Allmand 31 vs Herreshoff 31
How do the Allmand 31 and Herreshoff 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allmand 31 | Allmand 31 | Herreshoff 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.8 ft9.37 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Waterline length | 27.9 ft8.51 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Beam | 11.3 ft3.45 m | 10.3 ft3.15 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.17 m | 4.0 ft1.22 m |
| Displacement | 11,100 lb5,035 kg | 7,560 lb3,429 kg |
| Ballast | 4,300 lb1,950 kg | 3,350 lb1,520 kg |
| Sail area | 461 ft²42.8 m² | 641 ft²59.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.82 | 26.63 |
| Displacement / Length | 228 | 154 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.5 | 18.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.03 | 2.11 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 7.1 |
Allmand 31 vs Herreshoff 31: the short version
- The Allmand 31 and Herreshoff 31 are close in length (30.8 ft9.37 m vs 30.8 ft9.40 m ).
- The Allmand 31 is heavier, displacing about 47% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Herreshoff 31 carries the more powerful rig (26.6 vs 14.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Allmand 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Allmand 31 rates better for offshore work (2.03 vs 2.11).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.