Bayfield 30/32 vs Douglas 32
How do the Bayfield 30/32 and Douglas 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 30/32 
Douglas 32 | Bayfield 30/32 | Douglas 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 32.1 ft9.78 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 24.5 ft7.47 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 4.7 ft1.42 m |
| Displacement | 9,600 lb4,354 kg | 11,500 lb5,216 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 459 ft²42.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.34 | 14.41 |
| Displacement / Length | 341 | 349 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 33.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 1.68 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.6 |
Bayfield 30/32 vs Douglas 32: the short version
- The Bayfield 30/32 and Douglas 32 are close in length (32.0 ft9.75 m vs 32.1 ft9.78 m ).
- The Douglas 32 is heavier, displacing about 20% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 30/32 carries the more powerful rig (15.3 vs 14.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Douglas 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Douglas 32 rates better for offshore work (1.68 vs 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.