This edition was marked by the Mod 70 trimaran Argus capsize, just before the race. The start was delayed to recover the boat that, having in consideration the accident, had a good race performance, finishing 2nd overall.
Argo capsized viewed from Maserati
The Caribbean 600 becomes bigger every year and on the 2019 edition 75 yachts participated. Unfortunately here a small yacht is a 50ft boat and not many with less than that make the race, with the exception of pure racing boats and in what regards those the 40 class racers are very popular here, and with a good reason.
Looking at the video from the beginning of the race, with the yachts pounding hard upwind, we could wonder why, but the fact is that those images are misleading, this is mostly a beam reach/broad reach race with some downwind sailing and only two small upwind legs.
Cover Cookson 50, above the winning class 40
The class 40 racers and derived cruisers, like the Pogo, that have a poor performance on the Mediterranean races and races with lots of upwind sailing, have a good performance here.
Regarding their performance it is funny that cruiser sailors tend to have about them a more positive overall image than what they deserve, while it is the opposite with racing sailors, specially med racers. I have heard many racers saying that they are slow boats.
Pogo 50 Maremosso
In fact they are excellent designs and very fast for what they are designed to do and are size by size almost unbeatable on a transat. On this race we can see that what they lose on the smaller upwind legs is much less than what they gain on the longer beam reach/broad reach legs.
They are not great sailing with the wind dead downwind but they don't lose that much and since situations of weak winds are very rare here, they had an overall good performance.
Marten 49
The 40 class racers were the first 40ft boats to finish, among much bigger yachts and very close to two very fast carbon racers that made a great race, a Ker 46 and a Carkeek 47 and at only three hours from the fastest 50ft racer, the carbon canting keeler Cookson 50 Kuka 3.
And it was not only one 40 class racer that was fast but a trio, that came few minutes apart, leaving behind a Swan 80, a Swan 66, a Volvo 60 and 2nd Cookson 50.
Ker 46 Lady Mariposa
If the conditions suited the 40class racers, they suited also the two Pogos cruisers racing, a 12.50 and a 50. Of course, I am not talking about positions in handicap racing where they will always be too penalized. I am talking about positions in real time and about sailing fast.
The Pogo 50 arrived in the middle of the slower 40 class racers, ahead of a Santa Cruz 52, a Whitbread 60 and way ahead of a Farr 65 and a XP 55. It was the 2nd 50ft cruiser racer to arrive, not far from the all carbon Marten 49, a hugely more expensive sailboat and a very fast one too.
Pogo 12.50 Hermes
The Pogo 12.50 made even comparatively better, it was the first 40ft cruiser racer to arrive, very close to the Farr 65, ahead of the XP 55, the XP 44, a Swan 57 and a Solaris 44 leaving the 2nd 40ft cruiser racer, a well sailed J122 at considerable distance.
For the ones that like to understand how the performance of the sailboats varies with different types of hulls, according to different types of conditions and sail positions, I recommend to follow the race of the Pogo 12.50 Hermes and the J145 Katara on the race plotter, using predict wind data.
J145
They fought all the race and it is very curious to see how the Pogo went away quickly on a beam reach and how the J145 closes while beating upwind. Fascinating stuff. http://yb.tl/C6002019#
The J145 after having lost a lot of time on the long beam reach leg ended up recovering on the downwind and upwind smaller legs finishing very near but ahead of the Pogo. But it is good to remember that we are talking about a 40ft versus a 45ft. The other fast 40fter, a J122 made a great race and finished in compensated well ahead of the Pogo (20th and 27th)but in real time way back, needing more 4 hours and a half to finish the race.
Bieker 53
Without Cheyenne or Rambler, with ideal conditions, the multihulls had a great race and at the finish the distance from the two MOD 70 (Maserati won) to the first monohull, a Volvo Open 70, was huge.
Surprisingly the Volvo arrived with the 53ft Bieker catamaran very close behind. It seems that when it does not capsize (as on the last edition) the Bieker is a hell of a sailing machine leaving at a great distance not only the bigger Gunboat 62 but also the foiling DNA F4 and the two older Multi 50 derived trimarans. Quite a performance.
Mod 70 Maserati
Also good the performance of the foiling Black Pepper code1 Black Soul (40ft carbon daysailer), that arrived just a little bit ahead of the Pogo 12.50 and very good the performance of a 37ft racer, a Reichel&Pugh design (Taz) that arrived after the Pogo and side by side with the XP 55.
Very different from the Viko, also made in Poland, this one was supposed to be also a low cost sailboat but, contrary to the Viko, not an entry level one but a good quality performance yacht. The 145 000 euros initially announced price for a ready to sail boat (no taxes included) seemed too good to be true.
In Dusseldorf the boat on exhibition was an upgraded version and at 307 800 euros (without taxes) it was not an inexpensive boat and even if it was well equipped there were plenty of details to be revised:
The doors, the ones inside and the one outside, had not a fixation point, the cabin door opens to the outside obstructing the galley, the raised chart pilot seat is very uncomfortable, there is no ventilation over the stove, the ventilation on the cabin is insufficient, there are no shades (and they will be absolutely indispensable due to the large glass area) and the standing height is low in many parts of the boat.
The finish is painted plywood and average, not bad but worse than on a RM, that uses the same type of interior construction and finish. The interior space is a very nice and modern one and the feeling is good even if the forward standing height in the saloon is low and inconvenient. To go to the forward cabin you will have to bend.
I like the shape of the boat but I don't like the design that much. Confused? The shape of the boat has to do with the drawing (nice or ugly), design has to do with the shape regarding functionality and that's where I have some doubts.
The shape of the glass cabin allows for interior standing height (not in all the saloon), for a raised pilot seat with view all around, providing a lot of light to the interior but its wedge shape makes it high on the cockpit, partially blocking the vision forward from the steering wheels.
Not completely, but on a sportive boat you want to have a good vision of the waves ahead. It is important for the pleasure of sailing to have the ability to chose your seaway and that is denied by that structure that has the advantage of providing an interior pilot station and lots of light but at the cost of a very high interior temperature on hot sunny days.
Also, on those days, while at anchor, it does not also allow a good cockpit ventilation and the ones that sail on the Mediterranean or Caribbean know how that is important. Maybe adapted for sailing on the Baltic or on high latitudes but nor on warm climates, where most sail.
Below, Pogo 12.50 transom
In what regards having a view forward while sailing on more or less sportive boats, JPK, Pogo, RM or Allures have solutions that do not create the disadvantages that will be experienced on the Bente 39.
Sure, the all around view is better and that would make sense on a boat that would be sailed from the interior most of the time but I don't think that will be the case with most Bente owners.
Regarding the hull I have only good things to say: very nice from the bow to the transom that is not one maximized for solo sailing but for overall good performance. We could argue that a solo sail type of transom would make the boat easier to sail solo fast, especially downwind and that it would make the use of an autopilot easier but this transom will make the boat faster overall, specially upwind and will increase its racing potential.
At Dusseldorf they had prices for three different boat configurations, one that they call Standard (166 000 euros), another called Average Family Cruiser (207 020 euros) and The Ocean Challenger (345 785 euros) all the prices without any taxes and at the factory. There is a basic difference between the most expensive version and the other two and that is boat stability and power.
Most boats offer the same overall stability and about the same righting moment curve with different drafts. The designers just compensate on the ballast, adding more on the versions with swallow drafts. Not a different stability, just a boat some hundred kg heavier.
That is not the same on the Bente 39 where the Ocean Challenger, with a 2.55m draft, is a more powerful boat than the two other versions, able to carry considerably more sail area. It is not only a considerably faster boat but also one with a better overall stability, higher AVS and better safety stability. It will also be a more structurally reinforced boat.
As you can see on the previous post about this boat I had already noticed that something odd was going on with the boat ballast. I was assuming that all the versions would have a similar overall stability and that was not the case. Well, that's explained:
In fact the ballast on the two versions, the one with a 1.95m draft and the other with 2.55m is quite similar with a difference of only 100kg (or 200, according to different sources).
Those 60cm difference in draft, considering that most of the ballast is on a lead torpedo (2000kg) at the end of a narrow fin, makes for a huge difference in RM that could only be compensated with about more 400kg ballast on the shorter keel version.
Anyway, regarding the less powerful version, the Family Cruiser, with a 1.95m draft, it has a 39.5% B/D providing already an unusually high overall stability and lots of power, specially if we consider the high hull form stability. The more powerful version should have a not very different B/D, (lighter boat with just a bit less ballast) but those extra 60cm in draft will give it a lower CG and will make it a hugely powerful sailboat that will love to sail in demanding conditions and lots of wind.
Above Bente, 39 Below Pogo 12.50
Power does not come cheap and the Bente 39 is not an expensive boat for what it offers but that comes always with a price. Let's forget those 145 000 euros for a ready to sail boat. The standard version does not have sails, not even a furler for the frontal sails, does not have an integrated bowsprit and with a basic interior costs already 21 000 euros more.
The real ready to sail boat, that includes sails, basic sail hardware, a foldable propeller, very basic electronics, a 100Ah battery for the house (60Ah for the engine), only 200L water tankage, without a windlass winch, costs 62 020 euros more than the first announced price.
No, I am not saying that it is expensive, it is not, only that I don't like incredible price claims that in the end cannot be met. On that respect the Viko S35 is a better example.
The Ocean Challenger costs 200 758 euros more than the announced first price (more than the double) and even more if one chooses a swing keel that unfortunately will not generate the RM of the deep keel but the one of the swallow keel (and unfortunately because it would not be difficult to manage that). So, what explains this huge difference in price between this version and the Family cruiser?
Deeper 2.55 performance keel, 3 hull portlights (per side), two GRP wheels instead of two GRP tillers, composite light weight interior, salon table with a wood finish, one extra refrigerator, electric windlass winch, communication hatch, cockpit table, cockpit upholstery, 6 mooring cleats (instead of four), bigger winches, one of them electric, better sail hardware, better sails (including a geenaker and a code 0), carbon mast, better electronics, radar, VHF radio and antena, marine radio with outside speakers, bigger engine (28hp to 39hp), better propeller, additional automatic bilge pump and a bow thruster.
Most of these things, with exception of the lighter interior, carbon mast and maybe higher quality sails and bow thuster will be options that most cruisers will want. If we consider an average VAT of 20% the price of the boat with all these extras will cost 414 942 euros.
The Pogo 12.50 costs standard a lot more, 234 538 versus 166 000 euros (without taxes) but it comes already with a carbon mast, carbon bowsprit, probably a standard better sail hardware and most of all with a swing keel. The Bente 39 can have all that but while they are standard on the Pogo they are optional on the Bente. If we mount all of them on the Bente probably both boats will have a very similar price.
Again, I am not saying that the Bente 39 is expensive, the Pogo is an inexpensive boat for the performance it offers, I am just trying to give a global panorama about prices.
Anyway even if both boats have some similitude in what regards offering a fast performance cruiser at low cost, the boats are very different starting by the hull that some would mistakenly take as similar when they are not and finishing in the interior, a nicer one on the Bente 39 a more practical one on the Pogo 12,50 that offers standard the double of the water tankage and almost the triple on the size of the refrigerator.
Just looking at the dimensions we can see that the length of both boats is not very different: the Pogo 12.50 is 12.18m and the Bente is 11.99m but we can see that the beam is very different: The Pogo is 4.5m and the Bente is 4.1m and most of all, due to the diference in beam, they have a different transom shape.
While the Pogo has a transom similar to the ones of the Class 40, that are solo transat racers, the Bente transom is based on the ones of oceanic crewed racers like TP52 or VOR racers.
The bow of the Bente is more modern, giving more buoyancy but really the main difference in what regards hull design lies on the beam and transom design and that is what makes both boats sailing characteristics different.
Alex, the owner of the shipyard, says he wanted to make "a defused Pogo, one that my girlfriend is happy to sail" and if he got it wrong because the type of hull of the Pogo will make it easier to sail solo or even on autopilot.
I do not mean that as a criticism just as a fact. In many aspects the Bente 39 hull has a better performance than the one of the Pogo (not on others). For sailing on the med (and that is what I like to do) the Bente 39 hull is a much more adapted one, probably with a better performance in light winds and certainly with a more comfortable motion and performance upwind. On a transat or on a circumnavigation on the trade winds, the Pogo will not only be an easier boat to sail but it will also be a faster one.
I would love to see a comparative on the water test between the Pogo 12.50, the Bente 39, the JPK 38FC the Django 12.70 and a fast more traditional performance cruiser like the XP38, a test that would take several days and allow the boats to be sailed in different conditions.
Normally on these tests, test sailors are very happy to sail fast boats downwind in semi planing or planing conditions but forget to make an all around comparative performance test. The last one I saw regarding this type of boats, several years ago, was a prototype of the Pogo 12.50 versus a Dufour 40e and curiously on a triangular type of regata circuit, with all kinds of wind directions, the overall speed was very similar and the Dufour 40e is not a particularly fast traditional cruiser-racer or performance boat if you want to call it that way.
Out of such a comparative test we can only have an idea about the comparative overall performance of these boats by the race results in real time where the Pogo 12.50 is not a very fast boat, if compared with more traditional performance cruisers, except if it is a downwind race, like a transat, especially one solo or duo.
I hope that some Bente 39 will do some serious racing to get some real information about comparative boat performance. Maybe we see it on the Silverruder, that has already been won by a JPK 38FC or in any of the others solo or duo races that start to be popular on the Baltic.
Curiously the running rigging of the Bente 39 is only adapted to solo sailing if the two tiller configuration is used and on the more expensive and upgraded version two wheels are used. We can see on the test sail below, made by Yacht.de what I mean. Also the fixed cockpit table does not help standing in the way in what concerns sailing maneuvers.
The Bente 39 has been tested by several boat magazines and all said very well about the way the boat sails even if nobody has made any observation regarding beating angles upwind, an information I would like to know more about.
By the video images I can tell that it is well balanced and that the bow is very efficient keeping the nose up and contributing for a dry boat. Downwind, with not too much wind, the boat is kept on the central part of the hull, dragging little water and making a clean wake indicating that probably it has a better performance than the Pogo in lighter winds.
Note that the interior on the video above by Yacht.de is from the boat version that costs with 20% VAT about 414 000 euros. You can read the boat test on yacht.de (you have to pay something to download it) or you can read online the one made by Sailing Today:
The Viko S35 looks as good in reality as in the photos and drawings and this is saying a lot: nice design, clean lamination, well done gel coat and tidy interior, made of american oak veneer with a quite pleasing design and a well integrated led illumination.
The interior looks solid but in fact cabinets and cabin doors are not really tight and if you force them around they will rattle. The door handles are a little flimsy, not strongly fixed and all around the boat needs some detailing that anybody with decent hands and some spare time can do, at a low cost.
The exposed boat had some extras among them the two wheel setup. It comes standard with only one wheel. Like on most other brands bigger winches can be mounted as well as a bigger engine and more batteries. The standard winches are Lewmar 30 and the standard engine a Yanmar 15hp. It comes with a dacron semi-batten main sail and a genoa.
Of course almost everybody will opt for a 20 or 30hp optional engine since 15hp on a 5.2T boat works only as an auxiliary engine, will want more than a single 60 A battery and will rather have teak on the cockpit that,by the way, is a very nice one, deep, large and with a good seating position with lots of back support.
The Viko S35 is well ventilated by an adequate number of hatches of good quality and in fact it looks quite "normal" taking into consideration the low price.
The sail hardware is quite complete, including a genoa track, a traveler track near the wheel and a boom-vang. Nothing looks particularly strong, quite the contrary, but probably it will be enough for coastal sailing where if something stops working a fix is not far away. The running rigging looks practical and traditional, using 4 winches and two groups of 4 halyard stoppers, one on each side, over the cabin.
What really looks very good is the hull and since it has a good B/D (36%) on a 1.95m keel I have no doubt that it will sail very well. The design is from the Italian cabinet of Sergio Lupoli yacht design that, without being a major one, is certainly competent.
The overall design is very good with a very well integrated cabin and a nice interior layout even if on the three cabin layout the aft cabins are on the small size and with a part (the one under the cockpit) with a really low height. The deep cockpit has here negative consequences and the aft cabins are only practical for one person not only due to that characteristic but also due to the short width between the engine box and the hull.
The two cabin version has a much bigger head, a bigger salon with a small chart table with a seat, it offers a much bigger storage space but unfortunately, even if the aft cabin is bigger it offers not a much improved space since the height is the same as well as the width. For solving that problem the cabin would have to be transversal and not a longitudinal one.
That solution would imply not to have a dedicated charter table and a redesign of the head. It would be a much better solution since it would not only allow a decent height all around as it would increase the cabin width and length, that with only 1.86m will not be comfortable to many sailors.
The standing height on the boat is good having 1.92m at the entry and 1.70 on the forward cabin, that has a bed 2.00m long. The interior boat storage is also good, with two lockers on the forward cabin, one in each aft cabin and a considerable and practical storage on the galley area.
Outside, on the three cabin version, the storage is not enough for extensive cruising even if adequate for shorter cruising. It has no lateral lockers under the cockpit seats but has two deep lockers under the seats aft the wheels that go all the way till the hull. The volume is big but the practicability not so much except for things like fenders. Smaller items will be very hard to reach since the opening is not big.
On the two cabin version it will have, besides these, a big storage space that will occupy the underside of the right cockpit seat and also part of the space that was occupied by the starboard cabin. That will make for a very good and practical storage on a 35ft boat. The chain locker without being big is deep and it will be enough for a fair amount of chain.
As I have said many times, all main mass production shipyards are saving money producing boats with a very good hull stability but with a low B/D. Managing to make an inexpensive boat with a relatively high B/D is what seems to me more extraordinary regarding the Viko 35 and I was really curious regarding the boat structure and keel fixation.
1900kg is a lot of weight, 1.95m is a considerable draft and the boat structure and keel attachment to deal with the involved efforts have to be considerable....and expensive to make. For that reason I wanted to have a good look at them, but the floor boards on the boat were screwed in and it was not possible to have a look at any of that.
I talked with the German Viko dealer that not only was not interested in showing that part of the boat but also told a strange story about industrial secrets and not revealing them to the competition.
Quite surrealistic stuff, I would say, as if the boat had some kind of high tech building that they wanted to maintain secret. He ended up saying that the bottom on the keel area was 5cm thick and pointing to the massive steel structure, exposed by X yachts on a nearby stand, that it was something like that but made of composite material.
I was not impressed, quite the contrary, I was strongly convinced that he did not know what he was talking about. I remember seeing once the keel attachment on a Viko 30s keel and it did not seem to me particularly strong. I certainly would not buy a Viko S35 without more information about the way the boat structure is built, without having a good look at it and the way the keel is bolted.
As I have said, the thing that amazes me most on this boat is how they have managed a relatively high B/D ratio maintaining the boat price very low and it is very important to know if that was not made at the cost of the boat resistance and strength and if shortcuts were not taken on this area.
This is the biggest Viko boat to date so it cannot be said that they have experience with boats of this size and I cannot give you any information regarding boat structure. The visit at the boat in Dusseldorf did not provide any and the shipyard on their site do not give any information or images regarding the way the boat is built, namely in what regards boat structure or bulkheads. A pity since the boat really looks interesting.
I guess you would have to find for yourself, or by buying one and seeing what happens (or not) or going to Poland and visit to the shipyard, assuming they will allow that, to see how the boat is built. Anyway, if you get more information on that aspect please share it here.
The above video was published by Yacht.de, and in it Michael Good makes a good report about the boat, unfortunately in German, for the ones that don't understand it, but you can still have a look at the explicit images. You can learn more about the Viko S35 and about its price here:
Most would not expect Arcona to win the 2019 boat of the year trophy for performance cruisers but I am glad they won and I think it is a well deserved victory. After some financial instability on the shipyard last year Arcona was bought by Orust Quality Yachts AB, that is now also the owner of Najad and I hope this yacht will contribute to the success of the new management.
Above the 435, below the 430
The previous boat was the 430, a very fast and good looking boat with a very nice interior but looking a bit too classic for my taste, mainly in what regards the cabin port lights, the shape of the hull, specially on the transom and also the bow design.
On this one they have finally made a boat that, without losing the Arcona identity, looks much more modern. not only on the cabin design, with a lot more light coming inside. but also on the transom design that is much more adapted to short crew sailing and will allow a more easy control downwind and on autopilot.
Much better looking and a more efficient sailboat too. A very beautiful yacht still with a bit of a classical taste and I say that not in a negative way because, contrary to most cases, that does not interfere with the boat's sail performance that is a very good one.
The only thing I would like to have seen changed is the shape of the bow that did not follow the evolution on the transom, remaining a bit outdated. I would have liked to see a bit more buoyancy there, not to mention style. the bow looks a lot better with the optional integrated bowsprit.
The changes were all on the right sense and the Arcona remains light, powerful and less beamy than the average, with a great B/D ratio. I will compare it with the Jeanneau SO 440, not because both boats are similar but because the Jeanneau is a kind of benchmark in what regards 44ft mass produced boats and it will help to show the differences.
The hull length and length of the water line on the Arcona and Jeanneau are respectively- 12.64, LWL 12.20 - 12.00m. Regarding beam, Arcona and Jeanneau have: 3.98 - 4.29m. The Arcona is slightly longer and considerably narrower. The standard draft of the Arcona is just slightly bigger than the one of the Jeanneau, 2.30 to 2.20m. The Arcona can have also a 2.0m or a 2.6m draft.
The Arcona can have two types of keels (T and L) but it comes standard with a maximum efficiency T keel, with a lead torpedo at the end of a steel foil. The Jeanneau can have several drafts but only one type of keel, a well designed L keel but even so less efficient in lowering the CG than the Arcona standard keel. The Arcona has a much bigger B/D ( 38% - 27%), being the RM maximized by the type of keel and by the superior draft.
The Arcona is slightly heavier (8900 - 8561kg ) but much more than that difference in weight is difference between the two ballasts (1120 kg) meaning that in what regards the weight of both boats without keel, the Arcona is 339 kg lighter.
The Jeanneau, because it is beamier has more form stability but that is compensated in what regards overall stability by the Arcona's bigger mass and lower center of gravity. What will not be compensated by the Jeanneau is the Arcona's much better safety stability, better AVS and smaller inverted stability. Besides that the Arcona will have an all around much better overall performance that will be more noticed in light wind, upwind and will be incomparably better in stronger winds and demanding conditions.
The SA/D and the D/L confirm that, having the Arcona a bigger SA/D (27 - 23.9) and a smaller D/L (135.8 - 137.8). What these numbers don't show is that the Arcona, due to being considerably narrow, but with a similar or bigger stiffness will need less sail area than the Jeanneau to go at the same speed and that will make the difference in speed potential much bigger than the one already indicated by those ratios.
The Arcona has a sandwich hull having as core 20mm divinycell, all lamination is done with vinylester resins, its vacuum bagged, all bulkheads are laminated to hull and deck and as main structure it has a galvanized steel girder, bolted to the main bulkhead and laminated to stringers. It can also be made fully in carbon and that will make it a faster and even stiffer boat, a lighter one too, but that is an expensive option (115 000 euros) and will only make sense for racing since it will increase a lot the noise inside the boat while sailing upwind with waves.
The keel and the the chainplates are connected to the steel structure. In what concerns the Jeanneau the built is much low tech, cheaper and less strong. If you don't know how it is built there is a description on the previous post (about the Solaris 50).
The interior is of excellent quality and very good taste, a tad classical without looking old. Unfortunately the photos from the shipyard are taken on a boat with blue fabric on seats and cushions and I can tell you that the version with light cream fabric is much nicer and much more luminous (you can see that on the movie).
The interior electrical illumination contributes to make the interior even nicer, it is one of the best I have seen and it comes standard with the boat.
It has a good storage, that could be better because there are no lockers under the cockpit seats, even if it has a big cockpit locker, aft the wheels with access by two hatches, and a huge anchor locker that is subdivided and works also as sail locker. I didn't like the division on that locker, that provides little space for chain but they said that is easily modified.
The Arcona comes standard with a 40hp saildrive Yanmar with a 180L diesel tank and a 300L water tank. In what concerns standard equipment this boat is equipped as all boats should be, with a lot of equipment and a small options list.
Many things that are expensive options on other boats are here standard. It comes standard with 6 Harken winches (2X60 and 4X46), Harken travelers for the genoa and mainsheet, backstay tensioner, 6 mooring cleats, a sprayhood that enters on a "garage", anchor, waterboiler, all portholes come standard with mosquito nets, 6 fenders and 4 mooring lines.
The sails are not included as well as the electronics but it comes with a flexofold propeller. Contrary to other boats the trimming and launching at the yard is not expensive and in a general way the extras are less expensive than in other expensive boats and some of them make me envious, like an upgrade to have a water cooled refrigerator for 518 euros and an installed and integrated solar panel for 1287 euros.
The standard yacht costs 359 961 euros and a well equipped boat, with about the same equipment (extras) I chose for the Solaris, will cost about 425 000 euros, on the water in Sweden. Considering a 20% VAT it will go to about 510 000 euros, plus transport, in case you will not pick it at the shipyard.
The Solaris 44 has a hull only 15cm longer and it costs 60 000 euro more, with about the same equipment. The Solaris price compared to the one of the Halberg Rassy 44 and the one of the X 4-6 was quite good and that makes the price of the Arcona 435 even better.
A great boat at a very nice price and a well chosen boat of the year. The Arcona 435 has been tested by many sail magazines and without exception all test sailors found it a delightful boat to sail: fast, pleasurable and comfortable and that counted a lot in what regards the choice as 2019 boat of the year.
One of the most beautiful boats at Dusseldorf was the Solaris 44. I was a bit confused about it before seeing the boat. There is a recent Solaris 44, a 2011 nice design by Soto Acebal and since they had not changed the name I thought that perhaps it was a MKII, with the same hull, a different cabin design and a new interior.
Not so, it is a completely different boat, also designed by Soto and if the old design still looks modern, the new one is just gorgeous. The hulls are very different even if with the same beam. It is impressive the design evolution in only 7 years.
Above the new one, below the old one.
We can see that even if the previous hull cannot be considered an outdated one and the boat still looks very well, the new hull is much more contemporary, inspired on offshore racers' hulls like the ones on the Volvos and not as on the previous 44, on the traditional line of IRC racers.
This one will certainly be easier to sail fast downwind and easier on autopilot, a better hull for a reduced crew as they are normally on cruising boats.
Both boats have the same beam but on the new one it is brought all to the transom. If we compare it to the one of the Jeanneau SO 440, that is not a beamy boat (the Oceanis is a lot beamier), we will see that the Solaris 44 is narrower than the Jeanneau ( 4.18-4.29m) and that has a bigger water line, (12.71-12.00).
Regarding light displacement the Solaris is heavier ( 9900 - 8561kg) but that 1339 kg difference corresponds practically to the difference in weight between the ballast on the two boats (1320kg) having the Solaris to be built much more strongly to be able to resist the much bigger RM forces generated by extra ballast.
Above the new one, below the old one
Regarding B/D ratio the Solaris has a much bigger one, (36.4% -26.6%) and the RM generated by ballast is substantially increased on the Solaris by a bigger standard draft (2.60 to 2.20m) and a more efficient keel design. Obviously the safety stability and the AVS on the Solaris would be much better than the ones on the Jeanneau SO 44.
Regarding boat power, the superior hull form stability on the Jeanneau will be more than compensated by the big difference on RM generated by the ballast, that is not only much bigger but also much lower, and that makes the Solaris a more powerful boat. The bigger difference in performance will be in stronger winds, demanding conditions and upwind.
The difference in boat power and stability is expressed on the relation between the sail area and displacement (SA/D) that is higher on the Solaris (26.0-23.9). Curiously the Solaris, even if considerably heavier, due to its bigger LWL, is proportionally lighter, having a smaller D/L (133.6 - 137.8).
Above the new one, below the old one
In what regards hull building, Jeanneau uses its industrial method of a "contre moule" that is bonded to the monolithic hull while the Solaris uses vacuum infusion on a sandwich hull with airex core and E-glass fibers, with bow and main bulkhead also in sandwich composite (the others bulkheads are in plywood) and the floors and keel structure in a laminate structure with reinforcements in carbon, all strongly laminated to the hull while the bulkheads are laminated to the deck.
Contrary to Solaris little is said about the Jeanneau building methods that are similar to the ones used on Oceanis making vast use of bonding agents, little, if any, lamination in what regards fixing the boat structure or the bulkheads, that are normally made of plywood. The boat structure is a "contre moule" in the form of a structural grid.
The Solaris, much more expensive to build is also a stronger boat, not only due to the sandwich hull but to the effect of a structural cage formed by the bulkheads laminated to the hull and deck.
Above the new one, below the old one
I never liked too much the interior of the previous Solaris 44 version, with all the cabinets in white and with some odd angles. The new one is more traditional, very well finished even if I don't like the standard white oak finish that I saw in Dusseldorf. Finished in teak (option) it would be much nicer.
Nothing fancy, just comfortable, cozy and practical and well designed, I am relatively tall, 1.88m and the ones taller than me may find the interior height a bit on the short side but on Solaris they have chosen to maintain a low windage and a low profile...and there are no miracles. For once they thought first about sailing and instead of making a huge volume interior that demands a huge freeboard, they made a reasonable dimensioned one, a sailboat's one, not really an apartment like.
It has good storage on the interior and exterior with a considerably sized sail locker, a big stern locker and a cockpit side locker for the liferaft. It has standard 4 winches nicely positioned near the wheels and a self taking jib rail.
The Solaris 44 price seems very nice but it is good to remember that it comes without sails, genoa track, without main traveler, only with 4 winches, none electric, without electronics, without folding propeller, without mounted mast and without transport. The basic price without VAT is 318 900 euros.
The price of extras is expensive and quite probably they will make a substantial discount over them but I took the trouble to have a look at how much would cost a boat equipped for performance cruising, without teak on the deck or cabin ( 22 600 euros), equipped a bit like my own boat, without solar panels but with a bow thruster (that is already justified for this size of boat) and the price is not so nice anymore: 463 413 euros, ready to sail, in the water in Italy but without sails that will cost at least 15 000 euros and much more if they are high quality.
If we add 20% VAT, a Solaris well equipped for performance cruising, but without teak decks, air conditioning or generator, will cost ready to sail and delivered in Italy about 570 000 euros although far less than an Hallberg Rassy, that with more equipment than the standard Solaris 44, but much less than the one optional I am considering for the Solaris, with the same VAT, costs around 624 000 euros. The difference will be considerably bigger if we consider the same equipment.
A Jeanneau SO Odyssey 440 is much less expensive but if we go for the same sail hardware and extras the price will go for 400 000 euros or more. Yes, I had that experience, start to put similar sailing hardware on mass production boat and they still will be less expensive than a quality boat with the same equipment but they will be much more expensive than the standard version, equipped as it was thought, to offer cruising at the lower possible price. And in you sell the boat nobody is giving more money for all that extra equipment.
And of course, the rest you cannot add: the extra power, the extra overall stability, including reserve stability and AVS, the superior seaworthiness, the the much better performance in demanding conditions and better overall performance will always be different, no matter the equipment you put on the Jeanneau as well as the superior built, strength, and finish.
