Columbia 34 Mark II vs Viking 33
How do the Columbia 34 Mark II and Viking 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Columbia 34 Mark II 
Viking 33 | Columbia 34 Mark II | Viking 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.6 ft10.24 m | 33.6 ft10.24 m |
| Waterline length | 27.3 ft8.33 m | 27.2 ft8.28 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 12,000 lb5,443 kg | 8,807 lb3,995 kg |
| Ballast | 4,700 lb2,132 kg | 4,512 lb2,047 kg |
| Sail area | 526 ft²48.9 m² | 519 ft²48.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.06 | 19.47 |
| Displacement / Length | 262 | 196 |
| Comfort ratio | 29.6 | 22.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.75 | 1.90 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 7.0 |
Columbia 34 Mark II vs Viking 33: the short version
- The Columbia 34 Mark II and Viking 33 are close in length (33.6 ft10.24 m vs 33.6 ft10.24 m ).
- The Columbia 34 Mark II is heavier, displacing about 36% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Viking 33 carries the more powerful rig (19.5 vs 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Columbia 34 Mark II scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Columbia 34 Mark II rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 1.90).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.