Holder 17 vs K2
How do the Holder 17 and K2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Holder 17 | Holder 17 | K2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.0 ft5.18 m | 17.0 ft5.18 m |
| Waterline length | 15.0 ft4.57 m | —— |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 4.2 ft1.27 m | —— |
| Displacement | 950 lb431 kg | 342 lb155 kg |
| Ballast | 325 lb147 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 140 ft²13.0 m² | 171 ft²15.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 23.18 | 55.95 |
| Displacement / Length | 126 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 7.0 | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.85 | 4.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.2 | — |
Holder 17 vs K2: the short version
- The Holder 17 and K2 are close in length (17.0 ft5.18 m vs 17.0 ft5.18 m ).
- The Holder 17 is heavier, displacing about 178% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the K2 carries the more powerful rig (55.9 vs 23.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Holder 17 rates better for offshore work (2.85 vs 4.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.