Bermuda 40 vs Irwin 41 Citation
How do the Bermuda 40 and Irwin 41 Citation 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 | Irwin 41 Citation | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.8 ft12.42 m | 40.8 ft12.43 m |
| Waterline length | 27.8 ft8.48 m | 33.3 ft10.14 m |
| Beam | 11.8 ft3.58 m | 13.0 ft3.97 m |
| Draft | 8.6 ft2.62 m | 7.3 ft2.21 m |
| Displacement | 19,000 lb8,618 kg | 17,500 lb7,938 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.56 | 18.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 394 | 212 |
| Comfort ratio | 34.8 | 24.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.76 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 7.7 |
Bermuda 40 vs Irwin 41 Citation: the short version
- The Bermuda 40 and Irwin 41 Citation are close in length (40.8 ft12.42 m vs 40.8 ft12.43 m ).
- The Bermuda 40 is heavier, displacing about 9% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Irwin 41 Citation carries the more powerful rig (18.7 vs 14.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bermuda 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bermuda 40 rates better for offshore work (1.76 vs 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.