Allmand 31 vs Etap 32i
How do the Allmand 31 and Etap 32i compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allmand 31 | Allmand 31 | Etap 32i | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.8 ft9.37 m | 30.7 ft9.35 m |
| Waterline length | 27.9 ft8.51 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Beam | 11.3 ft3.45 m | 11.2 ft3.42 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.17 m | 4.6 ft1.40 m |
| Displacement | 11,100 lb5,035 kg | 9,763 lb4,428 kg |
| Ballast | 4,300 lb1,950 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Sail area | 461 ft²42.8 m² | 588 ft²54.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.82 | 20.60 |
| Displacement / Length | 228 | 241 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.5 | 21.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.03 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 6.9 |
Allmand 31 vs Etap 32i: the short version
- The Allmand 31 and Etap 32i are close in length (30.8 ft9.37 m vs 30.7 ft9.35 m ).
- The Allmand 31 is heavier, displacing about 14% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Etap 32i carries the more powerful rig (20.6 vs 14.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Allmand 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Allmand 31 rates better for offshore work (2.03 vs 2.10).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.