Bayfield 30/32 vs Dione 98
How do the Bayfield 30/32 and Dione 98 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 30/32 
Dione 98 | Bayfield 30/32 | Dione 98 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 23.8 ft7.26 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 10.3 ft3.13 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 5.6 ft1.70 m |
| Displacement | 9,600 lb4,354 kg | 6,834 lb3,100 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 394 ft²36.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.34 | 17.51 |
| Displacement / Length | 341 | 226 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 18.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 2.16 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.5 |
Bayfield 30/32 vs Dione 98: the short version
- The Bayfield 30/32 and Dione 98 are close in length (32.0 ft9.75 m vs 32.0 ft9.75 m ).
- The Bayfield 30/32 is heavier, displacing about 40% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Dione 98 carries the more powerful rig (17.5 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 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.