Hallberg-Rassy 40 vs Irwin 41 Citation
How do the Hallberg-Rassy 40 and Irwin 41 Citation compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hallberg-Rassy 40 | Hallberg-Rassy 40 | Irwin 41 Citation | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.7 ft12.40 m | 40.8 ft12.43 m |
| Waterline length | 36.2 ft11.04 m | 33.3 ft10.14 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.82 m | 13.0 ft3.97 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.99 m | 7.3 ft2.21 m |
| Displacement | 22,100 lb10,024 kg | 17,500 lb7,938 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Sail area | 869 ft²80.7 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.66 | 18.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 207 | 212 |
| Comfort ratio | 31.4 | 24.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.78 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.1 | 7.7 |
Hallberg-Rassy 40 vs Irwin 41 Citation: the short version
- The Hallberg-Rassy 40 and Irwin 41 Citation are close in length (40.7 ft12.40 m vs 40.8 ft12.43 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 Irwin 41 Citation carries the more powerful rig (18.7 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 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.