Beautiful small production super fast carbon 50ft cruiser racers seem to be on high demand and even if only a few can own them, they are a pleasure to our eyes: after the Swan 50 there came the Shogun 50 and now the Mylius 50.
Mylius is not as well known as Swan among sailors. It is a top Italian recent brand that unlike Swan only does carbon yachts, and the 50 is the smallest yacht they produce: they have a 60, a 65, a 72 and two 80 footers, one of them a deck-salon.
All of them are very fast with luxurious semi-custom interiors. I would say that proportionally this 50 is going to be the fastest of them all. This boat comes to replace a previous 50, a yacht that still looks beautiful and contemporary.
Compared to the previous 50 the new one has not a very different hull, just a bit bigger (it is in fact a 51ft), slightly beamier (4.48m to 4.42), with a similar T keel but a bigger draft (3.50m to 3.00), lighter (9500kg to 9900) and with a much bigger B/D (43% to 38%) and all that means much more power.
Don't take me wrong, the previous 50 was already very powerful, with a 38% ballast most of it on a lead torpedo at the end of a long fin (3.00 draft). Just to have a fair idea in what regards what this B/D means, mass production 50fters have normally a less performant cast iron keel, lesser draft and a much, much lower B/D. For instance the Beneteau Yacht 54 has a 2.50 m draft, a cast iron keel and a 27% B/D.
What this means is that the new 50 is really a power beast, a racing machine with a confortable cruising interior. We can see that not only on the B/D but also on the sail area that is much bigger than the one of the previous boat and the one of the previous boat was already big, not to mention this is a lighter boat (upwind 170 to 148m2, downwind 346 to 285m2).
But with all that power it will be a relatively easy boat to be sailed by a couple, if not pushed near the limits and there is no need to because this boat sailed at 75% will be faster than almost anything sailing on the water. The easiness has to do with the small amount of sail that is needed for going fast. The SA/D is huge but due to the very light weight the sail area to be handled is relatively small, 170m2 with a main with square top and 158m2 with a "normal" main.
The previous 50 had good racing results for a cruiser-racer with a luxurious interior, but it was not as fast as the also full carbon Swan 50. Truth be said that though the Swan has a luxurious interior, it is not comparable to the true cruising interior of the Mylius, that even has a dinghy garage, except in finish and materials. Well, now we will see, if not a match it certainly will be much closer.
The hard asses will say that both boats are med boats, even if the Swan has been sailed and raced all over the world in many offshore races. It is true that for enjoying sailing while cruising and enjoying life they are more geared for the Med or Baltic conditions, but with that stiffness and stability they can be sailed safely anywhere even if that does not mean comfortably in what regards water projections.
Mylius is a recent brand created in 2003 by three friends who love sailing and yachting, one of them a yacht designer, Alberto Simeone, and amazingly their first boat the Mylius 11E25 still looks modern.
What had started just as a challenge to create the perfect boat for the Med, due to the increasing demand and the Italian's love for fast and beautiful boats, ended up in a medium sized "cantieri" specialized in big carbon boats, always beautiful, always fast.
Today Simeone coordinates a team of engineers, architects, designers, and technical specialists that work in the house, and that allows him a full integrated design where speed, high performance and comfort are perfectly matched.
This methodology, that was common 30 years ago is today very rare and almost all shipyards ressource to exterior naval architects and interior design cabinets and sometimes exterior designers.
Maybe this difference is one of the things that makes Mylius different and special, contributing for a homogeneity of style and design that is hard to find elsewhere and that makes the boats easily recognizable as Mylius, no matter the size.
I know that some will be asking about the price. Well, if you are really interested ask them, it should be not far form the one of the Swan, maybe a bit less but certainly over 1 million euros. A boat like this cannot be built for less.
I am in Marmaris waiting for the Greeks to allow European Union sailboats to enter EU waters (they closed the door almost two years ago more for political reasons than sanitary ones). I am bored, have time and I will share with you the observations I have made on the Round the Island race regarding the performance of different type of sailboats and hulls, I don’t mean handicap performance but true performance over the water.
The Round the Island race (around the Island of Wight) is not a top race and the average crew has lesser quality than for instance the one on the Fastnet, but it has an advantage of having a huge number of boats racing (more than 1000) some of them very well sailed.
Pogo 12.50
To take into account the bigger variability in crew quality I will disregard the worse results of a given boat model and I will consider the best and average results.
Regarding winds, this was a typical summer coastal race with variable winds in direction and strength, from very light to light winds to 25kt. A good race to measure the all around boat sailing potential, especially in summer conditions.
And let’s start with the Pogos, with three 12.50 competing, a moderate performance, with similar elapsed times. The fastest has done it in 8h 16m 22s, then the others in 8.21.39 and 8.37.59.
J122 e
With a similar type of hull but smaller, not so extreme but heavier, an RM 10.70, made it in 8.39.27.
As usual the JPK were fast, with a 11.80 making it in 7.34.59 and a smaller JPK 10.80 making it in 7.42.20.
The Sunfast were a bit slower than the JPK, with the exception of a 3300, that was very fast with 7.52.59, faster than all 3600 (8.01.25, 8.05.27….)
Jboats were also very fast with a J122e making it 7.49.41, another in 7.53.29 and the slowest in 8.32.22. Three fantastic J112e have done it in 7.46.16 , 7.51.11, and 7.58.18. Two J99 made it in 8.13.36 and 8.15.54. Three J111 have done it in 7.36.21, 7.36.27 and 7.43.11. The First 40 were also way faster than the Pogos, with 7.44, 7.45.10 and 7.55.57.
I know that the conclusions are similar to the ones on other races with variable winds, where it is the overall sailboat potential that counts (and not a boat maximized for a given set of conditions) but some keep thinking that boats like the Pogo or the RM are, out of the trade winds, faster than fast boats with a more traditional hull, and that is not the case.
J 112e
In what concerns fast cruising multihulls we can see that with these conditions the results were not better than the ones of fast monohulls with the same size. A very fast 1295 Dazcat catamaran, that is used extensively for racing, made it in 7.27.08.There were several Dragonflies, two 32 made it in 8.05.46 and 8.38.42; a 35 made it in 8. 36.53. There were two Nautitech racing and these ones, that are among the fastest not very expensive production cats, were slower then the monohulls: an Open 46 made it in 9.02.17 and an Open 40 in 10.14.12.
Nautitech Open 46
This particular race confirmed the performance of the J112e, a sailboat boat with a great cruising interior and that in what regards regatta racing had already proved itself winning a World ORC championship. It shows here that in a more offshore race it continues to shine, being only slightly slower than the racing J111, faster than the racing Sunfast 3600 (on this race) and with a performance similar to the bigger First 40, and of course, going faster than the Pogo 12.50.
I love this little boat, made several post about it, but it seems I fail to convince other sailors to love it too. The J112e sales continue on the low side and it seems that today for a performance cruising boat to sell it is not enough to have a great cruising interior, a stellar performance, to be well built, it is needed to be fashionable and it seems the J112e is not. You have more information about the J112e on this post:
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.
