Bayfield 30/32 vs Bayfield 40
How do the Bayfield 30/32 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 30/32 
Bayfield 40 | Bayfield 30/32 | Bayfield 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 39.5 ft12.04 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 | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 9,600 lb4,354 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 8,200 lb3,719 kg |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 794 ft²73.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.34 | 16.69 |
| Displacement / Length | 341 | 330 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 35.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 7.4 |
Bayfield 30/32 vs Bayfield 40: the short version
- The Bayfield 40 is the larger boat at 39.5 ft12.04 m LOA versus 32.0 ft9.75 m for the Bayfield 30/32.
- The Bayfield 40 is heavier, displacing about 119% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 40 carries the more powerful rig (16.7 vs 15.3), 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 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.