Bayfield 36 vs Bayfield 40
How do the Bayfield 36 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 36 | Bayfield 36 | Bayfield 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 39.5 ft12.04 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 30.5 ft9.30 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 18,500 lb8,391 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 8,200 lb3,719 kg |
| Sail area | 764 ft²71.0 m² | 794 ft²73.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.48 | 16.69 |
| Displacement / Length | 291 | 330 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.5 | 35.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.81 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.4 |
Bayfield 36 vs Bayfield 40: the short version
- The Bayfield 40 is the larger boat at 39.5 ft12.04 m LOA versus 36.0 ft10.97 m for the Bayfield 36.
- The Bayfield 40 is heavier, displacing about 14% 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 16.7), 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 1.81).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.