Alajuela 38 vs Farr 38
How do the Alajuela 38 and Farr 38 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Alajuela 38 | Alajuela 38 | Farr 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.0 ft11.58 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 32.6 ft9.93 m | 31.2 ft9.50 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 27,000 lb12,247 kg | 10,600 lb4,808 kg |
| Ballast | 10,000 lb4,536 kg | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 837 ft²77.8 m² | 689 ft²64.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.88 | 22.85 |
| Displacement / Length | 349 | 156 |
| Comfort ratio | 47.2 | 18.0 |
| Capsize screening | 1.53 | 2.19 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.6 | 7.5 |
Alajuela 38 vs Farr 38: the short version
- The Alajuela 38 and Farr 38 are close in length (38.0 ft11.58 m vs 38.3 ft11.66 m ).
- The Alajuela 38 is heavier, displacing about 155% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Farr 38 carries the more powerful rig (22.8 vs 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Alajuela 38 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Alajuela 38 rates better for offshore work (1.53 vs 2.19).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.