Yachting World – Expert Guides, Boat Reviews & Luxury Sailing News

Start with a three-month projeto that compares sailboats under real conditions. Use a fixed test roster around imocas, ostar e metis, plus two close alternatives, and run them in predictable winds from the vendée coast. This delivers very actionable data quickly, letting teams become confident in the best fit for a given campaign.

Set metrics: velocity over water, stability index at different heel angles, energy use of systems, sail area to displacement ratios. Use a single data logger, standardised measurement points, and a finite number of sea states. Document final results with features like foil configurations, daggerboards, or conventional keels. This collaboration with engineers will shorten the feedback loop and open up new possibilities for imagination.

Collect data from vessels that are used in offshore routines, so results reflect real wear rather than glossy simulations. If a test regime yields a narrower performance band than expected, refine the plan. Even when trials are still limited, you can open new hypotheses thereby narrowing uncertainty and stimulating imagination. This data can be made actionable for decision-makers in procurement and chartering.

Include vessels whose designers have a former collaboration history with their teams to understand the intent behind each feature. Lean on the know-how e expertise of manufacturers and naval architects, and publish a concise final profile for each model, focusing on features that practitioners care about: weight distribution, control systems, and hull form.

Offer a practical path: convene a vendée-focused testing window with a shipyard, crew, and operators to formalize the data flow. This collaboration removes friction and gives readers a clear set of decision criteria, including budget, maintenance cadence, and spare-part availability. If you havent tested a model in reality, start with the three focal options and document the features most relevant to your plan.

The aim is to deliver a clear framework: after the testing, present a final verdict on which platform best fits a given profile, and provide step-by-step actions: obtain quotes, run a short-term rental, and schedule a second-phase audit to verify results. Readers who value open data and imagination will appreciate the plan’s clarity and order.

52 SUPER SERIES in Majorca: Harm Müller-Spreer’s victory and the case for classic monohulls

Opt for classic monohulls in Majorca assessments: reliability and predictable handling across conditions, while the shape, typically narrower, reduces rolling and drag. Crews themselves report steadier performance, especially when fitted gear emphasizes ballast and trim, with solent conditions and offshore legs testing the limits.

Harm Müller-Spreer’s triumph confirms the enduring value of Verdier-designed lines, refined by thomsons and influenced by figaro-inspired detailing and fives concepts. These machines offer a clear capacity range and robust specifications that endure years of use. The second-place runs by rivals show that, before later iterations arrived, reliability and disciplined tactics often trump sheer speed, provided the boat remains fitted with proven systems that balance stiffness and ease of handling.

In counterpoint to trend-driven builds, classic monohulls still deliver compelling results in this circuit. The shape is typically narrower, which reduces drag and improves balance in heavy air, while the overall performance hinges on crew communication and precise trimming. Often, the best outcomes come from bold decisions in the mid-range winds, with a hare-like ability to surge and re-set trim as gusts shift.

Before embracing newer-generation designs, teams tested a straightforward suite of specifications that favored reliability over exotic weight-saving measures. Much of the value lies in components and fittings that stay dependable after years at sea, while later upgrades refine but do not overshadow the core balance. These boats, when properly prepared, remain capable of strong performance in regattas that mix variable seas and wind.

What sponsor and ownership signals does Müller-Spreer’s win send for the series?

Recommendation: expect sponsorship to lock in a multi-year program tied to specified sustainability milestones, and ownership signals that push long-term collaboration with builders and the association to secure continuity across generations.

• Funding alignment and association signals
  • Within the next cycle, sponsors will seek a measurable effect on development budgets and sustainability initiatives, embedding a visible return for partners while supporting finishing work on the yacht and its sails.
  • Since Müller-Spreer’s win raised the level of performance, the level of support is likely to be tied to a formal association with builders and a wide sailor programme, often accompanied by cross-brand collaboration.
  • Part of the strategy is to keep the investment full and transparent, ensuring the ac75 platform remains at the forefront of acceleration and refinement.
• Ownership signals and handover strategy
  • Handover after this generation becomes a core part of governance, with a specified calendar that transitions leadership to the next sailor cohort and the broader crew group.
  • Recently raced campaigns show ownership shifting toward collaboration with builders and the association, rather than a single sponsor, to sustain momentum across seasons.
  • The approach should maintain control of development, including the specified parameters for sails, rigging, and yacht systems, while ensuring a smooth handover to the next generation of specialists and sailors.
  • In this context, a dedicated sailor mindset matters: a single sailor’s skill remains critical, but the strategy hinges on collective performance across crews.
• Impact on development, materials and finish
  • The signals influence how yachts are designed and finished, with a focus on long-term durability, reduced maintenance cycles, and a clear view of seconds saved per race through refined control systems.
  • AC75-class operations require a long-term investment in hulls, sails, and finishing details, forming a fundamental part of the plan to sustain competitiveness.
  • Builders and sailors must work in tandem to shorten feedback loops, ensuring the most advanced components are used in every event and that the collaboration remains productive.
• Strategic guidance for teams and organizers
  • Establish specified milestones for sustainability goals, with a transparent handover calendar and a documented collaboration plan with the association and builders.
  • Keep crews aligned with performance targets while ensuring the yacht’s systems support ongoing development and testing at events.
  • In the upcoming edition, aim to finish with minimized gaps in seconds, demonstrating consistent improvement rather than isolated bursts of speed.
• Broader implications for the series
  • This win reinforces a partnership-driven model where sponsorships underpin a shared development roadmap across generations, rather than standalone campaigns.
  • Macif and other collaborators may intensify their involvement, given the demonstrated potential to accelerate the evolution of ac75 platforms and to sustain a high level of performance.
  • The effective structure should conserve resources for ongoing testing, while allowing for a measured handover that doesn’t disrupt the overall trajectory of the association’s goals.

How do classic monohulls compare to foiling sailboats in cost, maintenance, and race-day reliability?

Choose classic monohulls for the maximum balance of cost efficiency and reliable hours of operation; foiling boats demand higher upfront investment and longer, specialized upkeep, thereby limiting the field to those with committed technicians and strong backers; thats the reality for most clubs.

Cost comparison shows a sharp split: used classic monohulls in the 40–60 ft range typically fetch 1–4 mills, with fitted gear adding 0.2–0.8 mill; new builds in the same category run roughly 4–8 mills. Foiling sailboats of similar size start around 15–25 mills, with premium carbon foils and high‑tech control systems pushing models toward 40–60 mills, a premium carried by carbon fiber and electronics. Those figures influence club choices, prestige ambitions, and the speed at which a program can become self‑funding; they also help teams achieve a predictable planning horizon.

Maintenance hours highlight the difference: historic mono fleets usually require 100–250 hours per year for rigging, sails, and winches; foiling platforms demand 250–600 hours owing to foil inspections, carbon work, hydraulics, and electronics. The heavier maintenance load translates into higher annual spending on parts, spares, and yard time, especially when margins are tight. In this context, german technicians and yard crews become critical for keeping fleets within schedule and keeping crews themselves in top shape.

Race-day reliability favors classic hulls when the skipper requires a steady, predictable program: ballast behavior, manageable heel, and simpler sail plans provide a clear path to a winning result under a broad range of conditions. Foiling machines shine on flat water with consistent wind, delivering fast gains but requiring precise ballast and trimming, while remaining fragile in chop or crowded starts; that makes foiling an almost impossible proposition for a small, underfunded team. Short-handed crews may struggle with the precision needed for foils, so the monohull option often becomes the safer, more durable choice, thereby reducing risk on race day.

For clubs chasing prestige and a historic vibe, a fitted classic monohull can become the dependable workhorse within a sensible budget. As told, those following that reliability comes first, with less downtime and fewer hours spent on repairs. If the aim is to achieve maximum speed on favorable courses, a dedicated foiling program–with german technicians, a strong yard, and a carefully planned spares strategy–can be pursued, though it carries greater risk and expense. A dorange accent hull signals modern iteration for the following generation; catamarans aside, the single-hull approach remains the most reliable path to a consistent, winning season.

Which race formats, boat classes, and crew roles keep monohull fleets viable in a foiling era?

Adopt a tri-track program: enforce fixed one-design monohull fleets, maintain measured handicap divisions (IRC/ORC), and run short-course regattas that reward crew coordination over foil-assisted speed.

One-design keelboat groups keep racing tight and costs predictable. Implement a ship registry and a mandatory equipment list to prevent costly tweaks while allowing rule-aligned upgrades. Championships should rotate among venues with wind ranges near 12–22 knots to ensure comparable conditions; August events often offer steadier air, reducing variance. Vendée-style long days can test endurance, yet the core format should emphasize mark roundings and tactical shifts. Target 6–8 boats per class in regular fleets and up to 10 in larger keelboat divisions to preserve pace; older hulls stay competitive when they stay within the registry and focus on hull maintenance, sail plans, and crew discipline.

Boat classes must mirror the scale of the fleet: nimble sport keelboats for lively racing and heftier, ballast-rich models for steady rhythm. Rules should keep upgrades simple and within a published list to avoid bifurcated fields; sail plans and ballast must remain comparable, ensuring the hull, wind, and deck work drive results. Skipper leadership pairs with a navigator and tactician; the deck team handles halyards and sail changes while the interior crew keeps cargo, safety gear, and supplies in order. Each race becomes a test of crew communication and boat handling, with the hull and deck telling most of the story on a windy day.

Crew roles are explicit: the skipper steers and sets strategy; the tactician reads wind shifts and current; the navigator maps the course and race strategy; the mainsail trimmer adjusts the main for boat speed; the headsail trimmer handles jibs; the bow crew manages starts, mark roundings, and dockwork; the pit coordinates lines, halyards, and sheet changes; grinders supply power during heavy wind segments; the sailor cohort supports with safety checks and interior organization; the dock becomes the classroom where each member learns their duties and adapts to the field.

Jérémie Bouvier notes that a registry-focused approach keeps sailboats viable while magnate owners back a clear project and keep budgets in check. An August schedule that respects the cadence of championships, paired with well-maintained hulls and decks, maintains safety and pleasure for sailors. The strategy blends older designs with disciplined crew work, balancing interior comfort and exterior performance, so the fleet remains robust against foiling upstarts and invites a new generation to race, goes, and learns at the dock.

Where can readers find practical expert guides, objective boat reviews, and updates on luxury sailing?

before you search deeper, start with reputable industry portals and project newsletters from yards and race organisations. They publish manuals, objective vessel assessments, and up-to-date reports reflecting years of hands-on testing, with support from independent labs and field trials.

through independent testing of hulls, rudder, rudders, ballast, foils, sails, and helm data, readers can compare water resistance, drag, and reliability without sponsorship filters, never biased, while networks provide cross-checks for added credibility.

recently, coverage from crews involved in the ac75 and figaro circuits shows how a twin or singlehanded setup affects helm feel and performance; examples from yacht-design cases illustrate how a yacht made of carbon behaves under load.

yann and hugo share notes from inception of circuits, explaining why some twin configurations dominated the field and how drag was reduced over decades, with results visible in competitive fleets pitched together.

to stay current, subscribe to services that publish updates after started tests and track final position changes, with increasing data sets to support decision-making.

before choosing, check if the publication allows readers to compare through a common framework, ensuring reliability and a clear view of how rudders or twin rudders influence water flow.

as you build a personal reference, note how the inception of classes like ac75 and figaro shapes design direction, and how ballast and sails are balanced to improve speed and stability.

What performance indicators should enthusiasts track when assessing a yacht for luxury cruising and competition?

Begin with a formal, tabulated dashboard that blends technical efficiency with comfort metrics. A single table should consolidate propulsion power, hull efficiency, drag, stability margins, and reliability, then translate them into concrete outputs: speed in knots, fuel or energy burn per nautical mile, and overall range under standard conditions. Structure the process into stages: initial used-yard screening, on-water testing in the Solent, and final sea trials, so the data builds a coherent narrative rather than isolated figures there.

Record displacement and weight distribution in tonnes, noting the balance between hull, deck fittings, and equipment. Track changes during retrofits or upgrades, especially when comparing older vessels against vintage designs. Document the ballast ratio, trim, and canting or passive stabilization features, since these drive overall handling and crew comfort before and during heavy seas.

Assess rig and sail plan through a dedicated module: fitted sails, sail-area-to-displacement ratios, and rig loads under increasing wind. Distinguish conventional layouts from more advanced configurations, and annotate features such as keels, daggerboards, or moveable ballast. Include data from müller-spreer-supplied rigs or similar, plus deck hardware and control lines, to evaluate practical controllability under competing conditions and busy race starts.

Evaluate reliability and build quality by compiling maintenance history, failure rates, and accessibility of critical systems. Use official logs and work orders to rate durability, then cross-check with the rules and limits that govern class compliance. Mention specific references like davies or verdier when comparing design lineage, and note whether the vessel’s construction is full-custom or mass-produced, as this impacts long-term serviceability.

Score deck and interior practicality: cabin count, layout efficiency, noise and vibration levels, air quality, and habitability under long passages. There must be a clear, quantitative readout for comfort (cabins, heads, galley) alongside structural integrity, so “older” layouts can be judged against modern expectations without bias. Include fittings, deck finish, and accessibility for routine checks, since these influence day-to-day reliability when underway there and back on extended voyages.

Map performance across conditions: wind shear, wave angle, and sea state. Use staged testing data to show how the yacht increases speed while preserving control and ride quality, and where limits appear – for example, under heavy gusts or in chop typical of vendée routes. Record peak speeds, turning performance, stopping distance, and the margin of safety against capsize risk, then translate into actionable guidance for both cruising plans and competitive entries.

Finally, align indicators with practical terms and budgeting constraints: quantify maintenance cycles, spare-part availability, and service network reach. Create an evidence-backed verdict that answers: is the vessel capable of high-end cruising comfort today while remaining competitive in the next season’s regattas, or does it demand substantial upgrades? There should be no ambiguity about ongoing work needed, and conclusions should reference specific figures from the table, the stages completed, and the adjacent limits set by official rules and owner terms, including how positions like giant keels or traditional Verdier hulls influence future prospects.