Dickerson 41 vs Hallberg-Rassy 40
How do the Dickerson 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.
Dickerson 41 | Dickerson 41 | Hallberg-Rassy 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.0 ft12.50 m | 40.7 ft12.40 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 36.2 ft11.04 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 12.5 ft3.82 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.5 ft1.99 m |
| Displacement | 24,500 lb11,113 kg | 22,100 lb10,024 kg |
| Ballast | 8,500 lb3,856 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 753 ft²70.0 m² | 869 ft²80.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.28 | 17.66 |
| Displacement / Length | 350 | 207 |
| Comfort ratio | 38.1 | 31.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 8.1 |
Dickerson 41 vs Hallberg-Rassy 40: the short version
- The Dickerson 41 and Hallberg-Rassy 40 are close in length (41.0 ft12.50 m vs 40.7 ft12.40 m ).
- The Dickerson 41 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hallberg-Rassy 40 carries the more powerful rig (17.7 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dickerson 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dickerson 41 rates better for offshore work (1.72 vs 1.78).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.