Bristol 40 vs CS 395
How do the Bristol 40 and CS 395 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bristol 40 | Bristol 40 | CS 395 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.2 ft12.25 m | 40.1 ft12.24 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.39 m | 31.1 ft9.49 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.29 m | 12.7 ft3.87 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 7.3 ft2.22 m |
| Displacement | 17,580 lb7,974 kg | 12,786 lb5,800 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 5,644 lb2,560 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 747 ft²69.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.33 | 21.86 |
| Displacement / Length | 376 | 189 |
| Comfort ratio | 36.4 | 19.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.66 | 2.17 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 7.5 |
Bristol 40 vs CS 395: the short version
- The Bristol 40 and CS 395 are close in length (40.2 ft12.25 m vs 40.1 ft12.24 m ).
- The Bristol 40 is heavier, displacing about 37% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the CS 395 carries the more powerful rig (21.9 vs 15.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bristol 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bristol 40 rates better for offshore work (1.66 vs 2.17).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.