Archambault A35R vs Brick
How do the Archambault A35R and Brick compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A35R | Archambault A35R | Brick | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.06 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Waterline length | 30.2 ft9.20 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Beam | 11.6 ft3.53 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Draft | 7.2 ft2.19 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 9,811 lb4,450 kg | 3,968 lb1,800 kg |
| Ballast | 4,630 lb2,100 kg | 1,543 lb700 kg |
| Sail area | 727 ft²67.5 m² | 272 ft²25.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 25.38 | 17.36 |
| Displacement / Length | 159 | 58 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.1 | 11.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.5 |
Archambault A35R vs Brick: the short version
- The Archambault A35R is the larger boat at 36.3 ft11.06 m LOA versus 31.3 ft9.55 m for the Brick.
- The Archambault A35R is heavier, displacing about 147% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Archambault A35R carries the more powerful rig (25.4 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Archambault A35R 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 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.