Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 30/32
How do the Bayfield 29 and Bayfield 30/32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 29 
Bayfield 30/32 | Bayfield 29 | Bayfield 30/32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 21.8 ft6.63 m | 23.3 ft7.09 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 3.8 ft1.14 m |
| Displacement | 7,100 lb3,221 kg | 9,600 lb4,354 kg |
| Ballast | 3,000 lb1,361 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 420 ft²39.0 m² | 433 ft²40.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.19 | 15.34 |
| Displacement / Length | 308 | 341 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.9 | 25.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 1.98 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 6.5 |
Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 30/32: the short version
- The Bayfield 30/32 is the larger boat at 32.0 ft9.75 m LOA versus 29.0 ft8.84 m for the Bayfield 29.
- The Bayfield 30/32 is heavier, displacing about 35% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 29 carries the more powerful rig (18.2 vs 15.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bayfield 30/32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bayfield 30/32 rates better for offshore work (1.98 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.