Bayfield 36 vs Vancouver 36
How do the Bayfield 36 and Vancouver 36 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 | Vancouver 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 27.9 ft8.51 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 11.0 ft3.35 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 18,500 lb8,391 kg | 18,052 lb8,188 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Sail area | 764 ft²71.0 m² | 685 ft²63.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.48 | 15.93 |
| Displacement / Length | 291 | 370 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.5 | 37.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.81 | 1.68 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.1 |
Bayfield 36 vs Vancouver 36: the short version
- The Bayfield 36 and Vancouver 36 are close in length (36.0 ft10.97 m vs 36.0 ft10.97 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 36 carries the more powerful rig (17.5 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Vancouver 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Vancouver 36 rates better for offshore work (1.68 vs 1.81).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.