Hunter 20 vs Triss Magnum
How do the Hunter 20 and Triss Magnum compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 20 | Hunter 20 | Triss Magnum | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.7 ft6.00 m | 19.7 ft6.00 m |
| Waterline length | 15.5 ft4.72 m | 7.2 ft2.20 m |
| Beam | 7.5 ft2.29 m | 7.9 ft2.40 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 3.6 ft1.10 m |
| Displacement | 1,700 lb771 kg | 2,535 lb1,150 kg |
| Ballast | 400 lb181 kg | 1,235 lb560 kg |
| Sail area | 169 ft²15.7 m² | 248 ft²23.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.98 | 21.34 |
| Displacement / Length | 204 | 3007 |
| Comfort ratio | 10.7 | 22.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.51 | 2.31 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.3 | 3.6 |
| Average used price | — | €1,000 |
Hunter 20 vs Triss Magnum: the short version
- The Hunter 20 and Triss Magnum are close in length (19.7 ft6.00 m vs 19.7 ft6.00 m ).
- The Triss Magnum is heavier, displacing about 49% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Triss Magnum carries the more powerful rig (21.3 vs 19.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Triss Magnum scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Triss Magnum rates better for offshore work (2.31 vs 2.51).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.