Interlake vs Mercury 18
How do the Interlake and Mercury 18 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Interlake | Interlake | Mercury 18 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 18.0 ft5.49 m | 18.0 ft5.49 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 13.0 ft3.96 m |
| Beam | 6.3 ft1.91 m | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Draft | 4.6 ft1.40 m | 3.1 ft0.94 m |
| Displacement | 650 lb295 kg | 1,100 lb499 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 635 lb288 kg |
| Sail area | 175 ft²16.3 m² | 167 ft²15.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 37.31 | 25.08 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 224 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 12.6 |
| Capsize screening | 2.89 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 4.8 |
Interlake vs Mercury 18: the short version
- The Interlake and Mercury 18 are close in length (18.0 ft5.49 m vs 18.0 ft5.49 m ).
- The Mercury 18 is heavier, displacing about 69% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Interlake carries the more powerful rig (37.3 vs 25.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mercury 18 rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 2.89).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.