Archambault A31 vs Brick
How do the Archambault A31 and Brick compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A31 | Archambault A31 | Brick | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.3 ft9.54 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Beam | 10.6 ft3.22 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Draft | 6.2 ft1.88 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 6,945 lb3,150 kg | 3,968 lb1,800 kg |
| Ballast | 2,976 lb1,350 kg | 1,543 lb700 kg |
| Sail area | 555 ft²51.6 m² | 272 ft²25.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.39 | 17.36 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 58 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 11.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.22 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.5 |
Archambault A31 vs Brick: the short version
- The Archambault A31 and Brick are close in length (31.3 ft9.54 m vs 31.3 ft9.55 m ).
- The Archambault A31 is heavier, displacing about 75% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Archambault A31 carries the more powerful rig (24.4 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Brick rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 2.22).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.