Hunter 260 vs 1972 Contest 31 — Comparison
Hunter 260
1972 Contest 31
Specifications Side by Side
| Specification | Hunter 260 | 1972 Contest 31 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Manufacturer | Hunter | Contest |
| Year | 1998–2004 | 1972–1982 |
| Type | Sloop | Sloop |
| Country | USA | Netherlands |
| Designer | Glenn Henderson | Dick Zaal |
| Dimensions | ||
| LOA | 7.85 m (25.8 ft) | 9.45 m (31.0 ft) |
| LWL | 6.86 m (22.5 ft) | 7.62 m (25.0 ft) |
| Beam | 2.74 m (9.0 ft) | 3.05 m (10.0 ft) |
| Draft | 1.37 m (4.5 ft) | 1.52 m (5.0 ft) |
| Weight | ||
| Displacement | 2,041 kg (4,500 lbs) | 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) |
| Ballast | 771 kg (1,700 lbs) | 1,814 kg (3,999 lbs) |
| Sailing | ||
| Sail Area | 27.5 m² (296 ft²) | 39.5 m² (425 ft²) |
| Hull Material | Fiberglass | Steel |
| Keel Type | Fin | Fin |
| Engine & Tanks | ||
| Engine | 10 HP | 18 HP |
| Fuel Capacity | 38 L (10.0 gal) | 80 L (21.1 gal) |
| Water Capacity | 57 L (15.1 gal) | 150 L (39.6 gal) |
| Accommodation | ||
| Berths | 5 | 5 |
| Cabins | 1 | 2 |
Performance Comparison
Detailed Comparison
The Hunter 260 and 1972 Contest 31 represent two takes on sloop-rigged sailing. The Hunter 260 is a 1990s design by Hunter from USA, while the 1972 Contest 31 is a 1970s offering from Contest from Netherlands. The Hunter 260 was penned by Glenn Henderson. The 1972 Contest 31 was designed by Dick Zaal.
In terms of size, the Hunter 260 measures 7.85m (25.8ft) overall with a beam of 2.74m, compared to the 1972 Contest 31 at 9.45m (31.0ft) with a 3.05m beam. The 1972 Contest 31 is 1.60m longer than the Hunter 260. The 1972 Contest 31 displaces approximately 122% more than its counterpart, which significantly affects how each boat handles in different sea states.
Looking at performance, the Hunter 260 has good sail power for versatile performance with an SA/D ratio of 17.37 and 27.5 m² of sail area. The 1972 Contest 31, with an SA/D of 14.65 and 39.5 m² of canvas, offers modest sail power for its displacement. The Hunter 260 has the edge in terms of raw sailing performance.
For comfort and safety, the Hunter 260 offers a firm, racing-oriented motion (comfort ratio: 16.0) and excellent capsize resistance suitable for offshore voyaging (capsize ratio: 0.87). The 1972 Contest 31 has a comfort ratio of 23.7 and a capsize screening value of 0.74. The ballast ratios are 37.8% for the Hunter 260 and 40.0% for the 1972 Contest 31, reflecting their respective approaches to stability.
Below deck, the Hunter 260 provides 5 berths in 1 cabin with 57L of water capacity and 38L of fuel. The 1972 Contest 31 offers 5 berths in 2 cabins with 150L water and 80L fuel capacity.
Verdict
For cruising: The 1972 Contest 31 is the better choice for comfortable cruising thanks to its higher comfort ratio, offering a gentler motion at sea that crews will appreciate on longer passages.
For racing: The Hunter 260 has the performance advantage with its superior SA/D ratio, meaning more sail power relative to its displacement for competitive sailing.
For liveaboard: Both boats provide similar accommodation, making either a viable choice for living aboard. Consider water and fuel capacity for extended stays away from marinas.