Archambault A35 vs M34
How do the Archambault A35 and M34 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A35 
M34 | Archambault A35 | M34 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.7 ft10.59 m | 34.0 ft10.36 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.29 m | 33.1 ft10.08 m |
| Beam | 11.7 ft3.55 m | 9.8 ft2.97 m |
| Draft | 6.9 ft2.10 m | 8.2 ft2.49 m |
| Displacement | 9,811 lb4,450 kg | 5,952 lb2,700 kg |
| Ballast | 4,387 lb1,990 kg | 2,315 lb1,050 kg |
| Sail area | 727 ft²67.5 m² | 764 ft²71.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 25.38 | 37.22 |
| Displacement / Length | 155 | 73 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.1 | 13.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 2.15 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.7 |
Archambault A35 vs M34: the short version
- The Archambault A35 is the larger boat at 34.7 ft10.59 m LOA versus 34.0 ft10.36 m for the M34.
- The Archambault A35 is heavier, displacing about 65% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M34 carries the more powerful rig (37.2 vs 25.4), 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 M34 rates better for offshore work (2.15 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.