Archambault A35 vs Brick
How do the Archambault A35 and Brick compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A35 | Archambault A35 | Brick | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.7 ft10.59 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.29 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Beam | 11.7 ft3.55 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Draft | 6.9 ft2.10 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 9,811 lb4,450 kg | 3,968 lb1,800 kg |
| Ballast | 4,387 lb1,990 kg | 1,543 lb700 kg |
| Sail area | 727 ft²67.5 m² | 272 ft²25.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 25.38 | 17.36 |
| Displacement / Length | 155 | 58 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.1 | 11.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.5 |
Archambault A35 vs Brick: the short version
- The Archambault A35 is the larger boat at 34.7 ft10.59 m LOA versus 31.3 ft9.55 m for the Brick.
- The Archambault A35 is heavier, displacing about 147% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Archambault A35 carries the more powerful rig (25.4 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Archambault A35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Brick rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.