Crit 300 vs Rock’n Roll
How do the Crit 300 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.
Crit 300 | Crit 300 | Rock’n Roll | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 9.8 ft3.00 m | 10.0 ft3.05 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.0 ft0.60 m | 2.0 ft0.62 m |
| Draft | —— | —— |
| Displacement | 22 lb10 kg | 31 lb14 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | —— |
| SA / Displacement | — | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.81 | 2.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Crit 300 vs Rock’n Roll: the short version
- The Crit 300 and Rock’n Roll are close in length (9.8 ft3.00 m vs 10.0 ft3.05 m ).
- The Rock’n Roll is heavier, displacing about 41% 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 2.81).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.