Kelt 7.6 vs Storfidra
How do the Kelt 7.6 and Storfidra compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Kelt 7.6 
Storfidra | Kelt 7.6 | Storfidra | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 24.9 ft7.60 m | 24.9 ft7.60 m |
| Waterline length | 21.0 ft6.40 m | 20.7 ft6.30 m |
| Beam | 9.4 ft2.88 m | 7.9 ft2.40 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 4.2 ft1.29 m |
| Displacement | 4,188 lb1,900 kg | 6,834 lb3,100 kg |
| Ballast | 1,631 lb740 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Sail area | 273 ft²25.4 m² | 258 ft²24.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.81 | 11.46 |
| Displacement / Length | 202 | 345 |
| Comfort ratio | 14.7 | 30.8 |
| Capsize screening | 2.34 | 1.66 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.1 | 6.1 |
| Average used price | — | €2,200 |
Kelt 7.6 vs Storfidra: the short version
- The Kelt 7.6 and Storfidra are close in length (24.9 ft7.60 m vs 24.9 ft7.60 m ).
- The Storfidra is heavier, displacing about 63% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Kelt 7.6 carries the more powerful rig (16.8 vs 11.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Storfidra scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Storfidra rates better for offshore work (1.66 vs 2.34).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.