Sorry paulo, I missed that roundup of those three boats. Probably agree with you re the Swedestar as the pick of that litter. Very nice and for me that keel makes a lot of sense for a cruising boat, though admittedly not a lot of difference to the HR or the X. From the pics looks to be high quality fitout. Having lived with curved cusions on settee with our Malo that is one interior feature that I have come to loath.
The XC was for me the highlight of the recent Sydney Boat Show though to be honest it didn't have much competition. Not quite up to Malo or HR in interior fitout but overall nice boat and as you say would almost certainly outperform the HR. Maybe a bit too much of a racer for me ? Not sure. Teak deck was not my idea of a quality deck but if I was buying new I wouldn't go teak deck, just cockpit.
I know it is conservative but ignoring the dollars I would still be happy with the HR, the interior works pretty well for me, overall best build quality if we exclude any Malos and small features for me make her a better all round long term cruiser.
I should go back and look at the similar sized current model Malos. I cannot remember why I dismissed them. Maybe because the comparative model(s) are getting a bit old now.
btw .... I love those turning blocks on the coachroof of the Comet. How clever is that ?
Now you get me confused
. I was hopping for your opinion about the Hanse 415 and a comment on posts 3072, 3073, 3074, pag 308 that are about the Hanse, that I know, it is a big sales success in Australia. I still would like your opinion about the boat and a comment on what was said
Your comments on the Halberg Rassy, Xc-Yacht, swedestar are more then welcomed but in what regards the Xc 42, its performances and sea motion I am afraid I do not agree with you. In fact I think that the boat is such a good looker that you associated it with a performance boat. It is not, it is a family offshore cruiser with the same sailing program of the HR.
To give you an idea of the difference of that boat to a performance cruiser from the XP line, the XP 44, a bigger boat weights 8650kg while the smaller XC 42 weights 11400kg.
The Xc42 is heavier than the HR412 but those extra 300kg are not due to an heavier hull but to a bigger B/D ratio. This will make the XC42 a better blue water boat (more stability and stifness) than the HR and has it is heavier, also more comfortable in a sea motion (even if the difference would be hardly noticeable) and in the end being better on both counts is also better on the third one, speed, but not for much and the difference will be found especially in bad weather upwind: more power
I hope to have convinced you that the XC is not a performance cruiser (much less a racer) and it is in fact a boat with the same program of the HR, because that is simply true
Regarding the interior I don't think it is a difference in quality but in style. The HR still has all those woods while the XC chooses more high quality synthetic materials, with wood being a part of them. The reason is weight, that on the XC is on the ballast and not on the hull. This is of course a question of taste and your's is as good as mine
I find the more modern interior of the XC 42 more appealing than the more traditional interior of the HR.
The Swedestar is a completely different animal and I would say that it has the traditional quality interior of the HR but in what regards program and performance it will be at mid way between the X performance line and the X cruising line and I think that is what makes it a very interesting boat for the ones that want to sail faster than on a HR or XC but want to do it with more comfort than on a typical performance cruiser.