Marieholm 32 / 32E vs Niagara 31
How do the Marieholm 32 / 32E and Niagara 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Marieholm 32 / 32E | Marieholm 32 / 32E | Niagara 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.4 ft9.56 m | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Waterline length | 23.9 ft7.30 m | 24.3 ft7.39 m |
| Beam | 9.8 ft3.00 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 5.1 ft1.55 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 7,716 lb3,500 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 2,866 lb1,300 kg | 3,550 lb1,610 kg |
| Sail area | 479 ft²44.5 m² | 492 ft²45.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.63 | 19.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 251 | 250 |
| Comfort ratio | 21.7 | 21.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.99 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | €24,000 | — |
Marieholm 32 / 32E vs Niagara 31: the short version
- The Marieholm 32 / 32E and Niagara 31 are close in length (31.4 ft9.56 m vs 31.3 ft9.53 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Niagara 31 carries the more powerful rig (19.7 vs 19.6), 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 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.