Bristol 40 vs Hunter 41
How do the Bristol 40 and Hunter 41 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 | Hunter 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.2 ft12.25 m | 40.3 ft12.29 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.39 m | 35.5 ft10.82 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.29 m | 13.3 ft4.04 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 17,580 lb7,974 kg | 19,400 lb8,800 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 6,506 lb2,951 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 779 ft²72.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.33 | 17.26 |
| Displacement / Length | 376 | 194 |
| Comfort ratio | 36.4 | 26.0 |
| Capsize screening | 1.66 | 1.97 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 8.0 |
Bristol 40 vs Hunter 41: the short version
- The Bristol 40 and Hunter 41 are close in length (40.2 ft12.25 m vs 40.3 ft12.29 m ).
- The Hunter 41 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 41 carries the more powerful rig (17.3 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 1.97).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.