Tracker analysis: Why ‘Malizia 4’ only came fourth despite having the fastest speed profile

Just under eight days across the North Atlantic, nearly 3,000 nautical miles, and in the end less than half an hour separating the top four boats: The Ocean Race Atlantic from New York to Lorient was an exceptionally close contest. “United by the Ocean” won the inaugural race in seven days, 23 hours, 39 minutes and 11 seconds. “11th Hour Racing” followed eight minutes and 56 seconds later, with “DMG MORI Global One” finishing 22 minutes and 29 seconds behind. Team Malizia reached Lorient after eight days, six minutes and 40 seconds: 27 minutes and 29 seconds behind the winner and exactly five minutes behind third place.

However, the rankings do not answer the question of which boat had the greatest speed potential under comparable conditions. That is the aim of this tracker analysis. It builds on the First tracker check after around 40 hours of racing … but now takes into account the entire race of the leading group – including the crucial damage to Malizia’s foil system.

Almost identical on average, but with a wide variation during the race

The position-based average speed over the entire race initially paints a fairly even picture. “United by the Ocean” and “Malizia 4” both clocked 16.96 knots, “11th Hour Racing” 16.94 knots and “DMG MORI Global One” 16.91 knots. There is a difference of just five hundredths of a knot between the highest and lowest figures.

The top speeds are also spread across several boats. “11th Hour Racing” recorded the best rolling six-hour average in the leading group, at 25.27 knots. “DMG MORI” covered 553.3 nautical miles during its strongest 24-hour stretch, averaging 23.05 knots. “United by the Ocean” lagged behind on both metrics – and still won. That is the crux of this analysis: it is not a single speed reading that decides an Atlantic race, but how long a team can maintain its favourable window and how effectively it converts this into progress towards the finish line.

​Position-based average speed was calculated from the tracker’s GPS positions:

The actual distance travelled between two consecutive position points was measured and divided by the time taken to cover that distance. If, for example, the positions were ten minutes and three nautical miles apart, this resulted in a speed of 18 knots.

It differs from the SOG – that is, ‘Speed over Ground’ – transmitted by the boat. Although both describe the boat’s speed relative to the seabed, they are derived from different data channels:

• Position-based speed: calculated retrospectively from the GPS track
• SOG: transmitted directly from the on-board instrument to the tracker

Position-based speed is particularly useful for analysis because it can be verified independently of the calibration of the on-board speed sensor. However, it is also influenced by the flow and, over long time intervals, may smooth out brief accelerations, manoeuvres or detours.

The race average mentioned here therefore refers to the total distance reconstructed from the GPS positions, divided by the race time taken to cover it. It is not the same as the direct distance between New York and Lorient divided by the time.

What the tracker data actually reveals

All available tracker and telemetry data from the six teams between the start on 2 September and the leading group’s finish on 10 September 2026 were analysed. The dataset comprises 59,802 telemetry points and 10,277 track points. When aligned to a common grid of ten-minute intervals, this resulted in 7,097 so-called boat-time bins.

​Boot-time bins are uniform time intervals into which the measurement data for each boat were sorted. In our analysis, each bin was ten minutes long.

The tracker did not always transmit the boats’ readings simultaneously or at regular intervals. For this reason, all the data was initially organised into a fixed ten-minute grid. This resulted in a separate data set for each boat and each time slot – in other words, a boat-time bin.

Such a bin contains, for example:

• GPS position
• position-based speed
• SOG and travelling through the water
• Course above ground level
• Wind speed
• true wind angle
• Distance or progress towards the target

. ‘7,097 boat-time bins’ does not, therefore, refer to 7,097 different points in time during the race. It refers to the ten-minute data sets from all the boats analysed, taken together.

For direct comparisons within the leading group, 1,783 sufficiently similar data points remained.

Speeds were not compared at random. Only sections in which two boats were travelling with their bows aligned, under similar reported wind speeds, comparable true wind angles and approximately the same course were included in the pair-wise comparisons. Furthermore, they were not allowed to be too far apart geographically. Phases involving significant course changes, manoeuvres, transmission gaps or obvious repair stops were excluded.

For the rigorous first A-comparison, the true wind speed was permitted to deviate by no more than one knot, the absolute true wind angle by no more than five degrees, and the course over ground by no more than ten degrees. The distance between the boats was limited to 25 nautical miles. A second ‘B’ comparison extended these limits to two knots, ten degrees, 20 degrees and 75 nautical miles.

The main measure used was the speed calculated from successive GPS positions. The data was cross-checked against the speed over ground (SOG) transmitted by the boats. In addition, the VMC was calculated: the proportion of the speed that is actually directed towards Lorient. Speed through the water is useful as a reference value, but is less reliable when comparing different boats because sensors and calibrations are not identical.

Against 11th Hour: An advantage in light and moderate winds

The most revealing comparison is between ‘Malizia 4’ and ‘11th Hour Racing’. Today’s 11th Hour is the former ‘Malizia-Seaexplorer’ – and thus the direct predecessor of the new Koch-Finot-Conq design. Whilst the older platform is regarded as strong in heavy seas and at high speeds on open courses, ‘Malizia 4’ was designed, amongst other things, for better performance upwind, in transitions and during early foiling. The design of the new boat had the YACHT classified before the race.

In the extended B comparison, 204 ten-minute pairs are available, corresponding to 34 nominal hours. ‘Nominal’ means that six accepted ten-minute intervals make up one hour, but they do not have to follow one another directly. Based on this sample, ‘Malizia 4’ averaged 1.14 knots faster than 11th Hour Racing in terms of on-board SOG. In terms of position-based GPS speed, the lead was 1.09 knots, and in terms of VMC, it was 1.05 knots.

This is particularly evident at true wind speeds of 12 to 16 knots. Between 55 and 75 degrees of absolute true wind angle, ‘Malizia 4’ was 1.66 knots faster over 7.17 nominal hours when using position-based navigation. At 95 to 115 degrees, the GPS advantage over five nominal hours was 2.03 knots. Even at wind speeds of eight to twelve knots and true wind angles of 75 to 95 degrees, the new Malizia was 1.52 knots ahead on average according to GPS.

As the wind picks up, the gap narrows. At 16 to 20 knots and 55 to 75 degrees, the GPS advantage shrank to 0.38 knots. Above 20 knots, there are too few reliable data points to draw a conclusive conclusion. It was precisely in this range, however, that 11th Hour made a strong impression with its best six-hour average. The data therefore does not confirm a blanket victory for the new-builds in every situation. Above all, it shows a clear advantage for ‘Malizia 4’ in the well-represented light and moderate wind conditions.

The more rigorous first A comparison comprises just 28 match-ups, or 4.67 nominal hours. In this comparison, ‘Malizia 4’ leads by just 0.13 knots in terms of SOG; the median is actually 0.49 knots lower. The sample size is too small to draw any clear conclusions about a platform advantage.

Against DMG MORI: a clear signal, but a conflicting window

In the extended B comparison with “DMG MORI Global One”, the results are clearer. Across 126 matchups, or 21 nominal hours, ‘Malizia 4’ led by 1.99 knots in terms of reported SOG, by 1.58 knots in GPS speed and by 1.88 knots in VMC. In this sample, DMG MORI even reported a slightly higher median wind speed of 14.24 knots than ‘Malizia 4’, which recorded 13.69 knots. An obvious wind advantage therefore does not explain Malizia’s lead.

The most resilient range is between 12 and 16 knots of wind and a true wind angle of 95 to 115 degrees. Over six nominal hours, ‘Malizia 4’ achieved a GPS speed that was 1.52 knots faster and a VMC that was 2.32 knots faster. At 16 to 20 knots and 55 to 75 degrees, it achieved a 2.20-knot GPS advantage over 3.67 nominal hours.

However, the opposite trend was also evident on wider courses. With winds of 16 to 20 knots and a bearing of 115 to 135 degrees, the VMC of ‘Malizia 4’ was 1.15 knots lower in a small sample. It was precisely this sort of sustained, fast reach in comparatively shallow water that DMG MORI was able to capitalise on before the final stage. The official race report described the Japanese team’s southern position as a favourable angle for fast, direct progress towards Lorient; on 9 September, DMG MORI was still leading the field as a result. The fast reach in shallow water proved to be a crucial window of opportunity for their subsequent podium finish.

The fact that ‘Malizia 4’ was often faster within controlled comparison windows but finished behind DMG MORI is therefore not a contradiction. The pair comparisons assess similar situations over a limited period of time. The race result assesses how long a team can utilise its optimal window, how directly it sails towards the finish and how well its weather position fits with the course of the race.

The foil impact changed the race

The key turning point was the foil impact during the night of 5 September. Prior to that, ‘Malizia 4’ was geographically around 32.8 nautical miles ahead of 11th Hour Racing and 53.6 nautical miles ahead of DMG MORI. Between 04:30 and 06:50 UTC, Malizia’s position-based average speed dropped to 5.02 knots whilst in the damage and repair window. During the same period, 11th Hour Racing sailed at 26.31 knots and DMG MORI at 23.02 knots. The relative lead stood at around 48.8 nautical miles over 11th Hour and 39.5 nautical miles over DMG MORI.

On 6 September, the regatta organisers confirmed that Malizia had dropped from first to fourth place following an impact on the port foil. Later, co-skipper Cole Brauer described the issue as a problem with the foil rake adjustment, which the crew had to resolve provisionally.

The damage cost them more than just ground. After the repairs, “Malizia 4” continued with limited foil adjustment and, at the same time, had lost touch with the fast-moving weather system. The gap widened at one point to around 120 nautical miles. The fact that Team Malizia reduced this gap to 27 minutes and 29 seconds behind the winner and five minutes behind DMG MORI by the time they reached Lorient is a strong indication of the boat’s potential. However, it is no proof that Malizia would have won had it not been for the damage.

United and 11th Hour decided the final stage with their positioning, angles and execution in the coastal calm. United benefited from a more northerly position off Lorient and built up a lead of about one nautical mile over 11th Hour in the light, shifty wind. The finish line off Île de Groix did not reward the boat with the highest top speed, but rather the crew that best capitalised on the final weather window.

What the analysis cannot prove

Public tracker data has clear limitations. It includes positions, headings, speeds and wind readings transmitted by the boats. However, there is a lack of consistent data on local wave height and direction, the chosen sail configuration, the ballast status, the exact foil position and the operating mode. Two boats may report the same wind force and wind angle, but be sailing in significantly different sea conditions.

Added to this is the current. SOG and GPS speed measure the journey over ground; they therefore include any advantages or disadvantages caused by the current. SOW could, in theory, better filter out this effect, but due to differences in sensor technology, it is not readily comparable between teams. Furthermore, the tracker channels were not always updated synchronously. Consequently, individual values are of little value, and only a comparison with the complete GPS track is meaningful.

The analysis does not reconstruct theoretical shipyard polars or a controlled sea trial. It describes observed performance under conditions that are as similar as possible, but never completely identical. Particularly in strong winds, the data must not be interpreted as a definitive statement about the design: sea state, sail selection, foil position and load limits all have a significant influence on the performance mode.

The bottom line: a fast time doesn’t necessarily mean victory

In the Atlantic leg of the Ocean Race, “Malizia 4” exhibited the widest observed light- and moderate-wind profile amongst the leading group, particularly between 55 and 115 degrees true wind angle. Compared with “11th Hour Racing”, the advantage is evident in a broader comparison, but is not proven in a very strict comparison due to the small sample size. Compared with “DMG MORI”, the signal is stronger and can be detected even before the foil strikes the water.

11th Hour demonstrated its strength in fast, tough offshore conditions. DMG MORI maintained a favourable broad reach for a particularly long time, making good headway. United by the Ocean ultimately won without setting a best time over six or 24 hours – thanks to the best overall combination of speed, reliability, positioning and course-holding.

Book recommendation

Boris Herrmann and the race around the world traces Team Malizia’s journey through the Ocean Race – from the development of what was then known as the ‘Malizia-Seaexplorer’ to the challenges, decisions and equipment issues faced in a round-the-world yacht race. This illustrated book provides an insight into the background of the project and explains why foils, preparation, crew procedures and resilience are all integral to offshore racing.

In such a close-fought Atlantic race, which factor do you consider to be more crucial: the boat’s sheer speed potential, or the crew’s ability to make the most of weather windows and equipment over a period of several days?