J/35 vs J/92
How do the J/35 and J/92 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
J/35 
J/92 | J/35 | J/92 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 35.5 ft10.82 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Waterline length | 30.0 ft9.14 m | 26.5 ft8.08 m |
| Beam | 11.8 ft3.60 m | 10.0 ft3.05 m |
| Draft | 6.9 ft2.10 m | 5.9 ft1.80 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 5,512 lb2,500 kg |
| Ballast | 4,400 lb1,996 kg | 2,275 lb1,032 kg |
| Sail area | 636 ft²59.1 m² | 470 ft²43.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.22 | 24.10 |
| Displacement / Length | 174 | 132 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.2 | 14.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.27 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 6.9 |
J/35 vs J/92: the short version
- The J/35 is the larger boat at 35.5 ft10.82 m LOA versus 30.0 ft9.14 m for the J/92.
- The J/35 is heavier, displacing about 90% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the J/92 carries the more powerful rig (24.1 vs 21.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The J/35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the J/35 rates better for offshore work (2.16 vs 2.27).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.