Bristol 29.9 vs S2 9.2
How do the Bristol 29.9 and S2 9.2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bristol 29.9 | Bristol 29.9 | S2 9.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.9 ft9.12 m | 29.9 ft9.12 m |
| Waterline length | 24.0 ft7.32 m | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 4.3 ft1.32 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 8,650 lb3,924 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Ballast | 3,600 lb1,633 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 391 ft²36.3 m² | 468 ft²43.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.85 | 16.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 279 | 280 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.6 | 25.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.7 |
Bristol 29.9 vs S2 9.2: the short version
- The Bristol 29.9 and S2 9.2 are close in length (29.9 ft9.12 m vs 29.9 ft9.12 m ).
- The S2 9.2 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the S2 9.2 carries the more powerful rig (16.4 vs 14.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The S2 9.2 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the S2 9.2 rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.