C&C 41 vs Hallberg-Rassy 40
How do the C&C 41 and Hallberg-Rassy 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 41 | C&C 41 | Hallberg-Rassy 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.8 ft12.42 m | 40.7 ft12.40 m |
| Waterline length | 33.3 ft10.16 m | 36.2 ft11.04 m |
| Beam | 12.9 ft3.94 m | 12.5 ft3.82 m |
| Draft | 7.8 ft2.38 m | 6.5 ft1.99 m |
| Displacement | 17,500 lb7,938 kg | 22,100 lb10,024 kg |
| Ballast | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 812 ft²75.4 m² | 869 ft²80.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.27 | 17.66 |
| Displacement / Length | 211 | 207 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.2 | 31.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.99 | 1.78 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 8.1 |
C&C 41 vs Hallberg-Rassy 40: the short version
- The C&C 41 and Hallberg-Rassy 40 are close in length (40.8 ft12.42 m vs 40.7 ft12.40 m ).
- The Hallberg-Rassy 40 is heavier, displacing about 26% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 41 carries the more powerful rig (19.3 vs 17.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hallberg-Rassy 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hallberg-Rassy 40 rates better for offshore work (1.78 vs 1.99).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.