Bayfield 40 vs C&C 40
How do the Bayfield 40 and C&C 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 40 | Bayfield 40 | C&C 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.5 ft12.04 m | 39.7 ft12.09 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.30 m | 28.7 ft8.74 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 11.2 ft3.40 m |
| Draft | 4.9 ft1.50 m | 9.1 ft2.77 m |
| Displacement | 21,000 lb9,525 kg | 18,225 lb8,267 kg |
| Ballast | 8,200 lb3,719 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 794 ft²73.8 m² | 735 ft²68.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.69 | 16.98 |
| Displacement / Length | 330 | 345 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.7 | 35.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.74 | 1.70 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.2 |
Bayfield 40 vs C&C 40: the short version
- The Bayfield 40 and C&C 40 are close in length (39.5 ft12.04 m vs 39.7 ft12.09 m ).
- The Bayfield 40 is heavier, displacing about 15% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 40 carries the more powerful rig (17.0 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 C&C 40 rates better for offshore work (1.70 vs 1.74).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.