Bayfield 36 vs S2 11.0
How do the Bayfield 36 and S2 11.0 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 | S2 11.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 28.3 ft8.61 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 11.9 ft3.63 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 18,500 lb8,391 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 6,000 lb2,722 kg |
| Sail area | 764 ft²71.0 m² | 625 ft²58.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.48 | 15.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 291 | 317 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.5 | 29.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.81 | 1.89 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.1 |
Bayfield 36 vs S2 11.0: the short version
- The Bayfield 36 and S2 11.0 are close in length (36.0 ft10.97 m vs 36.0 ft10.97 m ).
- The Bayfield 36 is heavier, displacing about 16% 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 15.7), 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 1.89).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.