Bayfield 30/32 vs Bayfield 36
How do the Bayfield 30/32 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 30/32 
Bayfield 36 | Bayfield 30/32 | Bayfield 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 30.5 ft9.30 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 9,600 lb4,354 kg | 18,500 lb8,391 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 764 ft²71.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.34 | 17.48 |
| Displacement / Length | 341 | 291 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 32.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 7.4 |
Bayfield 30/32 vs Bayfield 36: the short version
- The Bayfield 36 is the larger boat at 36.0 ft10.97 m LOA versus 32.0 ft9.75 m for the Bayfield 30/32.
- The Bayfield 36 is heavier, displacing about 93% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 36 carries the more powerful rig (17.5 vs 15.3), 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 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.