Bayfield 36 vs Hunter 36 Vision
How do the Bayfield 36 and Hunter 36 Vision 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 | Hunter 36 Vision | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.8 ft3.89 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 4.7 ft1.42 m |
| Displacement | 18,500 lb8,391 kg | 15,500 lb7,031 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 764 ft²71.0 m² | 677 ft²62.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.48 | 17.42 |
| Displacement / Length | 291 | 232 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.5 | 24.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.81 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.5 |
Bayfield 36 vs Hunter 36 Vision: the short version
- The Bayfield 36 and Hunter 36 Vision are close in length (36.0 ft10.97 m vs 36.0 ft10.97 m ).
- The Bayfield 36 is heavier, displacing about 19% 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 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bayfield 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bayfield 36 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.