Dione 98 vs Ontario 32
How do the Dione 98 and Ontario 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Dione 98 
Ontario 32 | Dione 98 | Ontario 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 23.8 ft7.26 m | 26.5 ft8.08 m |
| Beam | 10.3 ft3.13 m | 11.0 ft3.35 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 6,834 lb3,100 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,977 lb1,804 kg |
| Sail area | 394 ft²36.6 m² | 481 ft²44.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.51 | 16.81 |
| Displacement / Length | 226 | 235 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.1 | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.9 |
Dione 98 vs Ontario 32: the short version
- The Dione 98 and Ontario 32 are close in length (32.0 ft9.75 m vs 32.0 ft9.75 m ).
- The Ontario 32 is heavier, displacing about 43% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Dione 98 carries the more powerful rig (17.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ontario 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ontario 32 rates better for offshore work (2.06 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.