I think that the discussion about the HR 416 goes to the heart of much of the diversity of opinion about "What is a Blue water boat?".
While the hull form, structural capabilities and rig may be suitable for offshore cruising, its interior layout, detailing, storage provisions, and so are clearly better suited to coastal cruising. To me that is perfectly acceptable as design offered to the public as long as that is how the company portrays the design in their own literature and statements.
I am not sure I follow. We are talking about the HR 412? The structural capabilities and rig are suitable for offshore cruising, not “may be”. HR are known for their structural capabilities and also to be heavier boats with more ballast than lighter cruisers. The boat weights 11 100kg with a 4000kg ballast while the typical mass production 40ft cruiser has between 7500 and 9000kg with a ballast that goes from 2500 to less than 3000kg. The B/D ratio is 36% in a bulbed keel with a 1.99m draft. That puts the boat in what regards stiffness in the performance cruiser class and the sailing results are very good providing there is enough wind to overcome the extra weight.
In fact they say : “Thus far, the Swedes from Ellos only had the HR 40 with centre cockpit, which is said to remain in production. But now there’s also the new, sportier aft-cockpit version, which puts less emphasis on long-distance cruising.”
But of course this is just commercial publicity that has to do with the Halberg-Rassy maintaining the more traditional clients that see in a center cockpit a better blue water boat. That is just publicity designed not to take costumers away from the 40cc while they try to get new type of costumers for the Aft cabin boat (they make the two).
In fact the 40 HRcc that is advertised as “ a long distance cruiser of highest quality from the Swedish island Orust”
is slightly lighter and has just more 100kg of ballast but if we compare both curves we will see a not very different AVS ( 124º to 130º) but a substantially better GZ and much more RM on the 412 ( 7391kgm at 30º and 9829kgm as maxRM at 64.9) versus the 40CC ( 5000kgm at 30º and 7200Kgm as MaxRm at 65º).
The much more substantial stability and stifness on the Aft cockpit boat is due to a bigger beam ( 4.11m to 3.82m) and also to a more modern designed keel with a lower CG.
There is not a single reason to advertise the 40cc as a long distance cruiser and the 412 as a boat that puts less emphasis on long-distance cruising. In fact the only advantage of the CC is giving the possibility of a king's aft cabin at the cost of more windage and a more uncomfortable motion for the crew.
Regarding outside and inside storage in fact the two cabin version of the 412 offers a much better storage capacity, outside and inside, than any of the only two versions of the 40cc, both 2 cabin versions:
A boat with a better storage capacity and a boat with a bigger stability is only advertised as a boat that but less emphasis on long-distance cruising for not driving the traditional costumers of the CC boat away. The boat remains in production and that big aft cabin is what many customers want and the CC image is the traditional HR image that is associated with a blue water boat and they don't want to risk that, I mean the image.
But I also think, where these discussions begin to address the realities of boats like these, is that it would perhaps make sense to have a model option which is biased more toward regular offshore use. Offshore bunks, compartments and openings should by necessity be smaller, and there should be solid footholds and handholds. Rigs need to be a little more robust, and carefully conceived and secure storage needs to take a higher priority.
Here I don’t understand. The boat has offshore bunks (the two bunks in the saloon) and there are solid handholds everywhere:
And I contend that an offshore cruiser making three-four week hops in the Atlantic may not be the same boat as a distance voyaging yacht that crosses the vast open areas of the Pacific. Boats for circumnavigations and a Pacific crossing need to be far more independent and so place a much greater demand on carrying capacity, and storage volumes.
Yes I agree, that’s why the HR 412 two cabin version is more adapted to long distance cruising than the HR CC40 since it offers a better stability and a much bigger storage space.
It seems that I was not clear. My comments about the 412 lack of storage regard only the three cabin version. And that one in my book is not even fit for coastal cruising. As I have said the boat has not space to carry the fenders on the cockpit lockers. The lockers are really shallow to provide more interior space.
The boat has not the outside storage to carry what is needed even for proper coastal cruising. That is pretty ridiculous in a boat with obvious bluewater potential. I guess that they should not have made a 3 cabins version, but then there are probably some that will use the boat mostly at the marina and for weekend sailing and that will be enough for them. After all I see lots of boats sailing with the fenders over the deck and that is true that the 3 cabin interior really looks big on the boat show