Contest 32 CS vs M32
How do the Contest 32 CS and M32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Contest 32 CS 
M32 | Contest 32 CS | M32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.8 ft9.70 m | 31.8 ft9.68 m |
| Waterline length | 25.7 ft7.82 m | —— |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.32 m | 18.2 ft5.54 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | —— |
| Displacement | 14,300 lb6,486 kg | 1,124 lb510 kg |
| Ballast | 6,380 lb2,894 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 289 ft²26.8 m² | 1,216 ft²113.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 7.85 | 179.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 378 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 33.4 | — |
| Capsize screening | 1.79 | 6.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | — |
Contest 32 CS vs M32: the short version
- The Contest 32 CS and M32 are close in length (31.8 ft9.70 m vs 31.8 ft9.68 m ).
- The Contest 32 CS is heavier, displacing about 1172% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M32 carries the more powerful rig (180.0 vs 7.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Contest 32 CS rates better for offshore work (1.79 vs 6.99).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.