Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 40
How do the Bayfield 29 and Bayfield 40 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 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 39.5 ft12.04 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 | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 7,100 lb3,221 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 3,000 lb1,361 kg | 8,200 lb3,719 kg |
| Sail area | 420 ft²39.0 m² | 794 ft²73.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.19 | 16.69 |
| Displacement / Length | 308 | 330 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.9 | 35.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 7.4 |
Bayfield 29 vs Bayfield 40: the short version
- The Bayfield 40 is the larger boat at 39.5 ft12.04 m LOA versus 29.0 ft8.84 m for the Bayfield 29.
- The Bayfield 40 is heavier, displacing about 196% 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 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bayfield 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bayfield 40 rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.