Irwin 41 vs Redline 41
How do the Irwin 41 and Redline 41 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 | Redline 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.5 ft12.65 m | 41.4 ft12.62 m |
| Waterline length | 35.1 ft10.69 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 13.5 ft4.11 m | 11.2 ft3.40 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.3 ft1.92 m |
| Displacement | 25,000 lb11,340 kg | 19,475 lb8,834 kg |
| Ballast | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Sail area | 803 ft²74.6 m² | 776 ft²72.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.03 | 17.15 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 322 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.6 | 36.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.85 | 1.66 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.9 | 7.3 |
Irwin 41 vs Redline 41: the short version
- The Irwin 41 and Redline 41 are close in length (41.5 ft12.65 m vs 41.4 ft12.62 m ).
- The Irwin 41 is heavier, displacing about 28% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Redline 41 carries the more powerful rig (17.2 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Redline 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Redline 41 rates better for offshore work (1.66 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.