Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 36
How do the Bayfield 29 and Bayfield 36 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 29 | Bayfield 29 | Bayfield 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 21.8 ft6.63 m | 30.5 ft9.30 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 7,100 lb3,221 kg | 18,500 lb8,391 kg |
| Ballast | 3,000 lb1,361 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Sail area | 420 ft²39.0 m² | 764 ft²71.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.19 | 17.48 |
| Displacement / Length | 308 | 291 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.9 | 32.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 7.4 |
Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 36: the short version
- The Bayfield 36 is the larger boat at 36.0 ft10.97 m LOA versus 29.0 ft8.84 m for the Bayfield 29.
- The Bayfield 36 is heavier, displacing about 161% 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 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bayfield 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bayfield 36 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.