Brick vs Marieholm 32 / 32E
How do the Brick and Marieholm 32 / 32E compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Brick | Brick | Marieholm 32 / 32E | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.3 ft9.55 m | 31.4 ft9.56 m |
| Waterline length | 31.3 ft9.55 m | 23.9 ft7.30 m |
| Beam | 8.2 ft2.50 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 3.9 ft1.20 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 3,968 lb1,800 kg | 7,716 lb3,500 kg |
| Ballast | 1,543 lb700 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Sail area | 272 ft²25.3 m² | 479 ft²44.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.36 | 19.63 |
| Displacement / Length | 58 | 251 |
| Comfort ratio | 11.9 | 21.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.07 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | — | €24,000 |
Brick vs Marieholm 32 / 32E: the short version
- The Brick and Marieholm 32 / 32E are close in length (31.3 ft9.55 m vs 31.4 ft9.56 m ).
- The Marieholm 32 / 32E is heavier, displacing about 94% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marieholm 32 / 32E carries the more powerful rig (19.6 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marieholm 32 / 32E scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marieholm 32 / 32E rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.