Albin 82 MS vs S2 9.2
How do the Albin 82 MS and S2 9.2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Albin 82 MS 
S2 9.2 | Albin 82 MS | S2 9.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.9 ft9.12 m | 29.9 ft9.12 m |
| Waterline length | 25.0 ft7.62 m | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 9.3 ft2.84 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 3.9 ft1.19 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 7,496 lb3,400 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Ballast | 1,984 lb900 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 323 ft²30.0 m² | 468 ft²43.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 13.49 | 16.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 214 | 280 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.3 | 25.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.91 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.7 | 6.7 |
Albin 82 MS vs S2 9.2: the short version
- The Albin 82 MS and S2 9.2 are close in length (29.9 ft9.12 m vs 29.9 ft9.12 m ).
- The S2 9.2 is heavier, displacing about 31% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the S2 9.2 carries the more powerful rig (16.4 vs 13.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The S2 9.2 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Albin 82 MS rates better for offshore work (1.91 vs 1.92).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.