Etap 32i vs Mamba 31
How do the Etap 32i and Mamba 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Etap 32i | Etap 32i | Mamba 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.7 ft9.35 m | 30.7 ft9.35 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Beam | 11.2 ft3.42 m | 10.1 ft3.07 m |
| Draft | 4.6 ft1.40 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 9,763 lb4,428 kg | 7,716 lb3,500 kg |
| Ballast | 2,866 lb1,300 kg | 3,527 lb1,600 kg |
| Sail area | 588 ft²54.6 m² | 506 ft²47.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.60 | 20.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 241 | 190 |
| Comfort ratio | 21.9 | 19.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.10 | 2.04 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.9 |
| Average used price | — | €12,000 |
Etap 32i vs Mamba 31: the short version
- The Etap 32i and Mamba 31 are close in length (30.7 ft9.35 m vs 30.7 ft9.35 m ).
- The Etap 32i is heavier, displacing about 27% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Mamba 31 carries the more powerful rig (20.7 vs 20.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Etap 32i scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mamba 31 rates better for offshore work (2.04 vs 2.10).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.