Bayfield 30/32 vs Morgan 32
How do the Bayfield 30/32 and Morgan 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 
Morgan 32 | Bayfield 30/32 | Morgan 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 31.9 ft9.73 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Displacement | 9,600 lb4,354 kg | 11,000 lb4,990 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 433 ft²40.2 m² | 493 ft²45.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.34 | 15.95 |
| Displacement / Length | 341 | 314 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 24.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.7 |
Bayfield 30/32 vs Morgan 32: the short version
- The Bayfield 30/32 and Morgan 32 are close in length (32.0 ft9.75 m vs 31.9 ft9.73 m ).
- The Morgan 32 is heavier, displacing about 15% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Morgan 32 carries the more powerful rig (15.9 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 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.