Canon vs Rock’n Roll
How do the Canon and Rock’n Roll compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Canon | Canon | Rock’n Roll | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 10.1 ft3.07 m | 10.0 ft3.05 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.1 ft0.64 m | 2.0 ft0.62 m |
| Draft | —— | —— |
| Displacement | 26 lb12 kg | 31 lb14 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | —— |
| SA / Displacement | — | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.84 | 2.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Canon vs Rock’n Roll: the short version
- The Canon and Rock’n Roll are close in length (10.1 ft3.07 m vs 10.0 ft3.05 m ).
- The Rock’n Roll is heavier, displacing about 19% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the Rock’n Roll rates better for offshore work (2.58 vs 2.84).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.