Irwin 41 vs Nimbus 42
How do the Irwin 41 and Nimbus 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Irwin 41 | Irwin 41 | Nimbus 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.5 ft12.65 m | 41.4 ft12.62 m |
| Waterline length | 35.1 ft10.69 m | 34.2 ft10.42 m |
| Beam | 13.5 ft4.11 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 25,000 lb11,340 kg | 23,325 lb10,580 kg |
| Ballast | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | 10,000 lb4,536 kg |
| Sail area | 803 ft²74.6 m² | 854 ft²79.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.03 | 16.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 261 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.6 | 34.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.85 | 1.75 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.9 | 7.8 |
Irwin 41 vs Nimbus 42: the short version
- The Irwin 41 and Nimbus 42 are close in length (41.5 ft12.65 m vs 41.4 ft12.62 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Nimbus 42 carries the more powerful rig (16.7 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Nimbus 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Nimbus 42 rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.