Luffe 40.04, I went to France to see/testsail some boats and visit some shipyards being one of them JPK. JPK stands for Jean-Pierre Kelbert, the founder and owner of the shipyard, which at the time was a very small one.
He had only produced two boats, the JPK 9.60 (2003) and the one I was interested in, the JPK 110, a 36fter cruiser-racer that had been launched 2 years before.
The shipyard, as a yacht shipyard, was a very recent one (4 years old), but not only were the boats fast and very competitive on offshore races and Transats (the 9.60 had won the Transquadra and the Fastnet), as they have proven to be very resistant and well built.
The 36ft was not as successful as her little sister but had already won several offshore races and at least one of the boats was being successfully used as a fast performance cruiser by a French sailor. This description, by an owner, about how the boat sailed with bad weather, had convinced me to check on that boat as a possible candidate for the Bavaria replacement.
Notwithstanding being a very recent yacht builder, JPK shipyard had already a big experience in top quality composites: since 1992 they produced high-quality windsurf boards for professional or top amateurs, and also composite parts for some of the best and bigger racing shipyards like CDK Technologies or Multiplast.
I had booked a meeting with Jean-Pierre, and, even if I knew that it would be impossible to test sail the 110 (few boats built and none readily available, being out in different locations, most of them racing or preparing to race), he was building one that was already in an advanced state of completion, and he could show me that boat.
Talking with JPK was a very pleasant experience, he obviously knew not only a lot about boatbuilding but also a lot about sailing. He had been the European Windsurf Champion (1988, 1989), and later, racing his boats, many times with clients, he had become a very successful sail racer, in duo and with a crew.
From the top: JPK111, 38FC and 39FC
I wanted a boat for cruising fast and since my wife does not share my passion for sailing (just for cruising), being this a powerful sailboat, I wanted a boat with a rigging adapted for easy solo sailing and even if that boat was being rigged for crewed racing he knew exactly what I was talking about and suggested not only to mount the winches in other position but also suggested other running rigging changes that made all the sense and that showed that not only he knew exactly what was needed to make solo sailing easier, as he was willing to modify the rigging to my needs.
I was very impressed with the boat, the quality of the work and with Jean-Pierre, who besides having a huge experience and knowledge, is a very nice guy, honest and straightforward. I remember that he invited me for a beer and I had to declined because I had a test sail and a visit to another shipyard that afternoon.
RM 1200
He asked me what was the boat and the shipyard and I told him it was a RM 1200 and Fora Marine (at the time also a small shipyard even if several times bigger than JPK) and even if potentially I would choose between his boat and the RM 1200, without being asked, he told me that the RM 1200 was a different boat but well made and a very good cruising boat.
For different reasons, I chose neither the RM 1200 nor the JPK 110. The JPK 110 was ruled out not because of the way it sailed, neither due to the quality of the cruising interior (that was a very nice one for a fast boat), but due to the small forward cabin and due to an outside lack of storage. It had storage space on the cockpit floor, but with a very unpractical access, through a small hatch.
JPK 38 FC
Five years later, in 2012, JPK would launch the boat I was looking for, the JPK 38FC that seemed to be designed for me, well, maybe I would have preferred it slightly less beamy and more light wind/upwind balanced, in what regards sail potential maximization, but the essential was there: fast, with a sail performance not too much compromised by a downwind maximization, well built with a very nice interior, big enough cabins, and enough outside storage space with good access.
The new JPK 39FC is an evolution of the 38 and they had the courage of not making an MKII, but an entirely new boat even if the alterations over the previous hull seem to be small, but important, not so much in what regards how the boat sails, but regarding interior space, namely the forward cabin that was a bit small on the 38.
JPK 39FC
The 39 is longer (11.72 to 11.38m) but has about the same beam (3.98 to 3.99m). The 39 is proportionally less beamier (length to beam) but it has slightly fatter bow sections, a rounded bow, inverted on the top, comes already with a big retractable bowsprit, and has a completely new, very interesting cabin design.
The wider bow sections and the rounded bow allows a much wider front cabin and even if it diminishes very slightly the upwind ability it will increase the downwind and beam reaching potential, not only due to the increased hull form stability but also due to the increased buoyancy on the forward sections, contributing to keeping the bow up while planning downwind, preventing it to dig on waves.
All the other dimensions are the same except for displacement that was 5000kg on the 38 and is now 5500kg on the 39. The ballast on the standard 2.15m draft keel (cast iron fin, lead torpedo) is the same, 1900kg.
This gives a lower B/D to the 39, (34.6% to 38.0%). The safety stability and AVS will be slightly worse than in the 38 but even so largely sufficient. That difference in B/D will be mostly noted on the 39 upwind performance with stronger weather, even considering the bigger 39 LWL, (11.0 for 10.4m). The bigger displacement will also have a negative influence on the downwind planning performance.
But 500kg seems a big difference for just 34cm difference in length, maintaining beam and it is possible that the JPK 38FC is heavier than the projected weight, and in that case, the difference in what regards B/D will be less and probably represents just a better adherence to reality.
The drawing shows a big retractile bowsprit (carbon) but there is an intriguing hole on the bow on hull 1. Due to the inverted bow, it will be difficult to solve the anchor stand problem and the easiest solution seems to have it integrated on the bowsprit, but that seems not to be the case.
That hole on the bow seems too low for an anchor stand. I am puzzled and curious about the solution they will find for the problem.
Regarding the interior, the bigger bow cabin allows a better layout and even a three cabin solution that I don't see as a good solution for most users, providing little storage space and a very small head.
The two-cabin layout has a bigger head that even so remains small, without a separate shower. But if the position of the aft cabin is inverted it will be easy to have a head with a separate shower that can be used also as a wet locker, losing not much in what regards storage space and having the advantage of a nicer and bigger saloon. Such alteration should be possible without considerable costs.
JPK 39FC 2 two cabin layout
With this alteration the JPK 39FC will have two good cabins, a big head, a big galley, a wet locker, a big chart table, enough storage space inside and outside, a nice and comfortable saloon, the option of a swing bulbed keel (1.30/2.70m), and a tankage of 360L of water and 90+90L diesel (option).
It will be close to perfection for a couple, or a couple with kids, to do a budget circumnavigation, or extensive sailing in the trade winds on a fast boat, without being too handicapped if after that, or during the circumnavigation, out of the trade winds, the boat is sailed in areas where upwind sailing is dominant, like the Med or the Baltic.
Hull - JPK 38FC
The JPK 39FC will pay a lot less than a bigger boat in marinas and ports, will have less expensive maintenance while being as fast as much bigger sailboats. If I had such a sailing program the JPK 39FC would probably be the boat I would choose (on a budget), but it is not the case and for sailing mostly on the Med or Baltic, I would probably choose a different boat, one with better upwind ability, even if this boat should be considerably better and more comfortable upwind than a Pogo 36, that is smaller and has already more beam.
But regarding the Pogo, besides this being a more well-balanced boat in what regards overall sailing, what seems remarkable in this design is that they managed to solve the problem of forward visibility from inside the boat and the need for a considerable standing height without making the boat look ugly. I find the cabin design elegant, a very clever design that allows having on the interior good standing height without increasing a lot the freeboard.
Hull - JPK 38FC
The outside cabin height seems smaller than what it really is due to its length, it should also provide great all-around illumination and views from the exterior, which are supplemented by three narrow but long port-hulls. The interior standing height should be good too. The interior should not be very different from the 38, a nice one, will be much less spartan and nicer than the one from the Pogo.
The engine is a small 30hp Volvo with an option for a 38hp Yanmar that will be able to move the 5500kg without problems and wasting little fuel and the 90+90L (optional) diesel tankage should be more than enough.
Hull- JPK 38 FC
Some will be asking if a boat with 11,72m weighing only 5500kg will not be necessarily a lot less strong and less seaworthy than for instance a Hallberg Rassy 372, which is smaller in length (11,35 to 11.72) and beam (3.60 to 3.98m) but that it is much heavier (7500 to 5500kg).
And that would be the case if the boats were built the same way with the same materials, but they are not and that makes all the difference. While the JPK hull is built like the one of a racing boat, with better materials, vinylester and polyester resins (polyester on the HR, except on the outside layer that is vinylester), sandwich using vacuum infusion ( sandwich composite, hand laid on the HR), Airex as core (probably similar quality Divinycel on the HR), boat structure directly infused on the hull (matrix structure bonded and laminated to the hull on the HR), sandwich infused composite bulkheads, bonded and laminated to the hull and deck (plywood bulkheads glued and laminated to the hull and deck).
I am quite sure the HR is well-built and a very strong boat but it is not built in a way to save weight (maintaining the strength). The vacuum infusion process and the bigger use of vinylester resins will allow saving on the hull 300 or 400kg, while the use of infused composite sandwich and the directly infused boat structure will save other hundred kg, and more savings will come from a composite infused interior (galley and head) and lighter cabinets.
JPK 38FC interior
There is a difference of 2000 kg between the two boats that would be bigger if the HR had the size of the JPK but we could see that half of that difference is on ballast and that perhaps about 20% or 25% of that difference is just due to a more efficient keel design and more draft on the JPK (2.15m draft to 1.99m and a lead bulbed keel versus a cast iron, lead torpedo keel).
And in this case ballast can be misleading, because the, JPK (excluded the keel) is much lighter (by building techniques and materials) than the HR and therefore much less ballast is needed for obtaining the same B/D. The JPK 39FC has a 34.6% B/D while the HR 372 has 38.6% but if we apply a 20% correction due to the less efficient HR keel and draft then the comparable HR B/D is 30.9%.
Note that I am not saying negative things about the HR372 that is a very good boat and marks HR turning point versus better sailing boats, I am just trying to explain why the JPK 39FC can be much lighter without being significantly weaker.
It is also important to understand that even if the JPK 39C has a better GZ curve (arms curve) the smaller HR 372 has probably a close overall stability: the RM curve is obtained by multiplying boat mass by heeling arm (at all heeling points) and the overall stability corresponds to the total area under the positive part of the RM curve. The 36% HR mass will be compensated by the bigger JPK arm.
The bigger JPK GZ on all heeling points is due to a bigger hull form stability (much more beam) and also by a bigger corrected B/D (lower center of gravity), which will give it also better dynamic stability and better safety stability for an AVS that should not be very different, between 120 and 130º (HR372 has a 128º AVS).
HR 372 bulbed keel
The point here is to give a comparative reference in what regards overall stability and seaworthiness with a well-known seaworthy yacht, the HR372 a medium weight cruiser that most will consider being adequate for bluewater sailing with a comfortable safety margin, one that will not be inferior to the one offered by a JPK 39FC.
Probably bigger, if we consider the better dynamic stability, the better safety stability, and the bigger ability to escape bad weather, due to much bigger overall speed, especially while beam reaching or sailing downwind.
A faster passage will be potentially a safer one because fewer days will be passed on passage and the bigger the possibility to remain inside the right meteorological window one wants to sail.
JPK 38FC optional arch
The JPK 38FC comes already with carbon dual tillers, carbon bowsprit, 3D genoa tuning system, 6 winches, mainsail rail and foldable propeller. The list of options is not big and includes things like a sandwich composite arch for solar panels and to carry the dinghy (4321 €), the prices of extras seem correct as well as the price of the standard yacht, 205 100€ with the standard 2.15m keel, 225 800€ with the optional swing keel (all prices at the shipyard without taxes).
What is offered for the price seems very good: a safe, very fast, very well built yacht, with a nice interior that will have relatively economic maintenance due to small sails (lightweight), small engine and small size (marina costs). But if you are interested in one it is better to hurry because right now the delivery time is already one year and I bet that when sailors see the real thing the waiting time is going to double very quickly.
