Bermuda 40 vs Dickerson 41
How do the Bermuda 40 and Dickerson 41 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bermuda 40 | Bermuda 40 | Dickerson 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.8 ft12.42 m | 41.0 ft12.50 m |
| Waterline length | 27.8 ft8.48 m | 31.5 ft9.60 m |
| Beam | 11.8 ft3.58 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 8.6 ft2.62 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 19,000 lb8,618 kg | 24,500 lb11,113 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 753 ft²70.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.56 | 14.28 |
| Displacement / Length | 394 | 350 |
| Comfort ratio | 34.8 | 38.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.76 | 1.72 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 7.5 |
Bermuda 40 vs Dickerson 41: the short version
- The Bermuda 40 and Dickerson 41 are close in length (40.8 ft12.42 m vs 41.0 ft12.50 m ).
- The Dickerson 41 is heavier, displacing about 29% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bermuda 40 carries the more powerful rig (14.6 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dickerson 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dickerson 41 rates better for offshore work (1.72 vs 1.76).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.