Rock’n Roll vs Taloa
How do the Rock’n Roll and Taloa compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Rock’n Roll | Rock’n Roll | Taloa | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 10.4 ft3.17 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.0 ft0.62 m | 2.2 ft0.67 m |
| Draft | —— | —— |
| Displacement | 31 lb14 kg | 28 lb13 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | —— |
| SA / Displacement | — | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.58 | 2.90 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Rock’n Roll vs Taloa: the short version
- The Rock’n Roll and Taloa are close in length (10.0 ft3.05 m vs 10.4 ft3.17 m ).
- The Rock’n Roll is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the Rock’n Roll rates better for offshore work (2.58 vs 2.90).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.