Hunter Xcite vs Rock’n Roll
How do the Hunter Xcite and Rock’n Roll compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter Xcite | Hunter Xcite | Rock’n Roll | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 9.9 ft3.02 m | 10.0 ft3.05 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 4.4 ft1.35 m | 2.0 ft0.62 m |
| Draft | 3.2 ft0.97 m | —— |
| Displacement | 95 lb43 kg | 31 lb14 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 46 ft²4.3 m² | —— |
| SA / Displacement | 35.35 | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.88 | 2.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Hunter Xcite vs Rock’n Roll: the short version
- The Hunter Xcite and Rock’n Roll are close in length (9.9 ft3.02 m vs 10.0 ft3.05 m ).
- The Hunter Xcite is heavier, displacing about 206% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the Rock’n Roll rates better for offshore work (2.58 vs 3.88).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.