SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Interesting Sailboats

3M views 7K replies 205 participants last post by  tdw 
#1 · (Edited)
Sirius 32, Sirius 35

THE OBJECT OF THIS THREAD:

Interesting sailboats in production and available on the new boat market (only boats with modern designs, meaning that the boats still in production but made with old designs are out). Recent designs out of production are also admissible.

Modern boat designs and modern one off, if interesting.

Classical boats and traditional boats.

Small cruisers (less than 35ft)

Seezunge 27ft: PG1-PT9

Hanse 325: PG19-PT185;

Presto 30 : 33-326; 33-327; 34-331; 34-333; 55-543; 55-544;

Tess Yachts: 37-366; 38-373;

Tess 28 Magnum: 37-369; 38-371;

Delphia 28: 38-373;

Vancouver 27/28 : 42-412; 72-717;

Cruisers between 35ft and 49ft


Catalina 355 : 31-306;

RM sailboats: PG5-PT41; 5-42

RM1050: PG5-PT46; 5-47; 5-48;

RM 1060: PG8-PT77; 8-78; 8-79; 8-80; 9-81; 30-295; 40-400; 79-786;

RM 1200: PG9-PT84; 9-85; 19-184; 20-191; 20-192; 41-404; 42-414; 42-418; 43-425; 43-426; 69-688;

RM 1350: PG9-PT82; 55-549; 95-943;

Morris Yachts: PG7-PT61

Bavaria 36: PG19-PT188; 19-190; 20-196;

Bavaria 40: PG10-PT95; 28-278; 29-281; 29-282; 29-283; 29-286; 32-316; 36-356; 51-502; 51-507; 52-518; 53-527; 53-532;

Bavaria 40s: 69-685; 78-775;

Bavaria 45: PG10-PT96; 19-190;

Rustler Yachts: PG11-PT104;

Jeanneau 409: PG11-PT103: 11-106; 30-298; 30-299; 36-356; 51-502; 51-504; 51-505; 51-509; 52-513; 52-514; 52-515; 52-516; 53-527; 54-532; 57-564; 57-570; 58-571; 58-580; 59-581; 59-583; 59-585; 62-614; 74-739; 91-906;

Jeanneau 439: 40-396; 40-397; 59-584; 59-585; 96-956;

Hanse Yachts: 16-154; 16-156; 16-158;

Hanse 400: 81-804;

Bluewater cruising yachts: 21-206

Beneteau Oceanis 37 : 31-306; 31-308; 31-309; 32-314; 55-541;

XC 38: 36-356; 96-954;

Diva 38: 39-386;

Diva 35: 40-391;

Dufour 405: 62-614;

Defline 43: 63-622

Walkabout 43: 93-923; 93-925; 93-927;

Small performance cruisers (less than 35ft)


Performance 32ft test: 29-87;

Sun Fast 3200: PG4-PT33; 4-34; 4-36; 30-293;

Elan 210: 70-691; 70-696; 78-779; 79-781;

Elan 310: PC7-PT64; 7-69; 8-71; 36-356; 41-408;

Quest 33: PG7-PT62

Olea 32: 25-243; 25-245;

First 27.7: 38-373; 38-380; 39-382;

First 30: 30-295; 39-356; 41-408; 55-545; 55-546;

Comet 26: 34-340; 35-345; 35-350; 36-353;

Pacer 30: 36-357;

Django 7.7: 40-399;

Vivace/Evosion 34: 45-442; 45-446; 45-445; 45-446; 45-447; 45-448; 45-449; 45-450; 46-458; 46-460;

Finn Flyer 34: 46-451; 46-453; 60-593;

Salona 34: 46-457;

Heol 7.4: 63-621; 63-622;

Azuree 33: 87-867; 91-902; 91-904;

JPK 10.10: 88-877 ; 88-880; 89-883;

Performance cruisers (between 35ft and 49ft)

Pogo 10.50: PG2-PT20; 3-27; 3-28; 3-30; 4-35; 5-50; 6-51; 6-52; 6-60; 11-101; 11-107; 11-110; 43-425; 44-440; 87-861; 87-867;

Pogo 12.50: PG13-PT125; 20-198; 20-199; 22-214; 27-264; 27-265; 27-269; 32-317; 32-319; 43-425; 43-426; 43-428; 44-432; 44-437; 44-439; 55-546; 55-547; 82-812; 84-831; 87-870;

Este 40: 89-890; 90-893; 90-899;

A35: PG5-PT42; 5-44; 66-660;

A40RC: 92-914;

Hammerhead 35: 64-645

Opium 39: PG5-PT42; 9-85; 9-89; 13-125; 22-220; 22-221; 43-426; 55-547; 86-857;

Aerodyne 35: PG7-PT62

Elan 350: PG7-PT64; 13-24; 13-126; 13-127; 13-128; 14-132; 18-178; 26-255; 36-356; 40-398; 41-405; 57-564; 59-589; 60-591; 72-711; 73-724; 74-738;

Elan 380: 23-223; 25-249; 26-256; 40-398; 59-589; 97-962;

Elan 410: 32-316; 79-784;

JPK 110: PG9-PT85; 10-91

Olea 44: PG10-PT100; 27-268;

Olea Yachts: 25-247;

Dufour 40e: Pg13-Pt125; 32-316; 55-547; 56-558; 56-559; 57-561; 57-562; 57-563; 59-586; 59-588,

Salona 37: 36-359; 41-406;

Salona 41: PG15-PT141; 15-145; 32-316; 36-356; 40-398; 54-538; 57-569; 78-778; 80-796; 80-798; 97-965;

Salona 42: PG15-PT145; 36-359; 40-398; 93-929; 94-932;

Cigale 16: PG15-PT148; 16-152; 17-161; 55-549; 63-625;

Cigale 14: PG17-PT163; 55-549;

Santa Cruz 43: PG17-PT169

Sydney Yachts: PG18-PT171; 18-175;

Sydney GTS 37: 43-423;

Sydney GTS 43: PG18-PT173;

Winner 12.20: PG20-193;

First 40: 31-304; 32-313; 32-316; 35-344; 36-354; 55-546; 55-547;

First 35: 36-356

Dehler 41: 30-296;

Dehler 44: 79-785;

Dehler 45: 36-356; 79-785;

Luffe 40.04: 30-300; 31-301; 31-303;

XP 38: 56-533; 56-544; 56-555; 67-622;

XP 44: 33-325;

Pacer 430: 36-357;

Pacer 376: 36-357; 66-652; 69-683;

Faurby 424: 36-360; 37-361; 37-363; 37-365;

Comfortina 39: 40-395;

J 133: 43-426; 63-620

J 111: 100-993;

Maxi 11: 99-982;

Arcona yachts: 46-456;

Arcona 410: 47-467; 47-468; 47-469; 48-471;

Arcona 430: 48-472;

Arcona 460: 50-495

Finngulf yachts: 46-456;

Varianta 44: 60-594; 60-595; 60-596; 60-597; 60-598; 64-639;

Imagine 53: 63-628;

Zou 40.2: 63-620

Ker 39: 68-676;

Finn-Flyer 42: 77-762;

Azuree 40: 85-842;

Loft 40: 85-848; 85-852;

Vivace 35: 90-895;

Sailing boats over 49ft

Zeydon 60 : PG 12-119;

JP 54: PG18-PT172;

Salona 60: 70-695;

Stadships: PG20-PT193; 20-195;

Pogo 50: 32-318; 32-319;

X-50: 54-537;

Murtic 52: 54-537;

Decksaloons and pilot house sailing boats

Sirius 32: PG1-PT1

Sirius 35: PG1-PT1; 1-10; 2-18; 50-491; 50-492; 60-559; 60-599;

Sirius 31: PG1-PT5; 2-17; 36-356;

Regina 35: 48-478;

Regina 40: PG11-PT104; 49-481; 49-483;

Southerly yachts: PG11-PT104;

Luffe 43DS: PG12-PT111; 12-115; 50-494;

Noordkaper 40: PG14-pt139;

Noordkaper yachts: PG16-PT155

Nordship 36: 30-297; 49-482;

Nordship 38: 49-482; 49-490;

Paulo's pilot house I: 38-376; 39-381; 39-383; 39-384;

Paulo's pilot house II: 69-682

Lyman & Morse 45: 38-379;

CR 38DS: 48-477; 48-478;

CR 40DS: 48-476; 48-478; 48-479; 50-494; 50-496; 50-497; 50-498;

Arcona 40DS: 50-494;

Racers

Figaro 2:pG4-PT36; 4-37; 5-42; 6-52; 6-53; 6-55; 6-56

VOR 70: PG16-PT160; 17-187

Farr 400: 67-661

Soto 40: 96-952;

Lifting keel/centerboarder

Southerly yachts: PG11-PT104;

Allures 45: PG10-PT93; 100-996;

Allures yachts: 25-248;

OVNI 425: 23-228;

OVNI 395 : 68-679; 69-690;

J 108: 67-661

Atlantic 43: 68-67

Boreal 44: 97-970; 98-974;

Multihulls till 34ft

Several Trimarans: 28-273;

Multihulls with 34ft and over

Dragonfly yachts: 26-257;

Dragonfly 35: 26-258; 27-261; 27-262;

Dragonfly 1200: 56-551;

Corsair 37: 28-276;

Farrier 39: 28-277;

Challenge 37: 28-278

Hammerhead 34: 29-385;

Hammerhead 54: 29-288; 30-292;

Trimax 10.80: 29-285;

Sig 45: 54-534; 54-539; 54-540;

Gunboat: 56-551

Fusion: 56-551;

Outremer: 56-551;

Tournier: 56-511;

Classical and Traditional boats

Jclass boats: 54-537;

Tofinou 12: 71-703;

Folck boat: 73-727;

Puffin Yachts: PG14-PT135; 14-138; 16-155;

Bestwind 50: PG12-PT116; 14-123;

Bestevaer 53: PG12-PT116;

Bestevaer yachts: PG16-PT155

Cape George 36: 41-410; 42-412;

Marieholm 33 : 42-412;

This list is not actualized. Please use the advanced search engine of the thread with the name of the model and builder. It works, most of the time.

(actualized till PG100) and it will be no more because that gives a lot of work (500 pages now).

Instead I am actualizing the titles and with the right title the thread search engine (not the one on the top of the page bit the one much below that says search thread) on its advanced option works quite well.

Hello,

Melrna posts on Miami Boat show and the comments of Smackdady about the interest of that thread lead me to think that perhaps I could share more information about sailboats I know and find interesting.

I am interested in boat design (interior and sailing performance) and I go each year at least to one of the main European Boat shows and that means basically Dusseldorf, Paris or Hamburg. On these shows you have the opportunity not only to visit the boats of the main and medium size builders but you have also the opportunity to visit the boats of small and sometime family shipyards.

Normally they build very good sailboats and sometimes they have been doing that for decades. The boats are hugely appreciated by their faithful customers but because they don't advertise their boats and there are very few on the used boat market, they pass unnoticed by the majority of the sail community.

The visit to these boats is a very rewarding experience because they are made with passion by true boat lovers and because when you talk to the guy that is on the boat, you are not talking with a dealer, that many times doesn't know much about boats, but with the builder, or the designer.

Even if you are not a buyer they will have real pleasure in talking with someone that really appreciates and understands their work. Those guys really believe in what they are doing and they do it the best way they can, no matter the cost. In a word, they are in love with what they are doing.
Of course, these boats have to be expensive.

This thread will be mainly about these boats, as a way of letting you know about these gems. Let's see if you are interested. I will not post much. If you want to know more you have just to participate and make questions.

The first one it will be the "Sirius". I have had the pleasure to visit several times their boats and to talk with the builders (father and son).

These boats have the best interiors you can find, or at least that I have seen. Not only the quality, but the design and ergonomy are fantastic. You really won't believe you are in a 32ft boat. Just incredible and amazing; Have a look at it:

Sirius-Werft Plön | Forecabin | 32 DS for 2 forecabin
Sirius-Werft Plön | Owner´s cabin | 32 DS 4-berth comfort owner´s cabin
Sirius-Werft Plön | Workshop | 32 DS for 2 workshop

Now that the son is in charge they have modernized the outside look of the new boats, they look fantastic not only inside but also outside. The boats sail well and they have clients as far as Japan.

Sirius-Werft Plön | Versions of decks house | You have the choice

Another interesting point is the way they develop new boats. They work with the clients to collect suggestions on the shape and design of the boats. A truly interesting affair, between passionate clients and passionate builders.

Sirius-Werft Plön | 35 DS | Philosophy

Take a good look at their interesting site and if you find the boat interesting, please let me know, I can add some information.

Sirius-Werft Plön | english | Welcome at website of Sirius-Werft Plön

Regards

Paulo
 
See less See more
#969 · (Edited)
Hello. welcome to the thread:) .

I was a bit surprised with B yachts....I didn't know of what you are talking about till I open the link. They used to be called Brenta yachts, not B yachts:D

Yes certainly they deserve to be on this thread. Probably I "forgot" because I am pissed by beautiful things that are way too expensive for me to have:rolleyes:





They are designed by Luca Brenta and here on its Designer's page we can see some more:

______LBYD

The Brenta 42 has a very different program if compared with the Pogo 12.50. The B 42 is basically a luxury day sailor, a fast and enjoyable one but with a limited cruising capacity. It can have a family for a week-end but has not the potential for long cruises (I am not refering to the stability or seaworthiness but to the limited tankage, galley and storage space). The Pogo is just the opposite. Well, we can use it as a day sailor boat but he was not designed for that but for long range cruising.

I had already posted some photos of a similar boat, the Tofinou 12. I really don't know whom I like the most, but perhaps the Tofinou has that bit of classical style that make it even more beautiful to my eyes.

Regards

Paulo
 
#971 ·
Yes, it is an interesting boat and I know about it but I have been posting more about new boats even if I have posted about some older ones. Yes it is a very clean design even if the price makes it out of reach for most. I have to confess that I love the looks and the outside but I don't really like the inside. To aseptic and clean for me.:)

Thanks for posting.

Some movies:

http://www.sly-yachts.com/_vti_g2_video42_aspx_rpstry_12_.sphtml

YouTube - Sly 42 - La Prova in Mare di SoloVela

YouTube - Sly 42 - Il video degli Interni di SoloVela

and several boat tests, one of them a good one in English (Yachtingworld)

http://www.sly-yachts.com/_vti_g2_pr42_aspx_rpstry_51_.sphtml

Regards

Paulo
 
#973 ·
Hello friends,
waiting for the test of the Azuree 33 I'm looking around for some good market proposal. I need a boat suitable for living aboard. I know the Azuree could seem not to be the right choice, but it is an other question. As I told you I have limited budget and I like very simple boat to be customized by myself. I have found the Varianta 44 which seems to be a very nice boat for my scope. I have read all the articles posted here (page n. 60). Do you have some more news or opinion to release today? Do you know how it is built the hull and the deck? I mean it is cored or solid?
Many thanks.
yus
 
#977 · (Edited)
Yus,

The Varianta would be interesting for living aboard if a minimum of thought or options were possible to do that, but the boat does not even as an anchor locker. See how they propose you anchor the boat:

How can I anchor the Varianta 44?
Simply lead an anchor and lead line through the divided pulpit into the water, run the lead line over a snatch block back to a winch.


For this one I strongly recomend a Fortress aluminum anchor :D

The boat has not also a true freezer nor a front sail furler.

You have to spend probably not 100 000€ but 120 000 perhaps a bit more to have a minimum of cruising capacity (and no anchor locker and that for me is the worse not to mention that the only outside locker opens directly to a cabin). The boat has almost no option list:)

The boat is nice and solid but was made for club regattas or for chartering, for those kind of guys that always sleep at the marina and anchor only for a sun bath and a swim.

Here yo have sail tests. You will find out more about the boat and will see what I mean.

Varianta Segelyachten - from Dehler with love

It is a nice boat:

Varianta Segelyachten - from Dehler with love

but not adapted for cruising and it's big, you would pay a lot of money at the marina and to do the annual anti-fouling.

If I wanted to buy new and for that price I would buy an Oceanis 37 (not a typical Benetau boat). I have posted about it on this thread. If I would choose between second hand boats I would choose probably a Jeanneau 42I or a Dufour 40.

I would recommend this one to you (I have seen the boat):

dufour 40 | Veleiros de ocasião 95320

The boat is at an incredible price because the guy is going away to work in Cabo Verde.

It is a professional (not a seller) he works with Dredgers (he has several) and the boat is in pristine condition in what regards mechanics (he worries a lot about that), not so well in what regards the interior (for a 2007 boat), obviously he don't care much about that:D ) but it is certainly a much better option than the Varianta. It is a fast and seaworthy boat with lots of storage and interior space and very well equipped for cruising.

As a bonus he can give you his place at the Marina de Olhão, in a very nice place in the South of Portugal almost for nothing (he helped to built the Marina). If I remember correctly the annual rent was something like 1000€ a year.

Marina de olhão - Pesquisa do Google

But if you are interested be quick because I know that are several guys trying to buy it but don't have all the money to give and want more time to pay.

Regards

Paulo
 
#979 ·
Hei Anders,

No the Linjett 40 was not mentioned here and I don't know if I find it very interesting. It is certainly well built and expensive but a lot less modern than Arcona or Maxy yachts. It looks like an Arcona from the 90's.

Welcome - Linjett

Now, these boats are a lot more interesting:) . Don't you want to give it a try?

YouTube - Sailing - R36 training- Gothenburg - Sweden

Regards

Paulo
 
#984 ·
Boat Design And Stability

Hi Folks

I have been trying to get my head around boat safety for some time now. More specifically this includes a study of the particular boats stability curve and obtaining the STIX rating. This has not been an easy task to be honest. Manufacturers have asked me to contact the dealer who has asked me to contact the maufacturer and so we go. When I have managed to get some numbers, they have not been the same as those I have found from various boat reports including the ones published by Practical Boat Owner and Yachting Monthly. I am also aware that there seems to be no universal standard for determining the stability curve as far as the manufacturers go; they seem to rely on a computer program which in turn is reliant on a whole host of different variables for each manufacturer. The net result is that making comparison of each boats stability characteristices and in particular their published AVS is pretty pointless unless there is a standard for determining how these numbers need to be determined. I am also aware the the ORC determine their own AVS on account of these defficiencies by subjecting each boat to an incline test and then running their own computer program. Even if there test isn't better, at least this way each boat can be compared which brings me to my 2 questions:

1. An AVS of 118 seems to be the magic number certainly if one wants to do the Sydney to Hobart race. Whose AVS is this, the boat maufacturers or the ORC? If this is the right number, then this would exclude the X38c, the Salona 37 and the Dufour 40e but would include the Beneteau Oceanis 37 and the Jeanneau 36i. mmmm, I don't think so ... What is the right number? Comments?

2. If there is no way of getting meaningful numbers that are measured in a similar way for the stability curve and for the AVS, then what boat design characteritics are necessary to ensure that a particlar boat is safe? L/B, B/D , the area below the x-axis on the stability curve spring to mind. What else should be considered?

Sometimes it feels like the proverbial never ending rabbit hole when it comes to assessing stability and therefore safety.

David
 
#985 · (Edited)
Hi Folks

I have been trying to get my head around boat safety for some time now. More specifically this includes a study of the particular boats stability curve and obtaining the STIX rating. This has not been an easy task to be honest. Manufacturers have asked me to contact the dealer who has asked me to contact the maufacturer and so we go. When I have managed to get some numbers, they have not been the same as those I have found from various boat reports including the ones published by Practical Boat Owner and Yachting Monthly. I am also aware that there seems to be no universal standard for determining the stability curve as far as the manufacturers go; they seem to rely on a computer program which in turn is reliant on a whole host of different variables for each manufacturer. The net result is that making comparison of each boats stability characteristices and in particular their published AVS is pretty pointless unless there is a standard for determining how these numbers need to be determined. I am also aware the the ORC determine their own AVS on account of these defficiencies by subjecting each boat to an incline test and then running their own computer program. Even if there test isn't better, at least this way each boat can be compared which brings me to my 2 questions:

1. An AVS of 118 seems to be the magic number certainly if one wants to do the Sydney to Hobart race. Whose AVS is this, the boat maufacturers or the ORC? If this is the right number, then this would exclude the X38c, the Salona 37 and the Dufour 40e but would include the Beneteau Oceanis 37 and the Jeanneau 36i. mmmm, I don't think so ... What is the right number? Comments?

2. If there is no way of getting meaningful numbers that are measured in a similar way for the stability curve and for the AVS, then what boat design characteritics are necessary to ensure that a particlar boat is safe? L/B, B/D , the area below the x-axis on the stability curve spring to mind. What else should be considered?

Sometimes it feels like the proverbial never ending rabbit hole when it comes to assessing stability and therefore safety.

David
You are absolutely correct and I never brought it here because it is really a dirty and complex business and I don't want to discuss it on this thread because it goes away from its subject. You can open a thread about it but I really think it is a too technical and polemic subject to be discussed on an open forum.

But I can give you my opinion about it:

The stability curves are made by the designers and as you say they are made using different programs and probably even different parameters. The only one that is equal for all is the one for ORC, that is also the only one based in real inclining experiments, and therefore the only one that provides comparable results. But as you know not all boats race in ORC so you cannot have those stability curves for all boats.

The ones you have for all boats are the ones used to certify the boats and these ones are clearly not comparable. Some show results that are very close to the ones from the ORC curves others results that are much better.

You don't know also if the curves that are used by most designers (and that give better results than the ORC stability curves) are closer to reality than ORC curves.

Also you have to know that there are two stability curves, one with minimum load another with maximum load. With maximum load you will have a bigger stability but a lower AVS. They used to certify the boats only the minimum load curve, than the two and now I think just a mix of the two (it is not the curves that are used but the data taken from the curves).

I completely disregard STIX number. It would give me a lot of trouble to explain why but I would say that I consider that some factors that have importance on its determination don't make sense. For instance the sail area is a factor that diminish STIX. If I am in bad weather if I have a third reef and a stay sail I would be in much better shape than another boat that has an overall smaller sail area but (as most) has only a second reef (with more area than the third reef from the other boat) and a furled genoa. The sail area counts big time for the Stix number.

If I don't have ORC stability curves to compare, between two boats with similar hull characteristics, similarly sized cabins, with similar draft and similar bulbed keels I assume the one with more Ballast/weight ratio would be the one with a better stability curve and a better AVS.

Regarding boats with different hull shapes, a many year's interest for the subject and after analyzing hundreds of different stability curves I have a pretty good idea of the differences in stability curves between different types of hulls, to give me an approximated idea how a beamy hull can compare with a narrow hull.

The issue is so polemic that my favorite magazine, the German "Yacht" that I believe it was the first to publish stability curves, stop publishing them five or six year's ago. I still like to see the stability curves provided by the designer on the British magazines but I really think they should warn the readers about what is going on. They also publish the curves and after completely disregard the provided data on the boat tests, or confound GZ curves with RM curves. I have already call their attention to the subject and posted on their forum about it with no avail. I guess it is a too hot subject:D .

Regarding stability is convenient not to forget that we are only talking about static stability and it has been shown that dynamic stability is a more important factor to seaworthiness than static stability. I have my opinion about the subject (I will not discuss it here) but experience shows for instance that a boat like the OVNI 435, one of the boats more extensively used offshore and made in large numbers has a lousy static stability curve and an unblemished seaworthiness record and that the mini ocean racers that have a very small RM curve (because they are very small and light) have an impressive safety record taking into account the number of transats and even a circumnavigation.

Regards

Paulo
 
#986 · (Edited)
As promised, let's talk about the T 34, a beautiful Italian boat and for such an exotic boat not a very expensive on. They advertise it at 125 000 € a bit more than what costs a Salona 37 that has a better cruising interior, is bigger and faster in light winds, but both polar curves are very similar and this one is only a 34ft.

The boat had won the 2011 prize for boat of the year for the main Slovenian sailing magazine and it is convenient not to forger that Slovenia is the home of Elan.

It weights only 3700kg, has 67m2 of sail area and can carry a 100m2 asymmetric spynacker:D . It has to be fast:) and it's certainly beautiful with a great cruising interior for a boat that is also a racing boat. A very interesting one no doubt. Comments please?



















Here you have a movie from the Rolex middle sea race (a major race) where the boat won first place on the two crewed division. The movie only began at 3.15 (photos first) and I cannot understand why they are sailing downwind under main alone???. Perhaps they didn't have a spinnacker for medium to strong wind? With a spinnaker and main it seems to me that the boat would be much more balanced...and much more fast.

YouTube - Rolex/T-Yachts .wmv

T-Yachts :: Welcome to our website
 
#988 · (Edited)
More news and some drawings on a very interesting boat, a modern boat made by a very conservator shipyard, or at least, it was. Times are changing:D

The new Maxi 11.0:

" You are a demanding bugger, at least when it comes to sailing. You enjoy the speed, and to fly on the downwind at double digit pace. Most of all, you get pleasure from passing the other yachts being the first to reach your destination. But once you're there, waiting for the others, you want to lead a life in comfort.

Thirty-seven feet is enough to get standing headroom, nice saloon, a twin sink galley, spacious heads and shower compartment and quarters for 4 + 2 people.

Then the new Maxi 11 is a perfect fit. She is super fast, easy to handle - and even though you can sense her affinity to the Volvo Ocean Race Monsters she is surprisingly comfortable below deck.

The Iconic Maxi 11 will be designed with a set up for short-handed, or even single handed manoeuvring. A well thought out on-deck concept will give you the advantage of sailing almost as fast with a two crew, as with a full crew of four.

The masthead hoisted Code 0 Gennaker and bow with extendable carbon fibre bowsprit will give you sensational beam reach and downwind sailing characteristics. In addition you will get easier use, faster hoisting and more frequent gennaker sailing.

This state of the art 37 feet sailing yacht will have the same functions and performance as a larger yacht, yet it will be easier to handle.

..the new Maxi11 is engineered to push the boundaries of modern design and utilise the latest building practices to create an aggressive high performance sailing yacht that is technically consistent, ...an evolution hardly seen before in high performance sport yachts.
...

This state of the art 37 feet yacht will have a longer waterline inspired by the best solutions from racing yachts. With stiffer and stronger advanced composites hull, wider stern, pointier bow, and extended bowsprit with maximized sail areas to match, the Maxi11 will deliver exceptional upwind performance in all conditions with exciting double digit speed downwind and reaching.

The sharper bow and single rudder design enables more enjoyable upwind tacking.

In short, people will stare and heads will turn when they get a short glimpse as you catch up along side and then swiftly leave them behind while you manoeuvre your Maxi 11 at ease with a crew of one or two.

...So if you really enjoy high speed sailing in comfort and don't mind to irritate people, sign up to make history once again.

Nowadays, it's the speed, not the size that counts".










 
#990 ·
Believe me I have tried hard to find a folding trimaran with a minimum decent interior at a price I could afford. The best alternative is the Corsair 36. But the build quality is far away from the Dragonfly and the interior is...poor and not very nice, to say the least.

I even talked with Farrier about the possibility of building a 39 (I had more money then;) ) but the guy with experience building them were in Canada and the boat would cost even a bit more than the 36, but that one would be perfect. I think I have posted about it on this thread.

YouTube - Corsair 36 - Newport to Ensenada

Regards

Paulo
 
#991 ·
Hi everybody,
as I have posted I am very close to signing a deal for a new boat. My old boat (Dehler 43 CWS) is now sold and I have both a Wauquiez Opium 39 available and now also found out that I can get an Azuree 40 pretty quickly. RM 1060 not available before end of september. Pogo 1060 and 1250 where both available in september and december (contrary to long waiting times earlier mentioned) but this option was some weeks ago and have taken them from my short list.

Basically I had made up my mind for the Opium but now when the Azuree came up I wonder what to do.

Opium lighter and has very good test records. Azuree much more luxorius and modern interior design, which of course please others in the family :).

Azuree cheaper with rather big margin (cruising version) but also feels slightly bigger than what I really would like to have.

Test results for Azuree rather good also but the test have been for the lighter version mainly and some remarks have been made that the boat is standing on it nose when heeled (as can be seen on some videos also).

And then we end up in perhaps Croatia in the autumn and have to truck the boat to Sweden, and that is not for free either.

Another interesting question is of course where to pay the VAT for Europe?

Anybody out there that have test sailed the Azuree, or seen it live?

Regards,
Anders
 
#992 · (Edited)
Hi everybody,
as I have posted I am very close to signing a deal for a new boat. My old boat (Dehler 43 CWS) is now sold and I have both a Wauquiez Opium 39 available and now also found out that I can get an Azuree 40 pretty quickly. ....

Basically I had made up my mind for the Opium but now when the Azuree came up I wonder what to do.

Opium lighter and has very good test records. Azuree much more luxorius and modern interior design, which of course please others in the family :).

Azuree cheaper with rather big margin (cruising version) but also feels slightly bigger than what I really would like to have.

Test results for Azuree rather good also but the test have been for the lighter version mainly and some remarks have been made that the boat is standing on it nose when heeled (as can be seen on some videos also).
....

Anybody out there that have test sailed the Azuree, or seen it live?

Regards,
Anders
Regarding the Azuree I would point out what I have said to someone in a private message (this part was not private:) ):

"Apparently there is a big dif. in price between the Std, version and the Fast one and a very small dif. in weight and that would worry me. They are not compensating the difference in RM and AVS that the deep lead keel (2.60) provides regarding the 2.16m steel Keel (they normally do that). They add 50kg to the ballast and that's nothing. I bet they would need about 350kg.

This means that the fast boat is much more stiff and safe than the std boat. If you capsize the std boat I bet you are going to stay capsized for a long time. On limit situations the Fast boat will recover much more quickly (and the std can have even difficulty in recovering from a knock down with the weight of sails and a radar dome).

Ask them the two stability curves for the two boats and you will going to see that the STD one has a bad AVS and a much bigger inverted stability. I would like to have a look.

Regarding the boat it is possible that 50% of that difference in price comes from the carbon mast.

I would chose the STD boat, with a 2,16 keel but with a lead one and with the weight to make the stability curve the same as the one from the fast boat (more weight on the bulb, probably 300kg more or something like that).

I would also have wanted the fast boat hull material, two more winches, the bigger winches they have as option, genaker equipment and a genaker mounted on a fast furler, dynema lines, webasto weating and an aluminum performance mast."

But of course, I like more the Opium.

Regards

Paulo
 
#993 · (Edited)
Hi Paulo,
thank you for your thoughts. The Azuree 40 Cruiser has a keel of 2050 kg, Opium 1850. Both with most of the weight in the bulb and similar depth. Both boats same width, Azuree mast slightly higher and main sail 6 sqm bigger, so basically they should be pretty similar in stiffness and AVS. Azuree though much heavier so it will not start planing as fast.
On the other side a very different inside set up and look.

Both are made in full sandwich and with vinylester. Same engine. Same nav equipment. Opium has deck stepped mast (Sparcraft), Azuree kielstepped Soromap.

What is making the decision so hard is that with same equipment, the Azuree is a lot cheaper (appr. €55000), despite beeing bigger. A trade off between planing minimum wind speed, much (much) more modern interior and lower price.

Regards,
Anders
 
#994 · (Edited)
Hi Paulo,
thank you for your thoughts. The Azuree 40 Cruiser has a keel of 2050 kg, Opium 1850. Both with most of the weight in the bulb and similar depth. Both boats same width, Azuree mast slightly higher and main sail 6 sqm bigger, so basically they should be pretty similar in stiffness and AVS. Azuree though much heavier so it will not start planing as fast.
On the other side a very different inside set up and look.
.....
Regards,
Anders
Hei Anders, I don't think you are right in what concerns stability. As i had said I would be concerned about that, regarding the Azuree Standard version. I will explain why:

You say that both boats have a not very different hull, a similar keel and a similar draft with the Opium with a 1850kg ballast and the Azuree with 2050kg and so they would be pretty similar in stifness and AVS. I don't think so.

What matters regarding AVS, reserve stability and also stiffness, all things being equal except the weight of the boat and the weight of the ballast, is the Ballast/Displacement ratio. The Opium 39 has a B/D ratio of 33%, a typical measure among many modern cruiser racers and the Azuree 40 cruiser has a B/D ratio of 28%. This puts it among the Beneteau Oceanis. Even the Dufour cruisers, Bavarias and Hanse have more than that. That is specially bad because the boat has a huge beam and a big form stability and that gives lot's of initial stability but also lot's of inverted stability.

The problem with this boat will not be the stiffness needed to sail (initial stability) but the one at high angles of heel needed to recover from a knock down and at that point the boat will be much less stiffer than the Opium and the AVS will be also lower. If you have the bad luckk to be capsized, this boat will stay inverted much more time than the Opium.

Now take a look at the "Fast" version of Azuree 40. It displaces 7100kg and has a ballast of only 2000kg but in a bulb lower 0.44m than the standard version. Based in what I have seen in other boats that have several drafts and compensate that difference in draft with more weight to have a similar stability curve, I would say that for having a similar stability curve the standard model should have more 350 kg of ballast than the Fast cruiser (it has only more 50kg).

If we assume that I am right and that the Standard boat should have a 2350kg ballast to have the same stability curve as the Fast cruiser (same AVS, same positive and negative stability), that would give to both the standard version and Fast version a B/D of 32%.

I believe that the Azuree fast cruiser and the Opium 39 have a not very different stability curve and similar stiffness but there will be a big difference between the Azuree cruiser (standard boat) and the Opium 39 .

Regarding the Opium 39 and the A fast cruiser, the difference is that the Opium does that with a weight of 5600kg and a 2.13 draft while the Azuree manages that with a 7100 kg and a 2.60 draft and I would say that is a big handicap in what regards cruising.

The stability curve I am talking about is a GZ curve. On a RM curve the bigger weight of the Azuree will give it more stability but no more stiffness because to compensate that extra weight the Azuree will have to carry a lot more sail and needs stability to compensate that.

Bottom point: I would not buy a Azuree cruiser with that final stability. I would ask them to put the needed ballast to have the same reserve stability and AVS as the Fast cruiser version. I don't know if the standard hull is capable of supporting the extra efforts that implies and to make sure I would have also the hull built to the "Fast" specifications.

I would not buy a Fast cruiser because 2.60m of draft is much for my cruising grounds, but it can be okay to you. If that is the case, the Azuree fast cruiser is a true option regarding the Opium 39 even if probably slower and I am only refering to stability, seaworthiness and sailing, not to the interior;).

Regards

Paulo
 
#996 ·
Hi Paulo,
the question of ballast ratio, AVS and stiffness is a complicated one and need careful calculations of among other things center of gravity. I do not intend to go into that. I have also traditionally been an advocate of high ballast ratios.

These new boats are bult on form stability as you know, as is a trimaran or a catamaran. They do not score high on ballast ratios either. I already had a boat like that, my Beneteau Oceanis 40. Compared to my last boat, the Dehler 43 CWS the difference could not be bigger. Dehler with 43% B/D and Beneteau clearly under 30%, Beneteau wide stern, Dehler narrow. Same maximum width.

Still, the Beneteau was funnier to sail and the Dehler heeled as much as the Benetau, partly due to bigger sail area to compensate for the doubled keel weight. The big difference was the tendency to broach, where the Beneteau was wothless and the Dehler almost impossible to get to broach. Speed similar but Dehler could point higher and more tolerant to gusts and waves.

So how can we get into the wider stern, lighter boat more fun cirkel without broaching. As I have been saying for some years now, through double rudders (unless trimaran/catamaran is to ones taste). No broaching anymore.

Shure, a knock down might be more fatal but as have been discussed in other threads, we spend 99% of our time in not knock down conditions so...

So basically, how much is the ballast ratio really worth for these kind of boats or should we look at other aspects, if we are takling about performance, not flipping around? I am not sure but I think we have to reason slightly different than for more normal single rudder narrower shaped performance cruisers.

I am also a little bit pussled that Opium can be so much lighter than all other similar boats with similar interiors. Opium is built very similar to my old Dehler if I compare hull cut outs, even if the Dehler is built without vacuum and basically Opium hull is built as Azuree (balsa instead of pvc sandwich). Pogo is understandable if you look inside but I have a hard time understanding why an Azuree should be 1800 kg (200more in the keel) heavier, you get a lot of interior material for 1800 kg.

Regards,
Anders
 
#1,000 ·
Hi Paulo,
the question of ballast ratio, AVS and stiffness is a complicated one and need careful calculations of among other things center of gravity. I do not intend to go into that. I have also traditionally been an advocate of high ballast ratios.

These new boats are bult on form stability as you know, as is a trimaran or a catamaran. They do not score high on ballast ratios either. ....
Anders,

The stiffness is not a difficult issue . You have only to have a stability curve and to know the boat sail area.

I think there is some confusion here regarding high ballast ratios. The reason some modern boats need less ballast ratio is because today the drafts are a bit bigger but mainly because today most performance boats have all the ballast in a bulb on a keel while some years back the ballast was distributed by all the keel, sometimes with a small bulb and that can make a big difference in righting moment.

The Ballast/Displacement is only comparable in what regards similar keels with similar weigh distribution and similar drafts.

What matters is the stability curve. If I remember correctly the one from the Azuree cruiser has an AVS around 110º and the one from the Opium 39 an AVS around 125º. That is a huge difference not only on the AVS but on the force that the boat is making to right itself up from a knock down position and also on the inverted stability.

Some types of new cruising boats have in common with multihulls the fact that they take most of its initial stability (needed to sail) from form stability but contrary to multi-hulls they take the ballast needed to recover from a knock-down or needed to recover from an inverted stability in a short period of time or at least they should have. All the racing boats that served as model to this new generation of boats have that safety potential. The ballast is there not only to increase the stiffness of the boat but mainly for the reserve stability (at high angles of heel).

If you want a boat without or with a bad a reserve stability you should have a multi-hull. At least you would not be tricked into thinking a boat has a safety potential he does not have. Being knocked out on a sailboat, specially for guys that like to push their boats and have a lot of sail out is a fairly common occurrence. It had happened to me already and I bet it had happened to a lot of sailors that like to go fast. It is not a big deal in a boat with a good reserve stability. In a boat with a poor reserve stability it can be a huge problem.

I remember than on the last Transat with Figaros a guy was knock down for a looong time (1 hour?). The Figaro 2 has a good reserve stability (AVS 125/130º) but the boat was caught by a wave and partially flooded and that have diminished its reserve stability. That sailor had a lot of work taking out the water of the boat (not an easy task with a lying boat) till it managed to get enough stability to bring it up again. What would have happened if that boat had a poor reserve stability?

The Elan 350, the Pogo and the RM are boats that rely on form stability for most of the stability needed to sail but that have the ballast and the draft needed for having a good reserve stability and a good AVS. I believe the Azuree fast cruiser has it too, but not the Azuree cruiser. I would not take offshore a boat that would have difficulty from recovering from a knock-down, or at least I would be very careful to sail that boat and that would take all the fun away.

Shure, a knock down might be more fatal but as have been discussed in other threads, we spend 99% of our time in not knock down conditions so...

So basically, how much is the ballast ratio really worth for these kind of boats or should we look at other aspects, if we are takling about performance, not flipping around? I am not sure but I think we have to reason slightly different than for more normal single rudder narrower shaped performance cruisers.
I remember that on some test with the Elan the guys from the magazine were amazed because they have tested the boat with lot's and wind and no "wipe-outs". They were not caring because they knew that a knock-down would not have been a problem. Who wants a sportive cruising boat where a wipe-out can be a problem? It makes no sense. It is dangerous.

The ballast/draft should be the necessary to provide a decent AVS and a good reserve stability, no matter what. Otherwise what is the advantage of a monohull over a multihull? if you don't want to have a ballast capable of generate a good reserve stability why bother? Get a multihull:D .

I am also a little bit pussled that Opium can be so much lighter than all other similar boats with similar interiors. Opium is built very similar to my old Dehler if I compare hull cut outs, even if the Dehler is built without vacuum and basically Opium hull is built as Azuree (balsa instead of pvc sandwich). Pogo is understandable if you look inside but I have a hard time understanding why an Azuree should be 1800 kg (200more in the keel) heavier, you get a lot of interior material for 1800 kg.
The interior of the Opium is much lighter than the one from the Azuree and probably of much better quality. Infusion makes a lot of difference in the weight, there are lot's of different qualities in the infusion process.

I don't think the Wauquiez use a balsa core they say: "balsa and PVC foam sandwich with a vinylester core" and they use In the laminate multiaxial fiber glass (equivalent to multiple layers of unidirectional material). The quality of the vinylester resins or fiberglass can be very different and the same with the workmanship quality.

I know that they make the boat with that weight because they have made a big fuss about that when they have weighted the first boat (and got the correct weight). Quality and control is as important as the process to warranty high standards of quality and in that regard Wauquiez has a long tradition while Azuree has yet to prove itself as a high quality brand.

Regards

Paulo
 
#997 ·
Anders said:
I am also a little bit pussled that Opium can be so
much lighter than all other similar boats with similar
interiors.
Good point.

By my calculations the Opium minus ballast weights 3800Kg
The Azuree 40 minus ballast weights 5100Kg

Thats a wopping 1300Kg difference in fiberglass and furniture.

Even more puzzling is the Azuree site claims that some of it is carbon fiber:

Azuree With its hull made of 50% carbon fibre - 50% GRP, which offers the lightest solution without compromising the structural integrity
 
#998 ·
There are several different weight numbers floating around for both the Opium and the Azuree. As usual, a boat starts is career as very light weight but when reality catches up the numbers get adjusted. I have seen the numbers for the Opium going up from 4800 to 5000 and now 5600 kg. Similar for the Azuree. Especially the difference between the Azuree fast Cruiser and Cruiser is interesting to observe. It has been getting smaller and smaller and by now it is only 200 kg. I assume the mast is not incuded in these calculations since it is a carbon mast on the Fast Cruiser and an aluminium on the Cruiser.

The Azuree Fast Cruiser is the one built with 50% carbon in the cloth, the Cruiser has only carbon in some areas so basically the weight difference should be bigger.

But still, as you said, the difference is strange. Then, if one starts looking at other boats hull weight, like the RM1200 5100 kg, Dufour 40E etc 5000 kg hull, Grand Soleil 40 5100 kg, Bavaria 40 6100 kg, Beneteau Sense 43 7500 kg it is pretty clear that the Azuree is not light but not heavey neither, it is the Opium that is outstanding for some reason. If, as Opium says, vacuum, sandwich and vinylester is the key, then Azuree should be lighter. And as a planing hull it really should be lighter I agree. But the Elan 350 is not that light either, and also has a B/D of only 26% and still is creating such a smile on all testers face.

Best regards,
Anders
 
#999 · (Edited)
I can add that I have a Wauquiez Centurion 40S and its hull (light) minus ballast is supposed to be 4840Kg. It has marine ply for furniture which at a guess would make the boat 2 to 300 Kg lighter if it was light furniture.

The Centurion 40S hull is .55m longer and has more free board than the Opium. This could account for quite a few 100Kg.

If indeed the Opium is as light as quoted then it must be due to less fiberglass and hence not as robust - because as you say they all use basla core and vinylester resin. If I were you I would ask Wauquiez - how come so light compared to the Azuree or Centurion 40S.

As to the robustness of hulls here's a picture of a Centurion 40S keel after hitting rocks (see Material strength and fatigue - Page 2 - Boat Design Forums)

Vehicle Naval architecture Boat Sloop Sailboat


The boat hit rocks at 8 knots, broke mast but did not make water.

Modern boats are tough but they weight a bit.
 
#1,005 ·
I am much more relieved...I mean regarding to making sense:D :D :D :D

By the way, that picture of a Centurion 40 with a bent keel was taken by me, in the Rias Bajas. That boat really impressed me. Of course the keel was lead and only that explains that the hull had taken so well such a big blow. The keel deformed itself absorbing part of the blow, but I can tell you that there was not the minimum fissure between the keel and the hull...nothing, the boat looked like new:)

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,002 ·
Many tousands of boats are sold today with very low ballast ratios. Multihulls cruise the oceans with no ballast at all. Ovni - boats with bad AVS values are sailed by representatives for the blue water cruising scenery. 99% of the sailing is done in pristine conditions I guess.

Elan 350, as mentioned here, has only 26% ballast ratio and is praised all over the place. AVS I do not know. A normal hull shaped boat with single rudder and 26% ballast ratio, almost regardless of how deep down, would not make my short list. On the other hand, if main objective is to reduce risks, one should totally look the other way I think. The wide stern with a huge distance to fall if you loose grip I think is more of a risk than bad AVS.

Having 2 very flat boxes in the water with the same volume and width but different weights, one with a keel with 1850 kg on it, the other (heavier box) with 2050 kg sticking up towards the sky the same distance, I wonder if the difference in flipping "back" would be that different. As a novice I even speculate the heavier box should be floating deeper an should perhaps flip back quicker, or am I thinking wrong here? This could be a subjekt for many pages, or have perhaps already been?

Regarding the manufacturing of the Opium, I saw in the factory cut out examples of the hull. I also saw a boat with hull ready made but no interior. The core is really balsa, as they say themselves (hull core balsa, deck pvc sandwich). And yes, the laminate is very thin. As I said before, it was very similar to the blasa hull laminate set up of my old Dehler, buth thinner laminate. After having had another boat before, where a minor leak in the under water area caused water ingress in the whole hull through the canals in the divinycell sandwich and major costs to dry the hull, this is one of my major concerns if I buy an Opium, or any boat with a full balsa cored hull. Wet balsa I think is difficult to dry, wet divinycell does not get destroyed. In my mind it does not take that much of a log or small stone on the beach and an aft anchor that looses grip in the night and I basically have to lift the boat out of water immeaditly to make repairs. That is also a some sort of risk when sailing over oceans.

Regards,
Anders
 
#1,009 · (Edited)
Many tousands of boats are sold today with very low ballast ratios. Multihulls cruise the oceans with no ballast at all. Ovni - boats with bad AVS values are sailed by representatives for the blue water cruising scenery. 99% of the sailing is done in pristine conditions I guess.
Anders, I am not used to be on the conservative side of the palisade but you are talking of different things. A multihull has 3 or 4 times more stability than a similar sized monohull and uses that factor to compensate the absence of safety stability and it is true that OVNI has bad AVS but they compensate that with the ability to glide when caught by a breaking wave. They don't trip on their keels and that compensates the relatively low AVS. But the OVNI AVS is in the same area of the AVS I saw on the Azuree cruiser Stability curve and the Azuree has a keel to trip on, even if it is not a large one;) .

Elan 350, as mentioned here, has only 26% ballast ratio and is praised all over the place. AVS I do not know. A normal hull shaped boat with single rudder and 26% ballast ratio, almost regardless of how deep down, would not make my short list. On the other hand, if main objective is to reduce risks, one should totally look the other way I think. The wide stern with a huge distance to fall if you loose grip I think is more of a risk than bad AVS.
I have saw the stability curve of the Elan 350 and its alright (AVS around 120º). You know one of the problems with the weight of a boat is that technically speaking there are a lot of weights in a boat: There are light weight, minimum sailing condition weight, medium weight and Max load weight.

They don't always say the type of weight they are talking about. In the Azuree and Opium they say that it is light weight, but on the Elan 350 they don't say of what weight they are talking about. It can be minimum sailing weight and that will increase that B/D by a bit. If you see the technical specification under documentation (on Elan site) you will see that the weight given is approximatively 5000kg.

But you have a point, the Azuree 40 cruiser stability are not probably as bad as I have painted it (even if it has a relatively bad AVS) but it is also true that the Azuree fast cruiser has a better AVS, is a more stiff boat than the Azuree cruiser and that the Opium 39 has stiffness and stability characteristics closer (or better) than the Fast cruiser. The Opium should be compared with the Fast cruiser, not with the Azuree cruiser.

Regarding the manufacturing of the Opium, I saw in the factory cut out examples of the hull. I also saw a boat with hull ready made but no interior. The core is really balsa, as they say themselves (hull core balsa, deck pvc sandwich). And yes, the laminate is very thin. As I said before, it was very similar to the blasa hull laminate set up of my old Dehler, buth thinner laminate. After having had another boat before, where a minor leak in the under water area caused water ingress in the whole hull through the canals in the divinycell sandwich and major costs to dry the hull, this is one of my major concerns if I buy an Opium, or any boat with a full balsa cored hull. Wet balsa I think is difficult to dry, wet divinycell does not get destroyed. In my mind it does not take that much of a log or small stone on the beach and an aft anchor that looses grip in the night and I basically have to lift the boat out of water immeaditly to make repairs. That is also a some sort of risk when sailing over oceans.
Here I agree with you, even if a thinner laminate could have stronger mechanical characteristics than a much thick laminate. It has to do with the impregnation of the resin under vacuum, its homogeneity and with the technique and kind of fiberglass and they use a multiaxial top laminate.

I would prefer a boat built with a plastic core instead of balsa. As you know Dehler use the system and they still do the standard new Dehler 41 with a balsa core even if they use plastic for the more "racing" version. I have asked the guy from Dehler why they still used balsa has core instead of plastic. The guy said they had not a single problem with their balsa cored hulls. I don't know if that is true or not but the Dehler has a very good reputation in what concerns the integrity of hulls, even in older boats.

But you should know that better than me. Do you know of any Dehler with problems in the balsa core?

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,007 ·
G1000, I agree.

What puzzles me is that two boats made from the same material for the hull (ok, balsa-sandwich different), both using vacuum and the heavier even 50% carbon in the cloth, can end up with such a big difference in weight. And even if Opium is using sandwich for the interior panels, they have no carbon in it at all. So can the interior panels really be that much more heavy or bigger in numbers in Azuree. Or are they bad in getting the vinylester out of the laminate despite vacuum? Or do they use more glasfiber? But then on the other hand, I get a stronger boat.

They (Azuree, Sirena Marine) do also build Azimuth motor yachts. Weight not so important perhaps but they are not new to boat building of rather high end boats. According to Yachting World they also make composite work for the military. Perhaps bullet proof is their motto?:)

Regards,
Anders
 
#1,008 · (Edited)
Azuree 40FC displacement is a puzzle. In all magazines and first catalog - 6700kg (7600kg Cruiser), but latter changed to 7100kg (7300kg). Plus prices are also increased. I just wonder why. Or maybe it's common to test very light prototype to get better reviews?

At the end of the day you never know the truth ;) First is data value from the manufacturer and the second is the measured one in the tests:

Bavaria 36 5500 / 6200kg
Bavaria 37 6900 / 6945kg
Dehler 36 6000 / 6800kg
First 36.7 5870 / 6085kg
Elan 37 5900 / 7087kg
Finngulf 37 6000 / 6455kg
X-37 6400 / 6953kg
Salona 37 6200 / 6535kg
Arcona 37 6200 / 6520kg
Swedestar 6200 / 6620kg
Delphia 37 5850 / 6310kg
Oceanis 6515 / 6535kg
Sun Odyssey 37 6100 / 6853kg
Linjett 37 6700 / 6845kg
Hanse 370 7200 / 8150kg
Hanse375 7200 / 7763kg
Hanse 371 7200 / 7800kg

myHanse - Hanse Yachts Owners Forum: Hanse 371 weighted
 
#1,011 ·
Still, having built over 70 windsurfing boards myself I find it very strange to end up with these differences in weight if using the same material and technology. And according to Yachting World Azuree also have sandwich in the interior. Perhaps we really need to include strength in our evaluations because it is no rocket sience involved here.

As said before, weights do tend to go up from early calculations and test boats, when brochures are made, I wonder why. Strange though that, as said before, Azuree FC goes from 6700 to 7100 and Cruiser from 7600 to 7300 kg.

Anyway, Yahting World and Yacht both commented on the weight and where both impressed by sailing characteristics. What is disturbing me is that all tests of the Azuree 40 is with the fast cruiser.

Best regards,
Anders
 
#1,013 · (Edited)
..
As said before, weights do tend to go up from early calculations and test boats, when brochures are made, I wonder why. ..
Once a builder have commented that with me. When a boat is designed by an Architect they make weight calculations based on the optimal use of materials.

Optimizing materials is an expensive process that is mostly done in what regards racing were the cost is not that important. They are going to make an one off and the boat is going to be expensive anyway. When you want to produce a boat cost becomes a major issue and maximizing materials to the limit is not an absolute priority anymore. Yes they will try to maximize materials if it is not too expensive taking into consideration production costs.

That's why on production boats the weight is rarely the one specified by the designer and why more expensive boats can be lighter even using the same material: Costs considerations on production regarding difficult execution and control of quality to obtain the strength/weight required by the designer. More expensive boats have a bigger margin in what concerns that cost consideration.

I remember that some years ago Bavaria had a very fast line of boats called Match. They had problems with the keels of the 42 and abandoned the project. It turned out that for producing a boat were the materials are optimized you have to have a quality control that is hard to get on a big production line or impossible without a substantial increase in costs. Optimizing materials gives no place for any mistake in the production.

I remember also, and I was impressed by it, that on the Salona shipyard they showed to me that they use transparent gelcoat bellow the water line on the lighter boats (vacuum infused boats) to be sure that there are no minor flaws on the laminate. Quality control is a big issue when you maximize materials because a mistake or a defect can have drastic consequences and the Salonas are not extremely light, the 41 weights between 7200 and 6600kg (vacuum infused boat with lighter material interior) and that without keel will be 4800 to 4200Kg, values that on the lighter version are not as good as the ones from Opium but better than the ones from Azuree even on the fast version.

Here you can see, on the right side of the image, that bottom clear gel-coat that permits to see all the laminate behind:



Of course we have to take into consideration that the Azuree is a more beamy boat and that therefore the hull will weight more but also that the Salona has an interior stainless steel frame that redistributes all keel and shrouds efforts by the hull. I don't know if the weigh of the frame compensates what they can win on the hull weight, but that will give a bigger safety margin on the more critical points of a light sailboat: Keel and shrouds attachments to the hull.

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,012 ·
This is Azurees comment in the matter:

About the ballast ratio, as you would have already found out, the hull shape of Azuree, and in general this type of hulls, enables a lower ballast ratio with compared to traditional hull designs.

Between our Cruiser and Fast Cruiser, the biggest difference is the longer (and carbon) mast and the much bigger sail plan of the FC. The sail plan for FC offers wider sail areas and comes with a fat head main sail, which puts more force to the upper side of the sails. Consequently, this requires more righting moment, hence the deeper keel. On the other hand, both our versions offer a performance cruiser type sailing. One Azuree 40 Cruiser has recently won La Ruta de la Sal race from Barcelona to Ibiza with our 40' Cruiser reaching speeds of 21 knots with a very comfortable feeling. I can put you in touch with the Spanish skipper of that boat( a well-kown regattist in Spain), if you would like.

When it comes to comparing Opium 39 and Azuree 40 in terms of weight, firstly Opium is a much smaller boat. Comparing LWLs, it is 1 meters shorter than Azuree. But more importantly, standard Opium 39 comes with 2 cabins and 1 head, so it offers much less interiors in terms of layout. Also, Azuree has more details in the interior.
 
#1,014 · (Edited)
This is Azurees comment in the matter:

About the ballast ratio, as you would have already found out, the hull shape of Azuree, and in general this type of hulls, enables a lower ballast ratio with compared to traditional hull designs.

Between our Cruiser and Fast Cruiser, the biggest difference is the longer (and carbon) mast and the much bigger sail plan of the FC. The sail plan for FC offers wider sail areas and comes with a fat head main sail, which puts more force to the upper side of the sails. Consequently, this requires more righting moment, hence the deeper keel. On the other hand, both our versions offer a performance cruiser type sailing. One Azuree 40 Cruiser has recently won La Ruta de la Sal race from Barcelona to Ibiza with our 40' Cruiser reaching speeds of 21 knots with a very comfortable feeling. I can put you in touch with the Spanish skipper of that boat( a well-kown regattist in Spain), if you would like.

When it comes to comparing Opium 39 and Azuree 40 in terms of weight, firstly Opium is a much smaller boat. Comparing LWLs, it is 1 meters shorter than Azuree. But more importantly, standard Opium 39 comes with 2 cabins and 1 head, so it offers much less interiors in terms of layout. Also, Azuree has more details in the interior.
Yes they basically confirm what I have said but regarding this: "The sail plan for FC offers wider sail areas and comes with a fat head main sail, which puts more force to the upper side of the sails. Consequently, this requires more righting moment, hence the deeper keel."

A deeper keel is not the only way of getting the needed stability to carry more sail. They can get the same stability with a shorter draft with more ballast. Many shipyards use this method to offer the same stability with different drafts. They have chose not to do so. That extra stability is not only important to carry more sail but to increase the AVS and the safety stability.

What I have said is that lesser stability on the cruising boat standard version while enough to carry its sail is not enough to offer a good reserve safety stability and a good AVS. The Fast cruising version is not only faster, but also safer offering a much better AVS and a much better reserve safety stability. That was what I was calling your attention too. It is up to you to decide if what offers the cruising version is good enough for you and the type of sailing you want to do. I was also pointing out that the Opium 39 offers the same kind of reserve stability and AVS that is offered by the Fast cruiser and therefore much better than what is offered by the standard Azuree cruiser.

Regarding that race "La ruta del Sal", the results are impressive on real time even if the weather conditions were ideal for a downwind maximized boat. Pity there was not there other similar types of boats to compare, but let me tell you that their publicity is misleading. They talk about an Azuree cruising sailboat and that boat is certainly an Azuree fast cruising boat and probably prepared for racing. A standard Azuree cruising boat would not be able to reach 21K downwind and could not have done that performance;)

RESULTADOS « Ruta de la Sal

Regards

Paulo
 
#1,023 · (Edited)
Some more pictures of the Dehler 41.

These are the only ones that I can get from the interior and confirm what I have saw on those drawings: They better find a new interior designer:D

Contrary to other Dehlers the interior of this one does not look good. The mast is on the middle of the boat and that is a problem that cannot be avoided, therefore all the interior design have to be made taking that into consideration and not pretending the mast is not there (has they have done in the drawings). To compensate that this interior has to be firm and strong in its lines, not an indifferent design like the one that is purposed. That space between the drawers without a port hull just looks ridiculous. It should have a port hull bigger than the other two.

I really hope they can improve it because it is a shame such a good looking boat with such a lame interior. I believe they know that but they did not even figure out yet what to do with the saloon table, never mind the rest. The solution of letting the space free is a good one but they have to figure out a practical solution for the table. Up in the ceiling and coming down around the mast it would be a nice solution;). Nice but bold and they are quite conservative so I bet they will end up with a stepped mast and a shinny small chromed tube instead of that mast inside the cabin (like on the Oceanis 37), at least in the cruising versions.



 
#1,024 ·
I have the same feeling, Paulo.
Even assuming this interior is only a first try, it does not meet the Dehler standards as I know them. Even with a table and hull windows, it will remain a quite dark "Swiss chalet" like interior with the look & feel of the past century.

Having sailed "old" Dehlers extensively (31, 34, 35 OD, 39, 44) and after reading about some of the "new" releases since Hanse took over, I start to worry about downgrading.

If this is not too much out of thread, I wonder how other "aficionados" of the original Dehler brand such as Anders feel about this.

Best regards,

Eric
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top