NEW FIRST 36, A MUCH AWAITED YACHT

Since Seascape was bought by Beneteau, and their yachts were renamed First, that there are rumors and announcements of a new First, designed by Sam Manuard (the designer of Seascapes),  a yacht following the design criteria of the Seascape 27, but bigger, a fast ClassA cruiser-racer.

Since the time Manuard designed the Seascape 27 his career as a designer of a fast racing yacht grew a lot in relevance, and from a top designer of mini-racers, he became gradually a top 40class and a top IMOCA designer, so, it was with great interest that the new design was awaited. But it took several years to happen, and from a 30/33ft cruiser-racer, it ended up to be a 36ft yacht.

We all expected something as innovative as the Seascape 27 was 10 years ago, but things are complicated in a big company like Beneteau, with many deciding what to design and build, and the new boat, that after all was not designed only by him, ended up being quite a disappointment, for those that waited for a very innovative yacht.

In fact, the boat, due to high freeboards and classic lines looks like an Oceanis or a Dufour, a deja vu design. Beneteau wanted the new boat to be so many things at the same time, that the many mixed compromises ended up producing something that looks bland and not exciting.

In Beneteau's words this yacht is about "the pursuit of the ultimate balance", being this balance not about creating a cruiser-racer able to win offshore races, inshore races, solo or duo, "but about a perfect balance.....between comfort and performance, elegance, and utility..."

The word "elegance" is a bit tricky because it normally refers to past concepts of beauty and a continuing line of development, much as "in the tradition" and makes no sense on this type of performance yacht, where words like sexy, which refer to having contemporary radical racing lines, would be much more adequate.

But "elegance" was what they tried to achieve on the First 36, and therefore it is explained the deja vu look, and I would say that in what regards elegance, it was a failed attempt, since due to high freeboards it is impossible to give it the looks of a smaller First 53, and it ended up very far from Beneteau objective, that was a "classical and timeless aesthetic". As the one responsible for the First 36 design (Lorenzo Argento) says: 

" First 36 is following the same design language of her larger sister – First Yacht 53, building on the timeless aesthetic of his work on Wally and Brenta."

Of course, what counts for them is sales, and I cannot say if they are right in what regards this boat to become a  big success, it all depends on how the boat sells, and for that, besides the sailing performance, the price, the looks and the interior layout are very important. 

In what regards price (more expensive than an Oceanis 40.1), it seems to me too high for a sailboat that is fast, but does not look like a very fast sailboat, with no visual references to top racing, and looks more like a much less expensive mass-production yacht.

The ones that buy this type of yacht want it to be very competitive in what regards IRC/ORC racing or want the looks of the sailboat to scream FAST and INNOVATIVE (not elegant) or both.

For the ones who want first and mostly to race competitively, and also do some cruising with the boat, the First 36, does not seem to have what it 

First 36, Sunfast 3600, JPK 10.80, J122e

takes to be competitive in face of the competition, namely the JPK 10.80 and the Sunfast 3600.

For the ones who want to cruise and race (50%) the J112e offers a much better interior, much more elegance, that kind of "classical and timeless aesthetic", and for sure, much better results in IRC/ORC racing.

First36 

I bet that over the water the JPK 10.80 and the Sunfast 3600 will be faster, The J112e will be probably only faster in light wind and maybe upwind, but on handicap should have no problem in beating the First 36, and that is not surprising because the J112e is designed by an expert in handicap racing, and the First 36 is designed by a specialist in offshore trade-wind racing designs, without a big experience designing for IRC/ORC racing.

Maybe I am being a bit too harsh on this evaluation, but it really pisses me off that after such a long waiting time, with so great expectations regarding a sexy innovative cruiser-racer by Sam Manuard, all we got was a supposedly elegant, fast cruiser, with a "timeless aesthetic", meaning a traditional design.

Let's see how the First 36 compares with the competition in regards to dimensions and technical characteristics: The First 36 has 11.00m hull length, the JPK 10.80 has 10.80m, the Sunfast 3600 10.80m, the J112e 10.99m. The First 36 has a 3.80m beam, the JPK 10.80 has 3.65m, the Sungfast 3600 3.55m, the J112e 3.60m.

Sunfast 3600

First 36 has a 32.3%BD, a torpedo keel with 2.25m draft, for a 4800kg displacement; the JPK 10.80 has 45.3%BD, a straight keel with 2.20m draft for a 4750kg displacement, the Sunfast 3600 has a 41.8%B/D, a bulbed keel with 2.13m for a 4950kg displacement; the J112e has 33.8%B/D, a bulbed keel for a 5125kg displacement, with 2.10m draft.   

The First 36 has an upwind sail area of 80m2 and downwind 180m2; the JPK 10.80 has an upwind sail area of 73m2 and a downwind sail area of 160m2; the Sunfast 3600 has 69.8m2 upwind and 136.8 downwind and the J112e has 71m2 upwind and 180m2 downwind.

JPK 10.80

The First 36 is light and the beamier of the 4. Only the JPK is lighter, but regarding the JPK and the Sunfast, the First low displacement is obtained through less ballast weight (less 600kg than on the JPK, less 518kg than on the Sunfast, less 181kg than on the J112e). And this assuming they can build the First with that displacement, but even so, if we take out the extra ballast on the J112e, the First would be only 144kg lighter.

The First is the one with more sail area but also the one with more drag, especially wave drag, due to being much beamier than all the others and that means it needs more sail area to go at the same speed. It will have a very good performance downwind and it is possible that it will be as fast, or even slightly faster than the JPK and the Sunfast, in medium-strong to strong winds (and certainly easier), but it will lose to the two in all other circumstances and probably will lose for the J112e in lighter winds and upwind.

J122e

Certainly, a very nice hull (Sam Manuard) spoiled by the overall design (Lorenzo Argento), but a bit too much maximized for beam reaching and downwind sailing for being a winner in most sail races. I also doubt that the rating is going to be a good one for IRC/ORC racing.

The interior looks pretty much that of a cruiser-racer very much race-oriented, and it offers a more practical galley than the ones in theJPK and Sunfast, with a true stove. However, the JPK interior looks cozier and the J112e interior is uncomparably better and nicer, looking like the one of a good quality cruising boat. 

Sunfast 3600

In the First, the worse is a truly a very small head, that they call innovative. When I visit the boat I will be very curious to see how small it really is, and where is the innovation (besides being too small).

So, just pretend that you have the money and tell me which one you would choose? knowing that regarding price the First is as expensive as the others, including the J112e, which has a much better interior finish. 

It seems that the JPK and the Sunfast are slightly less expensive and that is quite surprising. But, of course, we are talking about prices at the factory and about standard boats, and on a fully equipped boat, the difference of price between any of these yachts should not be big.

Depending on the chosen equipment, more cruising, club racing, or top racing, the prices on these boats ready to sail should be between 230 and 280 000 euros, including around 20% European VAT. Expensive? Certainly regarding the amount but not regarding building costs.

JPK 10.80

That's the price of a well-built sailboat, and if they could make it for less money they would because less expensive boats sell better and the competition is strong. 

The price of one of these boats is about the same price that would cost a mass production 40ft sailboat from one of the major brands, and it explains why mass production yachts are built the way they are, using polyester resins, non cored hulls, no vacuum infusion, a "contre-moule" as hull

structure, use plywood bulkheads and only bonding agents to secure all in place. 

These fast cruiser-racers are built using vacuum infusion techniques (some of them in a single shoot), have cored hulls, most use only vinylester resins, have cored composite bulkheads, bonded and glassed to the hull and deck, the structure frame is glassed and bonded to the hull (and sometimes infused with it). That is why they can be light and strong. That's also why they are better sailing boats and much more expensive ones. 

J112e

For the increased price it also counts bigger winches, 6 instead of 2 or 4, better and bigger sail hardware, and in what regards this the differences in price are sometimes 4 times more for same-sized and apparently similar material, but with completely different load capacity. The increased B/D of these boats also contributes to make them more expensive because that demands a stronger hull and a bigger structure to absorb bigger efforts. 

You pay what you get and for many, a mass-production boat is enough for their needs, in what regards sail performance and build quality, so why pay for more that you don´t need? 

For the ones who want a top sailing machine, they should know that the price would be much higher, the same way nobody expects to pay for a Dacia or a Fiat, the same one pays for an Alpine or a Lotus.

First 36

Saying that the Lotus or the Alpine are expensive, compared to a Dacia or a Fiat, makes so little sense, as saying the same comparing the price of an Oceanis 38.1 with the price of any of these fast cruiser racers. 

In fact, they cost about 50% more than an Oceanis, of about the same size, and that is way less than the difference between a same-sized Fiat and a fast small sports car. For me, the problem with the First 36 is that being a sportive boat it looks like a Fiat, and who would like to have a Lotus that looked like a Fiat, even if it has good performance? OK, I am exaggerating, but you get my drift.

JPK 39 FAST CRUISER VERSUS JPK 11.80 CRUISER RACER

When this boat was being built I made a post about the JPK 39FC, the successor of a great performance cruiser, the JPK 38FC. There is also a complete post about the 38FC:

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/05/jpk-39fc-best-small-fast-voyage-cruiser.html

http://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2016/01/jpk-38fc.html

But now that it was launched, and has even been tested by a sailing magazine, a new post makes sense, even if not only to look at the real thing, and not just the drawings.

And the real thing looks much better than in the drawings, a beautiful boat, nicer than the previous one, with a not very different hull, in fact in what regards sailing performance it will be very close, but the 39FC is just a bit better in everything, from sail area, to interior space and cruising amenities.

Valer (the NA) and JPK resisted the temptation to increase volume increasing beam (as almost every brand is doing) and this boat has about the same beam as the previous model (3.98m to 3.99m).

We would be tempted to say that the 38 was even slightly beamier, taking into account this one is longer, but it would not be fair to look at beam and interior volume only in what regards maximum beam, especially in this case because the 39 has fuller bow sections and fuller stern sections, allowing for a larger front cabin but losing a bit in what regards bow finesse.

But if we compare JPK 39FC with the Bavaria C42, two cruising boats with a not very different hull length (11.72m to 11.99m) we will see that the difference in beam is huge (3.98m to 4.30m). If we compare the JPK 39FC beam with the one of a Pogo 12.50 (that contrary to what it looks has not a much bigger hull length – 11.72m to 12.18m) we can see that the difference in beam is even bigger (3.98m to 4.50m).

Of course, the Pogo and the Bavaria are completely different sailboats, the Bavaria displacing more than 10T, the Pogo 5.5T (the Pogo displacement similar to the one of the JPK) and having bow entries much finer than the ones in Bavaria. In fact the Pogo has the hull of an older Pogo Class40 racer and it is, like the JPK 39FC, a very fast performance cruiser.

So, what does that huge difference in beam between the JPK and the Pogo mean? It means that the Pogo is very much maximized (like all 40class racers) for downwind sailing, transats or trade wind sailing, that is what the 40class racers are all about, while the JPK 39 has a much more all around balanced performance, even if in the design of the transom does not diverge much from the one in the Pogo, a design that increases rapidly hull form stability (and drag) with heeling, making it a very stable platform for solo or short crew sailing and easier to be steered by an autopilot especially when sailing fast.

There is a common misconception, that has been serving to justify, performance-wise, the huge increase of beam in cruising sailboats, and even in performance cruisers, the brands stating that this huge increase in beam is favorable to sail performance and that the reason why racing boats are narrower is to make them competitive in IRC/ORC handicap racing, implying that beamier boats, not being designed specifically to be competitive under those rules, are faster.  That’s a publicity stunt (considering overall sailing performance).

That misconception, in what regards performance cruisers, is particularly strong in what regards Pogo cruisers, that on the wind conditions for which they are maximized to perform best (trade winds) are almost unbeatable (size by size), but that in mixed conditions, even when they are strong ones, are not as fast as those performance cruisers that supposedly where only fast on the paper (IRC /ORC), not on the water.

Journalists have been responsible for this misconception, even if I remember that on one of the first test sails of the boat that would be called Pogo 12,50, a comparative test with a Dufour 40p, they had made a simulated a race, upwind and downwind, to find with surprise that even if on the water the Pogo speed was higher, both boats ended showing a similar performance, due to the Dufour better pointing and ability to sail downwind at bigger angles….and the Dufour 40p it is not a particularly fast performance cruiser, being considerably slower than a J122.

JPK 39FC

I have posted many race results (in elapsed time) to show this, and the results in the last Middle Sea Race, that was raced in medium and strong but variable winds, show once more that the Pogo 12.50 is not as fast (in real time) as fast cruiser-racers , when the wind conditions are varied.

In the last Middle Sea Race there was a Pogo12.50 racing, and making it in 3days, 16 hours and 20 minutes, two JPK 11.80 made it in 3d 0h 22m and 3d 8h 21m, a First 40 (3d 9h 52m), 4 J122 (3d 10h 32m, 3d 10h 35m, 3d 10h 48m, 3d 12h 38m) and a JPK 45FC, that made it in 3d 9h 19m, a surprisingly good result, especially because it is an Australian boat, probably equipped for bluewater sailing.

JPK 11.80

A pity the Pogo 50 from Fast Sailing did not race on this edition, it would be interesting to compare the performance with the JPK 45FC, which I believe would not be very different, even if the Pogo is a bigger boat. The JPK 45FC, like the smaller sister, the 39FC, are not so maximized for downwind sailing, as the Pogo, and that would translate in better results, size for size, in a race with mixed winds.

Anyway, the point here is that the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK 45FC and would be certainly be faster than the JPK39FC. So let’s have a look at those two designs to understand why the JPK 11.80 is much faster than the JPK39C.

The JPK 11.80 is the most successful 39ft cruiser-racer in a long time, having won this year the Fastnet and would have won the Middle Sea Race, if they had not changed the finish line. It had won already that race back in 2018, among many other races and regattas.

The JPK 11.80 is a cruiser-racer designed for racing and winning, and the hull is designed for maximizing performance, the JPK 39FC is a performance cruiser, designed to be fast but also to have a maximized interior space (and storage) and to be easy to sail, especially with a short crew.

Transom design: JPK 39FC and JPK 11.80

This comparison is very interesting because both boats have not only a close hull length and LWL (first the 39FC, then the 11.80): 11.72m-11.00/11.80-10.39m, but also a similar max beam, 3.98/3.95m. 

What differs is the hull design, having the 11.80 finer entries, the beam not quite all pulled back, and a very different transom design, a less voluminous one that allows more heel, without increasing drag so much.

Surprisingly, even if the hull length of the 11.80 is bigger, the 39FC LWL is considerably bigger that the 11.80 one. This has probably to do with the 11.80 being designed for sailing with more heel, and while heeling the LWL will be considerably increased asymmetrically, between one of the rudders and the bow.

While the JPK39FC hull has more hull form stability, the 11.80 hull assures a better power/drag relation, and it is that what makes it a faster sailboat. The 11.80 has less hull form stability but more coming from the bigger ballast, when the boat heels.

Curiously the 39FC is the lightest of the two (5500kg/5900kg) probably due to the two boats being built in a similar way and with similar materials and the 39FC, having considerably less ballast (1900kg/2650kg).

This difference in ballast, that is translated in a 34.6% B/D versus a 44.9% one, more than compensates the difference in hull form stability and that, and a slimmer hull, are responsible for the considerable bigger Power/Drag ratio on the 11.80.

Note that the draft is also smaller on the 39FC, 2.15m/2.34m but the ballast on the 11.80 probably refers to the IRC keel, without torpedo (can have a torpedo as an option) and the difference in draft probably roughly corresponds in RM to the difference in efficiency of the two keels (with a torpedo and an IRC keel), in lowering the CG.

First, JPK 39FC, then JPK 11.80

It is not about the power, but about power/drag that fast sailboats are about. Beamy hulls increase much drag, especially wave drag, and reduce light air performance, while if the hull is too narrow, it will go more deeply in the water and will make the boat more difficult to attain planning speeds.

To the hull design you have to add the right ballast, knowing that, with too much ballast, the boat will be slower with light winds and that with less than desirable ballast, it will have less power upwind and on a beam reach.

To complicate things, depending on points of sail and wind intensity the requirements for maximizing performance are often contradictory, and when you improve on a given performance, you lose on another.

JPK39FC

The different compromises are today evaluated through computer programs (CFD) and many hull variations are tested to try to get the better option for overall performance, but the truth is that only through racing will we know for sure, if the computer got it right or not, and the funny thing is that Jacques Valer, the magician that designs the JPK, the most successful IRC racers of the last years, is known to have come late to assisted computer design, and can be considered an old-timer, in what concerns using a computer for sailboat design. Of course, what counts are results and nobody designs boats that win more races than Valer.

JPK 11.80

I use to post SA/D and  D/L as a measure of boat performance, but the comparison of those ratios, between these two boats, serves mostly to show that those ratios have to be seen with caution, because they exclude a very important piece of information, the  power/drag relation.

The SA/D gives you an approximate measure of sail power, but displacement, even if important as a measure of drag, excludes the shape of the hull, and hulls with the same displacement, but with less beam, finer entries, and less full transoms, has, for the same displacement, a lot less drag than beamier hulls, especially if wave drag is considered. They need a lot more sail for the same performance.

JPK 11.80

D/L gives you a measure of the boat lightness but does not give you a measure of how much of the weight is used on ballast to increase boat power.

If we consider these two ratios as an absolute measure of boat performance we will be surprised to find out that according to them the JPK39FC is faster than the JPK 11.80, when we know that it is not the case, quite the contrary and by a large margin. The 39FC has an upwind 26.8 SA/D, a downwind 45.1 SA/D for a 115D/L and the 11.80 has an upwind 24.9 SA/D, a downwind 43.0  SA/D for a 146.5 D/L.

What makes the design of the 11.80 truly amazing is the success in combining these different requirements and different compromises in a way that makes the boat really fast in a very variable set of conditions, from the low middle to high winds, downwind, and upwind. 

The weakest sailing condition regards very light winds, but the performance is not so weak as it would be expected, due to the very good performance with medium and stronger winds, obtained through the maximization for those conditions. That’s the overall balance that makes it a winner.                     JPK 11.80

JPK 39FC

What makes the 39FC an amazing design is the ability to offer an excellent spacious cruising interior without compromising too much sail performance, a balanced performance, having in weak winds the weakest spot (worse than the 11.80). As strong points, the easiness in sailing fast with medium to strong winds (due mostly to hull transom design that limits heeling, making it a steady sailing platform), and the easiness in sailing fast on autopilot.

Both boats are very well built, using vacuum infusion, cored hulls with and airex core, vinylester resin on the 11.80, vinylester and polyester on the 39FC, both have a hull structure integrated on the infusion process (and becoming part of the hull), both have cored composite bulkheads stratified and bonded to the hull and deck.

I bet the JPK 39C, that allies cruising sailing performance to a very nice spacious interior with all-around views (and manages that without becoming ugly), is going to be elected by the European sail press as European Yacht of the year, probably on the performance cruiser category.

The price is fair for the quality and without VAT, standard, at the shipyard the 11.80 costs 209958€ and the 39FC costs with the standard keel 196887€ and 216748€ with the swing keel, with all ballast on the keel.

THE STRANGE CHANGE OF WINNER IN THE 2021 MIDDLE SEA RACE

For the ones who don't know it, the Middle Sea Race is the most important of all Med races, an IRC race that started more than 50 years ago and that on this edition counted well over 100 entries, and boats like Comanche, Rambler, the new Swan 125ft racer and 3 trimarans MOD 70.

This edition was great, with varied and strong winds, and, when all the yachts that had potentially the possibility of winning the race had arrived, the victory was provisorily attributed to Sunrise, a relatively small JPK 11.80, that had made a fantastic race and an incredible final part.

Mysteriously, several hours after the victory be provisionally attributed to the JPK 11.80, they changed the classification and the victory was now attributed to Comanche, the maxi yacht that now is owned by the Australian millionaire Jim Cooney.

 

For several days no explanation for this change was given by the organization, till they come out with an unbelievable one: Sunrise, the JPK 11.89 would have in fact won the race if they had not shortened it to an alternative finish line, one that was never used in the 53 years of this race, not even in editions with far worse weather conditions.

To make all this even more strange, the finish line was changed after almost all racers have finished the race, and only 19 yachts finished the race on the alternative finish line (that shortened the race) and probably all, or almost all would not have any problem in finishing the race because the conditions were disagreeable (wind on the nose) but far from being dangerous or impossible.

 

What really surprises me is that this very strange abnormal "situation" did not deserve any special comment from the nautical press, as if this was all normal, as well as an official explanation is given only 3 days after they have changed the leader from Sunrise (JPK 11.80) to Comanche.

They said on 20/09: "Despite a tricky final few miles to and through the South Comino Channel, the JPK 1180 has squeezed into the overall lead of the 2021 Rolex Middle Sea Race and is on the cusp of a remarkable double. Needing to finish by 1338 CEST on Tuesday to beat Comanche, nearly three times her waterline length and rating almost twice as high, the British yacht passed Race Control at Tigné Point at 1323 CEST, to grab a 16-minute lead in the overall standings."

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617835b8e2f080000080d4d8?year=2021&month=October#

 

 

And 3 days later: The 30.48m/100ft Maxi Comanche (CAY) has been confirmed as the overall winner of the 42nd Rolex Middle Sea Race....Comanche finished the race on the morning of Monday 25 October and was in pole position until the arrival of the JPK 1180 Sunrise on the afternoon of Tuesday 26 October. The race narrative then altered in the early hours of Wednesday 27 October, with some 23 boats still on the racecourse. A serious and adverse change to the weather forecast led the Royal Malta Yacht Club Race Committee to invoke the alternative finish line, as per the sailing instructions.

....“ SI 11.3 enables the Race Committee to use an alternative finish line in the South Comino Channel if severe weather conditions make it unsafe to enter Marsamxett Harbour. The rule was written specifically in anticipation of the forecast severe north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter. For that reason, we made the call, which was announced to all competitors whether finished or racing, in accordance with rules.”

 

According to available records, this is the first time in the 53-year history of the Rolex Middle Sea Race that the alternative finish line has had to be used. 19 yachts have been able to finish the race using this line. As a consequence of the decision, all yachts taking part have been scored for the purposes of time correction using the alternative finish line. Competing in IRC Class One, Comanche’s corrected time to the alternative finish line of three days six hours 30 minutes and 20 seconds has proved just over an hour faster than second-placed Sunrise (IRC Class Five).....

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/news/617be0ea6d1ecd0000cda403?year=2021&month=October#

You can see here on the race tracker the conditions that supported the shortening of the race for safety reasons, that "north-easterly, which would have made Marsamxett Harbour extremely dangerous to enter", mostly 25kt on the nose, and you can see that ALL YACHTS, except one, entered the Marsamxett harbour (after having finished the race). They all passed Comino Channel, did not enter Gozo port (that is on the Channel), and all entered Marsamxett harbour. 

https://www.rolexmiddlesearace.com/tracker?

CONTEST 49/50CS, A NEW YACHT FROM A GREAT BRAND

A new Contest is always good news, a sign that the biggest Dutch shipyard is well and that the Dutch continue making great quality cruising boats. The first yachts, several centuries ago, were Dutch, (as well as the origin of the word Yacht) and the Dutch always had a big tradition in what regards builders and yacht designers.

49CS

But in the last decades many Dutch brands disappeared and even the Contest, once designed by a Dutch designer, are now designed by Judel & Vrolijk, a German cabinet (even if Rolf Vrolijk was born in Nederland).

This design comes in the same line as the 42CS, a good sailing boat with a very high-quality cruising interior, but I don't like this design as much as the one of the 42CS, even if I understand what makes Contest propose a design with these characteristics:  a very beamy boat, with a huge freeboard, huge interior volume and very high interior standing height.

50CS

In fact, it is ridiculous talking about standing height because those heights have nothing to do with standing, and are more typical of a house than a boat, even if I miss the point of having a Yacht interior that looks like an apartment interior, especially in what regards huge standing heights.

The reason why they seem to have opted for a lower B/D than the one in the other Contest is less understandable.  They tried to hide that with a published stability curve that, unlike all the others for the other yachts, has an interval between 90º and 135º (instead of 100º to 150º) to try to make it less evident that the AVS is lower than on the other Contest, that generally have it around 125º.

50CS

The 49/50CS AVS seems to be a bit less than 120º. A smaller AVS seems to be today a tendency in sailboat yachts over 45ft, much due to RCD that allows smaller AVS on a bigger yacht. High-quality brands resisted that, but they are now doing the same to lower costs. The Halberg Rassy 50 has an AVS of about 115º and the Amel 50 does not disclose it, but it should be much less than that.

49CS

Contest announced the 49CS as a new yacht, but it is basically the 50CS with a different interior layout and a slightly different cockpit arrangement. The 50CS offers a huge aft cabin, typical in center cockpits (even if this boat is a hybrid), while the 49CS offers two smaller aft cabins and a dinghy garage.

There is also a small aesthetical difference on the transom inclination, that results in the 50ft being slightly longer, but having the same deck length and LWL as the 49. The extra cms don't result in any significant useful interior space gain.

Above, the 50CS, below, the 49CS

I find the 49CS layout flawed by the lack of storage under the cockpit and by the lack of space for technical equipment (generator, water-maker, and so on). There is a big space for a dinghy garage but that space is necessarily a semi-wet compartment, not suitable for this type of equipment, and besides, if you have a dinghy there you will have space for little else.

This can be solved by having a single aft cabin on the 49CS, that can be bigger than any of the two, and by reserving the rest of the space, now occupied by the other cabin, for technical equipment.

On the cockpit, both boats have a similar solution with a deep protected central cockpit, separated from the helming station by two steps. This gives an unusually high helming position, offering little protection, and worst, very low uncomfortable side seats for helming the boat. The seats behind the wheels on the 50CS are also low and uncomfortable.

I don’t see any need of helming central seats on a boat that will be used almost all the time in auto-pilot, but I don’t like the low uncomfortable lateral seats, that are more useful than the central ones, and, without those, it is created a very nice aft deck space, very well suited for deck chairs and relaxation near the swimming platform. 

The yacht is built with the traditional Contest high quality, with a sandwich hull with monolithic, where it offers an advantage. They use vinylester resins on all laminates and an infusion vacuum process. The structural bulkheads are in sandwich composite, stratified to the hull and deck, and they use carbon fibers to reinforce the boat structure.

From the top: 50CS, 49CS, Swan 48,
 Swan 50 Club Racer, TP 52

Contest is one of the few traditional high-quality brands that have fully accompanied technical building yacht evolution, and the yachts are built with the best techniques available. If we compare with Hallberg-Rassy we will see that while HR still uses hand laminate while Contest uses vacuum infusion (and they started using it more than 20 years ago!).

Contest uses vinylster for all lamination, HR only on the outer layers, Contest uses sandwich structural bulkheads, HR does not say, and probably they are made of high-quality plywood, Contest uses Carbon for structural reinforcement, HR doesn't.

The only thing I prefer about the HR building is the PVC core. Contest does not say, on this, and other yachts, what is used as a core, but I suppose it is balsa, as it was before. Balsa has very good mechanical properties but it is prone to rot, if there is a water intrusion on the core, and in the last years almost all quality builders changed balsa for high-quality polyester foam.

Above 50CS, below 49CS

But it is also true that many boats still use balsa as core without problems, and that Contest has a very advanced building system: unlike in most yachts, the infusion system is a single shot one, including the outer layer, the core, and the inside layer. That allows for a more integral and better waterproof sandwich, not to mention the use of vinylester (a water-proof resin) everywhere.

Regarding interior quality, it is as good, or better, as the one on HR, but with a different style.

 Let’s look at what many here want to know, how about sailing performance?

Well, this is one of those very beamy boats with high freeboards and, from what I saw in the Hanse 460 comments, some think that does not have a negative impact on the sail performance, but it has.

Above HR 50, Below Amel 50

Just look at the shape (beam/length) of a Transpac 52, which was initially drawn for sailing mostly downwind (and that was considered beamy) and that proved to be a very fast racer, in almost all conditions. Look at the beam/length of a Swam 50, which has proven to be very fast (in real-time) while racing, and compare it with the B/L of the swan 48, which is a compromise between interior space and performance.

The Contest 49CS, the Halberg Rassy 50, and the Amel 50, are also a compromise between interior space and performance, but a much BIGGER compromise.

The Contest 49/50CS is not the only fat boat among these types of high-quality cruisers. Unfortunately, it seems to be a strong tendency. Amel and Halberg Rassy went for the same type of very beamy hulls with a high, or very high freeboard, to have the biggest possible interior. I am not saying that those sailboats sail badly, they are all designed by very competent NAs, but they have their sailing potential limited by the hull choice, especially in regards to light wind sailing and upwind sailing.

Halberg Rassy 44

These three yachts have similar hull lengths, being the longest the Amel (15.51m), and the smallest the C49CS (15.20). The HR and the Contest have not very different beams ( 4.90 - 5.00m), while the Amel 50, is narrower,  4.79m.

They have similar displacements, 21500kg for the Contest, 21000 for the HR, 20555 for the Amel, and they have similar SA/D, respectively 17.5, 17.6 and 17.1, offering the HR a sail maximized version with a substantial bigger 20 SA/D.

Amel 50

Apparently,  Amel, due to a smaller beam, should sail better upwind and in light wind (considering the HR with similar SA/D), but it is handicapped by the smallest B/D of them all (by far) 26%, and that with the shortest keel and the less beamy hull. 

The HR with a 35% B/D  (or the Contest) will be able to get much more power from heeling and will be more stiff, due to a bigger hull form stability.

Swan 48

With medium to stronger winds, the HR and the Contest, will sail better upwind than the Amel, and also better downwind with strong winds, while with light winds the Amel should be faster, but not faster than the HR version with a bigger SA/D. The Contest has also the stiffness that allows it to carry more sail area, but a version with maximized sail area is not announced.

On the Contest, sadly, they don’t give the ballast, but we can see on the published stability curve, that the AVS is a bit less than 120º, while the HR one is about 115º. Having both yachts similar keels, with similar drafts, the Contest B/D should not be less than the one on the HR.

Contest 49/50CS

If the HR with a 35% B/D has a 115º AVS we can only guess what would be the AVS on the Amel 50, which has much less draft and a much lower 26% B/D. Probably it would not be as low as we can imagine, because the very high freeboard and the high superstructure will contribute to increasing the AVS, but will not increase the RM at 80/90º, which will be much lower than on the HR or Contest. And the RM at big heel angles is as important or more than the AVS, in what regards to safety stability.

Surprisingly, the Contest 49CS at 1.053 million €, seems to cost a bit less than the HR 50 (1.160 million €) and understandably more than the Amel 50 (0.9 million €), all boats at the shipyard without taxes.

Contest 49/50CS

Of course, boat prices, equipped and with taxes, will be much higher and it is impossible to know the real price, and who will be more or less expensive, without having them equipped the same way because the standard equipment and prices of extras are different.

If you like sailing fast and want a quality luxury cruiser from a prestigious brand, for about the same price, have a Swan 48 instead, I mean, if your wife can live in a yacht with a beautiful high-quality boat-like interior.

Swan 48

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2019/10/swan-48-perfect-performance-cruiser.html

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2020/01/swan-48-dusseldorf-2020.html

If she requires a house-like interior, with the biggest possible interior volume and a huge standing height, then you will have to sacrifice sailing potential, and have one of these. I would then choose between the Contest and the Halberg Rassy.

https://interestingsailboats.blogspot.com/2021/03/hallberg-rassy-50-most-beautifull-hr.html