Archambault A40 vs Brick
How do the Archambault A40 and Brick compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A40 | Archambault A40 | Brick | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.3 ft11.99 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Waterline length | 36.9 ft11.25 m | 31.3 ft9.55 m |
| Beam | 12.3 ft3.76 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Draft | 7.9 ft2.41 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 13,669 lb6,200 kg | 3,968 lb1,800 kg |
| Ballast | 5,512 lb2,500 kg | 1,543 lb700 kg |
| Sail area | 838 ft²77.9 m² | 272 ft²25.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 23.45 | 17.36 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 58 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.8 | 11.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.06 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.1 | 7.5 |
Archambault A40 vs Brick: the short version
- The Archambault A40 is the larger boat at 39.3 ft11.99 m LOA versus 31.3 ft9.55 m for the Brick.
- The Archambault A40 is heavier, displacing about 244% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Archambault A40 carries the more powerful rig (23.5 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Archambault A40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Archambault A40 rates better for offshore work (2.06 vs 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.