Ocean racing has always moved forward through a mixture of bold ideas, hard-earned experience and the occasional leap into the unknown. Sometimes designers tear up the old drawings and begin again. Sometimes they take what already works, sharpen every edge and trust that steady progress will beat dramatic reinvention. The first edition of The Ocean Race Atlantic brought both approaches together in one of the most fascinating design confrontations the IMOCA class had seen for years. On one side stood DMG MORI Global One, the striking Guillaume Verdier design sailed by Japanese skipper Kojiro Shiraishi.
On the other sat Malizia 4, the slimmer Antoine Koch and Finot-Conq creation developed for German skipper Boris Herrmann. Both yachts had been launched in Lorient only weeks earlier. Both represented the very latest thinking in solo and fully crewed ocean racing. Yet place them alongside each other and they barely appeared to belong to the same class. One was broad, powerful and radical beneath the waterline. The other was narrow, sharply drawn and shaped by lessons learned in the wildest seas on the planet. This was not simply a contest between two new boats. It was a test of two completely different beliefs about how an IMOCA should move through the ocean.
DMG MORI Global One Chose Revolution DMG MORI Global One immediately attracted attention when she first touched the water. Her hull carried a feature never previously seen on an IMOCA: a pronounced central bustle running along the length of the underwater profile. It was more than an unusual shape. It represented a deliberate rejection of accepted IMOCA thinking. Most modern IMOCA hulls had traditionally been designed around the assumption that the boat would spend much of its life heeled over. Their broad, rounded forms aimed to reduce wetted surface as the yacht leaned onto one side and accelerated. Verdier chose another path. His design was intended to sail at a much lower angle of heel, often around eight or nine degrees, allowing the boat to ride more upright on the central bustle. The concept borrowed something from modern foiling multihulls and AC75 Americas Cup yachts, where keeping the platform stable and reducing drag can unlock enormous performance gains. Verdier believed the bustle could carry the boats displaced volume while reducing wetted area by a significant margin. That saving mattered. Less drag meant earlier lift. Earlier lift meant more time foiling. More stable flight potentially meant less violent movement for the crew and better sustained performance over long distances. The result looked unlike anything that had gone before. Team manager Jacques Caras described the boat as a new page in IMOCA design, which felt entirely appropriate. For months, rivals had waited to see whether the theory would work. The new hull promised stability, reduced drag and improved comfort. The Atlantic would determine whether those promises could survive real offshore conditions.
Malizia 4 Chose Evolution Malizia 4 took a very different route. Herrmann did not ignore modern design thinking, but neither did he ask his designers to reinvent the class from first principles. Instead, his team drew heavily upon proven performance from the 2024-25 Vende Globe. The hull came from the same family of designs developed through a three-boat collaboration involving Herrmann, Thomas Ruyant and Los Berrehar. Each yacht shared the same basic hull shape, while internal layouts and ergonomics were adapted to suit the individual skipper and programme. The concept had already been informed by the performances of Ruyant and Yoann Richomme in the Southern Ocean, where Antoine Kochs designs had shown an impressive ability to maintain speed through heavy running conditions and large waves. Malizia 4 carried that thinking forward. Her bow was narrower and more pointed than DMG MORIs, with pronounced double chines designed to control the boat when pushing hard downwind. Those chines helped the hull engage with the sea rather than simply crash through it. The aim was not only to preserve speed, but to maintain control when the boat was sailing fast in difficult offshore conditions. Team Malizia co-skipper Will Harris explained that the new design had been developed as a more complete all-rounder than the previous boat. Downwind power remained important. Upwind and lighter-air performance had also received far more attention. The team wanted a yacht capable of carrying its speed across a broader range of wind angles instead of excelling only when the breeze was behind her. That balance could prove essential in a transatlantic race where the route rarely offers a single mode for long.
Two Boats That Looked Like Different Classes Herrmann was quick to point out just how far apart the two concepts had become. DMG MORI Global One appeared wide, powerful and almost sculpted around her central bustle. Malizia 4 looked leaner, sharper and more conventional at first glance, although her bow sections and foil package told a more sophisticated story. Herrmann remarked that the two boats looked as though they belonged to different classes. He was not exaggerating. Their shapes revealed different assumptions about heel angle, drag, stability and the way the hull should interact with waves. DMG MORI aimed to remain upright and reduce wetted surface through its central spine. Malizia aimed to slice, lift and stay controllable while preserving power through multiple conditions. One concept sought a breakthrough. The other sought refinement.
The First Foiling Runs Offered Early Encouragement Malizia 4s first days afloat gave the German team plenty of reasons for optimism. The opening sail had been a cautious shakedown in light conditions, allowing the crew to test systems and examine the new sail inventory. The second outing transformed the mood. In around 12 knots of wind and flat water, the boat lifted into stable flight. Herrmann described the yacht as balanced, responsive and easy to control longitudinally. The helm felt lighter. The flight felt calmer. The boat reacted more precisely than its predecessor. Within minutes, the team knew they had something special beneath them. That first stable flight did not prove the entire concept. Nothing in offshore racing is proven until the boat has survived rough seas, long nights, repeated manoeuvres and the relentless fatigue of real competition. Still, the signs were encouraging. Systems worked. The foil package delivered lift. The hull behaved as expected. For a newly launched IMOCA, that counted as a major victory.
Launching Was Only the Beginning A new IMOCA may look complete when she first enters the water, but the real work begins afterwards. Every system must be tested. Hydraulics need to function under load. Electronics must survive spray, vibration and fatigue. Sails must be matched to the real boat rather than computer models. Foils require calibration. Steering systems need refinement. Crew ergonomics must be tested during long watches and difficult manoeuvres. Harris warned against underestimating the challenge of preparing such a complex yacht for a transatlantic crossing. The teams had only a limited window between launch and departure for New York. Technical support would disappear once the boats left Europe. Every weakness had to be found before the Atlantic found it first. That pressure made the first crossing almost as significant as the race itself. A fast boat is useless if the systems fail. A radical design means little if it cannot be trusted offshore. Reliability has always been the quiet partner of speed.
The Ocean Race Atlantic Became the Perfect Test The inaugural Ocean Race Atlantic offered an ideal proving ground for both projects. The route from New York to Lorient placed the new yachts in the North Atlantic, where changing weather systems, steep seas and long periods of high-speed sailing would expose strengths and weaknesses quickly. Fully crewed IMOCA racing also placed different demands upon the boats than solo competition. More sailors meant more weight. More people also meant harder, faster manoeuvres and the possibility of pushing the yacht closer to its limits for longer periods. The race therefore became far more than a line on the calendar. It was the first serious examination of whether revolution or evolution had produced the better offshore machine.
Old Ideas Rarely Disappear Completely Sailing design rarely offers a clean victory for one philosophy. The most radical concept may produce extraordinary speed in one set of conditions and struggle in another. The more conservative boat may prove reliable and rounded, yet lack the final edge needed to win. Future IMOCA yachts will probably borrow from both. DMG MORIs upright sailing concept may influence hulls still sitting on design office screens. Malizias controlled downwind geometry and all-round balance may prove equally important. The real lesson was not that one side had found the answer. The lesson was that the class continued to ask better questions. How upright should an IMOCA sail? How much hull volume should remain in the water? How should the bow behave at 30 knots in a Southern Ocean swell? How much comfort translates into sustained crew performance? How much radical thinking can reliability tolerate? Those questions will shape the next generation of offshore yachts.
A Glimpse of IMOCAs Future When Malizia 4 and DMG MORI Global One finally raced against each other, they represented more than two teams chasing a trophy. They represented the restless nature of ocean racing itself. Designers search for drag reductions measured in fractions. Sailors chase stability measured in seconds. Teams spend years building boats that may be judged within a few weeks. The sea then delivers the final verdict. DMG MORI arrived carrying one of the boldest underwater shapes the class had ever seen. Malizia arrived with a refined platform shaped by Vende Globe experience and a clear belief in versatility. Both boats pushed the IMOCA class forward. One did it by challenging convention. The other did it by learning from everything that came before.
That contrast made their first Atlantic meeting compelling.
Revolution had met evolution.
The ocean decides what worked.