Hunter 260 vs Trio 80
How do the Hunter 260 and Trio 80 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 260 
Trio 80 | Hunter 260 | Trio 80 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 22.1 ft6.75 m |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.73 m | 9.2 ft2.80 m |
| Draft | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 6,834 lb3,100 kg |
| Ballast | 2,000 lb907 kg | 3,086 lb1,400 kg |
| Sail area | 299 ft²27.8 m² | 431 ft²40.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.36 | 19.15 |
| Displacement / Length | 178 | 281 |
| Comfort ratio | 17.2 | 23.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.10 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| Average used price | — | €7,600 |
Hunter 260 vs Trio 80: the short version
- The Hunter 260 and Trio 80 are close in length (26.3 ft8.00 m vs 26.3 ft8.00 m ).
- The Trio 80 is heavier, displacing about 37% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Trio 80 carries the more powerful rig (19.1 vs 16.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Trio 80 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Trio 80 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 2.10).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.