SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Bayfield 25, how seaworthy?

99K views 42 replies 22 participants last post by  boatpoker 
#1 ·
I've got a nice little Bayfield 25 and im wondering how seaworthy the boat is. It seems pretty solidly built. It is a full keel with the rudder attached on the back of the keel with the prop in a cutout in the keel. The boat has a running Yanmar 1GM diesel, but i know i need to clean or replace the fuel tank as its been setting for 3 years. Id like to take this boat to Bermuda if it can handle it.
 
#2 · (Edited)
I should preface this by saying I've sailed alongside and past these boats, but not on one....

I think they are tough little boats, but I'm not sure they were truly meant to be offshore cruisers. Easy to handle, certainly, but motion could be uncomfortable esp in the Gulf Stream, and it wouldn't be a quick trip.

Her shallow draft will advantageous in certain areas, obviously, but not necessarily at sea.

A dash across to the Bahamas? Probably, with the right weather window.... Bermuda I'm not so sure.....
 
#4 ·
Hell, people have done longer, rougher trips on lesser boats, I suppose.... It will likely as not come down to your own tolerance and abilities assuming the boat itself is otherwise sound and well-prepped.
 
#5 ·
The boat is about to undergo a refit for the few things that it needs. Im going to remove the roller furling on the headsail so i can hank on smaller jibs. The main has 2 reef points in it and one is kinda high. The boat has wheel steering on it, so im thinking a belowdecks autopilot system for it. From what ive found out about the boat is should be able to do the trip to Bermuda.
 
#8 ·
Many boats can be careened... this was a way to get a chance to work on the bottom of them. It works better with full keel designs than fin keels,. The main danger to doing so is making sure the boat will right itself as the water comes back in, before it fills. Another issue is finding a beach where the tide range is high enough that has a soft enough bottom to do this, and doesn't have much wave action. Waves will tend to bounce the boat up and down, and can do some pretty serious damage. :)

BTW, the closer you are to the equator, the less likely you are to be able to do this, since the tidal height is generally smaller.
 
#7 ·
There have been a couple discussions in the past few weeks about going offshore in small boats that you might want to look at, but in a general sense, anecdotally its easy to find stories of people going offshore in boats that are less seaworthy than the Bayfield 25. But if you read enough, you find that historically lots of small boat sailors went missing, or needed rescue and historically the small boat sailors that took off on offshore voyages were generally very experienced seamen.

When you ask about sailing a Bayfield 25 to Bermuda, its all about risk management and how much risk you personally are willing to take, and how good a sailor you are, and how expeienced you are in handling the Bayfield in heavy going.

To me, a Bayfield 25 would be an extremely poor choice for this kind of trip. These were boats that were optimized to get a lot of room on a small boat, rather than as a good sailing, offshore comfortable design. For example compare the Bayfield to something like a Folkboat with an equal displacement and length but 4 foot draft vs the Bayfields 2'11 draft and 2300 lb ballast vs the Bayfields' 1450 lbs, and the Folkboat's 7'6 beam vs the Bayfields' 8 foot. So, comparatively speaking, the Bayfield with its extremely low ballast to displacement ratio, extremely shallow draft, wide beam carried to its full ends, and corky motion, it would be very tough boat to bring through a storm.

These boats do not exactly have a good reputation for being well constucted. They are heavy but much of thier weight comes in the form of heavy interior components rather than robust structure or ballast.

The Bayfields' high drag and small SA/D would make for a very slow trip to Bermuda, which means that you would need to carry a lot more supplies, than a longer or better designed boat of this displacement. The weight of those supplies would further reduce motion comfort and seaworthiness. The slow passage time would also mean that you would be at sea too long to acurately predict the weather window that you will encounter en-route and that means you higher risk of ending up in foul weather.

But again, while the Bayfield 25 would be very close to the bottom of the list of boats that I personally would consider taking to Bermuda, it comes down to how much risk you personally are willing to take. To quote Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry, I guess the real question is, "How Lucky do you feel?"

Respectfully,
Jeff
 
#43 ·
There have been a couple discussions in the past few weeks about going offshore in small boats that you might want to look at, but in a general sense, anecdotally its easy to find stories of people going offshore in boats that are less seaworthy than the Bayfield 25. But if you read enough, you find that historically lots of small boat sailors went missing, or needed rescue and historically the small boat sailors that took off on offshore voyages were generally very experienced seamen.

When you ask about sailing a Bayfield 25 to Bermuda, its all about risk management and how much risk you personally are willing to take, and how good a sailor you are, and how expeienced you are in handling the Bayfield in heavy going.

To me, a Bayfield 25 would be an extremely poor choice for this kind of trip. These were boats that were optimized to get a lot of room on a small boat, rather than as a good sailing, offshore comfortable design. For example compare the Bayfield to something like a Folkboat with an equal displacement and length but 4 foot draft vs the Bayfields 2'11 draft and 2300 lb ballast vs the Bayfields' 1450 lbs, and the Folkboat's 7'6 beam vs the Bayfields' 8 foot. So, comparatively speaking, the Bayfield with its extremely low ballast to displacement ratio, extremely shallow draft, wide beam carried to its full ends, and corky motion, it would be very tough boat to bring through a storm.

These boats do not exactly have a good reputation for being well constucted. They are heavy but much of thier weight comes in the form of heavy interior components rather than robust structure or ballast.

The Bayfields' high drag and small SA/D would make for a very slow trip to Bermuda, which means that you would need to carry a lot more supplies, than a longer or better designed boat of this displacement. The weight of those supplies would further reduce motion comfort and seaworthiness. The slow passage time would also mean that you would be at sea too long to acurately predict the weather window that you will encounter en-route and that means you higher risk of ending up in foul weather.

But again, while the Bayfield 25 would be very close to the bottom of the list of boats that I personally would consider taking to Bermuda, it comes down to how much risk you personally are willing to take. To quote Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry, I guess the real question is, "How Lucky do you feel?"

Respectfully,
Jeff
Totally agree with Jeff. If you attempt to careen this boat make sure there are no rocks as it has one of the thinnest skin hulls around.
 
#9 ·
bayfied 25

I also have a Bayfield 25 and yes much smaller boats have made it,it is a very solid and exellent crusier and if you did not push and waited for decent wheather you would be fine and if you had some experaince and did not over do it you could wheather a storm I have thought about doing it and I am in Lagoon city on Lake Simcoe north of Toronto
 
#26 ·
Re: bayfied 25

I also have a Bayfield 25 and yes much smaller boats have made it,it is a very solid and exellent crusier and if you did not push and waited for decent wheather you would be fine and if you had some experaince and did not over do it you could wheather a storm I have thought about doing it and I am in Lagoon city on Lake Simcoe north of Toronto
Oh this what you do in the winter john lol
Sincerely randy hines
 
#10 ·
We got hit with a squall many years ago on Senaca Lake in NY. I saw a line of white advancing across the lake and, in our yawl of the time, dowsed the main and pulled the mizzen in tight and took it nose on. The wind (55 mph reported at a nearby airport) hit us a minute before the standing wave. A Bayfield 25 singlehander was reaching ahead of us and he was rolled 360º, popped up and was rolled a second time.

Anyone can be inattentive - he said he never saw it coming as was below grabbing lunch with a lashed tiller. The only damage was to him - a gash on his forehead - and the contents of the Porta-Pottie discharged into the cabin along with the contents of several galley lockers and many gallons of water that entered the open companionway.

Does it prove anything? No. Just that you can't assume the boat . . . any boat . . . knows what to do if you don't.

Other boats may have been demasted or certainly had some sail and rigging damage. But some other boats are entertaining enough to sail that you pay attention to sailing instead of just making boring progress. That particulay B25 was the slowest boat on the lake. They are well made but certainly not optimum lake boats.

For a trip to Bermuda? Yeah, I'd feel better in something designed for blue water and a Bayfield 25 is that; small but rugged. Personally, I'd be comparing them to Pearson Ariel 26 and Triton 28's (or a Bristol 27) to find an individual boat in good shape with proper gear.
 
#11 ·
#12 · (Edited)
2 cents

I do not have any experience with the Bayfield 25 or any of their line of boats and so I do not know first hand....

But I do know that Jeff_H has a major prejudice against full keel/heavier displacement boats as several of his posts can testify to - as well as to the fact that he does not understand yacht design as well he thinks.

Sorry, but a lot of people read forums and don't realize that the content should be looked at first and foremost as peoples opinions - not necessarily facts or even reality for that matter.

:)
 
#13 ·
umm actualy Jeff talked about actual draft, ballast ratio, beam and hull shape, sounds a lot like facts to me not opinons. He suggested that a folkboat had better numbers and they of course are a full keel displacment boat so not sure your second comment holds water.

Another poster said, which scares the heck out of me, that a Bayfield 25 did one or two complete rolls in 55 MPH wind !

They can be a fun little boat but they do have their limitations as all boats do.
 
#14 ·
More or less correct. The less is that my second comment is still true because as I said "as several of his posts can testify to". The fact that he compared two full keel boats and preferred one over the other does not make my second comment wrong.

And in any case the "facts" as you called them - which in this case are just the basic numbers relating to draft, beam and ballast are the facts. What people (not just Jeff_H) do with these numbers are what constitutes the "opinions".

In general arm-chair sailors tend to focus more on the numbers - as that is all they have. Been there - done that. All of these numbers and ratios are mainly a help to the yacht designers. I don't know if mere mortals buying a boat should worry that much about it.

The really interesting thing is that the Bayfield 25 would seem to have more in common with Jeff_H's preferred type of boat than the Folkboat which is in fact closer to what I would prefer.

But that's just MY opinion....
 
#18 ·
Where did that come from?

Incidentally, Jeff and I are always dissagreeing on boats but our perspectives are different. That certainly does not make him wrong. But he is NOOOO arm chair sailor. He is a very experienced, very well known racer and quite liked around these woods and elsewhere. And I sure am not an armchair sailor. I have posted the pics to prove it... so has he.

Go over to the Liveabord Family thread. Read about how I basically told the guy that he would be crazy to buy the boat he wa stalking about or doing the LA like he wanted. I have been there and done that. Not 5 posts later, someone else chimed in and HAS done it just the way I said he would be crazy for doing it. The point is that you must take all of this information and make your own decisions. But that certainly did not make either myself or the other sailor uninformed, not knowledgeable, or arm chair sailors. Crap, ask 4 sailors the same question you will get 5 answers.

Now I have nothing to add to this thread about Bayfields. I know little about them. But if I was the poster on this thread, I would not take any exception to any of the comments here - especially from those that have been there and have done that. One only must be cautious here about peoples opinions who are not based in experience. And the later certainly is not Jeff.

- CD
 
#15 · (Edited)
Eric,

The one truth here is that you don't know much about my preferences at all. I have only have one strong bias, that is towards boats that sail well and by the term 'sail well' I do not simply mean that they are fast. I use that term to mean, are easy to handle, have reasonably comfortable motions, sail reliably in a wide range of conditions and so on.

I am very much a fan of traditional sailing craft, by which I mean both cruising boats and working boats that derive from the lessons learned from working water craft. That includes boats that truly have full keels and not some aberation that derives from some racing rule or some marketing gimmick.

You are very mistaken when you say that I have a prejudice against full keels. I do not have a blanket prejudice against full keels, but I also have enough experience sailing on a wide variety of boats that have had full keels to understand that they are not the panacea that they are often portrayed to be.

I also have spent enough time sailing on boats that have a deeply cut away forefoot and rudder posts located far from the transom to understand that these are not full-keeled boats at all, and that they do not behave like full keeled boats, and frankly, in my experience and opinion, result in compromises that make them far less desirable in most ways than either a more traditional full keel or a well designed fin keel. If I have a prejudice against a keel type, it is what used to be (when I was a kid) referred to as a fin keel with attached rudder, and which by any name is a keel whose bottom approached 50% of the length of the boat and which has an attached rudder. To me, these are the worst of all worlds and in most cases lack the virtues of either a full keel or a fin keel with a detached rudder.

And yes, it is also true that I personally like well designed fin keel/ spade rudder boats (whether that rudder post or skeg hung). I use the term 'well-designed' because there are a lot of really poor fin keel/spade rudder designs out there. I frankly prefer fin keel/spade rudders for my own personal boat and consider them better suited for my current needs than a full-keeled boat.

I also think that most of the sailors who come on Sailnet are sailing in venues and manners where they would be better served by a boat with either a fin keel/spade rudder or else with a keel/centerboard configuration. (I say 'most' because there are folks on these forums sailing in venues, with specific sailing goals, or with aesthetic preferences that would lean them towards other keel/hull configurations.)

Unlike you, who says he is still looking for his first boat, I have owned 17 boats in my life. These include a 1939 Stadel cutter, a design that derived from a 19th century working pilot boat and was as full a keel design as you could imagine, a 1949 Swedish Folkboat, CCA era boats, IOR era boats, MORC boats from a range of periods, and early IMS (MHS) era boats. I have had near unbridled use of dozens of boats in my life, and raced and cruised on perhaps a hundred different classes of boats in my life. You and I are in agreement that what I write is only my opinion and is limited by my own limits of knowledge, but that said my opinion is based on 47 years of comparing the behavior of these many boats that I have sailed on, a whole lot of reading and attending yacht design symposiums over a 48 year period of time, my training as a yacht designer, and my experience working in naval architect and yacht design offices.

Throughout all of those experiences, I have carefully studied the behavior of one design feature relative to the other and from that I have formed my opinions, and yes, i know these are soley my opinion and yes I know they reflect the biases that reflect the types of sailing that I personally have done, and perhaps more importantly, often reflect and is limited by the types of sailing that I have not done and have no intention of doing.

And despite all of that experience, I know that there are holes in my knowledge, and areas where I am mistaken. I understand that I am very much an amatuer, a dilettante, that there is a lot that I don't know, that I make mistakes, remember things incorrectly, and that there are a whole lot of folks out there who know a whole lot more about these things than I ever will.

Like most folks, I come here to share my experiences as a way to return the favor to those people who generously shared knowledge with me along the way, but equally importantly to continue to learn, and one way to learn is to engage in informed and intellectually honest discussion, where dubious opinions can be corrected or clarified, and missing knowledge added to.

As to your comment, "that he does not understand yacht design as well he thinks", I suggest that blanket statements like that add little to a discussion. If you think that I have made a mistake in my comments address that mistake. We both might learn from that process. But no one learns anything from baseless ad-hominem comments and I say 'baseless' since you clearly really know very little about how I view my knowledge of yacht design.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand, in a general sense you are very right that simply relying on the numbers can be a little or even very misleading. But in this case, getting down to specifics of the boat in question, the numbers are so skewed relative to the norm or even to a well-known benchmark for a small full-keeled offshore cruiser, (the Folkboat) that I think the numbers are very relevant to someone weighing a decision to go offshore on the boat in question.

And lastly, when you say, "The really interesting thing is that the Bayfield 25 would seem to have more in common with Jeff_H's preferred type of boat than the Folkboat which is in fact closer to what I would prefer." it shows that you do not understand my viewpoint at all. The types of boats that I prefer includes boats like the Folkboat. They were simple, seaworthy, well mannered little boats that could sail well across a very wide range of conditions. That description and my preferences do not include boats like the smaller Bayfields, which (in my opinion) I generally consider to be charactures of traditional sailing craft, rather than being the kind of well balanced design concept that traditional water craft tend to be. To my eye, and in my opinion, Bayfields, and other character boats of that era and thier ilk, eschew the lessons learned from geniune traditional watercraft which have designs evolved based on hundred of years of experience in harsh environments.

Respectfully,
Jeff
 
#16 ·
Well... I was gonna stick up for you Jeff...but you seem to have done a pretty good job yourself! :D

I think anyone here for a while knows your boat yard experience, thoughtful insights and ACTUAL time at sea and in racing venues makes you a treasured resource here as your REP indicates.
A johnny come lately with no-rep no-boat and no design experience starts complaining about YOUR biases without explaining from his OWN experience why they are wrong.... and I just have to shake my head a laugh.
 
#17 · (Edited)
"I generally consider to be charactures of traditional sailing craft,"

That is perfect, :) I was trying to come up with a way of expressing that very thing but could not.

I mean no offence to any one who owns and likes one, after all it is "what ever floats your boat" we all have different tastes.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Jeff and all you fin keel, spade rudder fans might find this of interest and this not my opinion, this is objective observation: The last time I sailed Paloma up to Southern Yachts (a mega-shipyard off of Galveston Bay), for a bottom job and new zincs, a full 60% of the sailboats blocked up on the hard were fin keel/spade rudder boats, with bent rudder posts or separated keels. The biggest batch of bent rudder posts were on big, expensive Beneteaus while most of the separated keels were a variety of fin keelers. One of the separated keels was an Irwin that had hit a submerged object low on the keel and it pulled the keel away from the hull enough that you could put your hand between the hull and the forward edge of the keel.
And, as well you might guess, none of the keel-hung or skeg-hung rudder boats were among the disabled.
If you like the Bayfield - buy it. The cockpit is kind of small and deep, making it a bit hard to see over the cabin trunk, but it's a sturdy little boat that will take you most places you'll likely go - not quickly, but it will make it there. And, don't worry about the story of the Bayfield 25 that barrel rolled twice in 55 knot winds - there's a whole world of boats in that size range that would not have survived the first roll.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Well said



Yes as stated on my first post "A lot of things in life are a blend of different aspects of science and art, are subject to differing opinions and subject to the uninformed jumping to the wrong conclusions about what makes something tick. But none more so than boat design."

It is a personal choice and you have to weigh what is most important to you. This (yacht design) will never be a topic that a majority will agree upon every aspect of.

:)
 
#23 · (Edited)
Agreed and double agreed!!! That's why the boats I've owned over the years have all been encapsulated lead keels some full keeled (a beautiful Bayfield 29 - way too much wood to take care of and an Eastward Ho 24 - a 24 foot boat ought not to displace 7,200 lbs) and the rest have been modified fin and skeg hung rudder boats (like Paloma).
 
#21 ·
A no win situation

Yep Jeff_H has more experience sailing - as I have stated specifically in other threads. I did not mean to imply that he was an armchair sailor - it was a somewhat badly timed "sidebar" referring to the fact that a lot of people on this forum worry way too much about the numbers relating to yacht design. I also did not mean to attack him personally - as stated in my very first post on this forum I have no doubt he means well.

I do apologize if it came across as a personal attack. On the other hand I did not add two "Stick out Tongue" smiley faces as he did at the end of every paragraph on one of his recent posts.

Jeff_H considering you are listed as an "Architect" in your biography your experience/training in yacht design surprises me. Especially considering some of your statements. And especially so, considering some of the conclusions you come to regarding boats and stability/full keels etc. Your acknowledgement that you are not - perfect or all knowing about yacht design is also surprising considering how point blank condescending a tone you use to answer peoples questions.

But thats life and we should just leave it at that.

And we should leave it at that as this is way off topic from what this thread is about.

Because this is a no win situation. I think this forum will be a useful tool as I hopefully do purchase my first large sailboat in the near future. But I will not respond on this thread anymore about this matter. I believe private messages are available for this sort of thing. If it needs to be addressed at all - which I don't think it does.

Obviously however great a guy Jeff_H is - however much experience he has - his post's rub me the wrong way. I will try to control that before I click "Submit Reply" in the future.

thanks,

Ericb
 
#24 ·
Careening is no big deal if you have the right boat. I have an Islander Bahama 24 that I have careened 4 times. It has 7'8" beam and a full keel with a cutaway forefoot. The rudder is keel-hung. The keel is encapsulated lead in a thick layer of glass. The draft is 3'6". The boat sits at an absurd angle of heel when careened, but on a sloping muddy beach with good tidal range and no wake, I was able to do it without incident.

I would careen the Bayfield 25 confidently in a calm harbor. Mind the weather and tides. Fridays and Saturdays are generally bad days for this due to motor boat wakes. Make sure she lies down right side up, this can be done by making a halyard fast to a bulkhead.

I am not sure about the laws of careening, I researched them heavily, reading a lot of material and contacting a lot of government agencies, I could not find any info that was meaningful.

I would assume that it is illegal, and act accordingly. I do know for sure that the EPA would charge you fines for painting on a tidal beach.
 
#29 · (Edited)
I know this is a super old thread, but I don't see any point in opening a new one for my simple question.

I am wondering if any body can provide details on a Bayfield 25 with regards to real world VMG upwind or any other related information. Relative Course Made good combined with speed made good against the wind would work to. I can manage basic trig.

I am trying to determine if I can realistically over come local currents (which are a known factor) under sail with these boats.

Even estimates from knowledgeable sailors who haven't sailed these boats but have observed them would be useful. Or, any direction on where I could find this info would be helpful too (short of calling Gizzard yachts).

Typical July wind speeds in my neighbourhood are 10-15 knots. The rest of the months are windier.
 
#30 ·
Lots of variables here...

I've not sailed one of these, but FWIW here's a couple of thoughts...

Very shoal draft/shallow low-lift keel, would expect a fair bit of leeway at all times (current or not).

Maybe possible that current may have a slightly lesser effect for same reason (less area for current to act on) but the increased leeway is going to be problematic anyhow.

If the job description is 'upwind and up current' most of the time, not sure this is the boat for you unless you're in serious 'cruise' mode. Of course, if the currents are tidal (ie reversing during the day) your timing can make a world of difference. However I don't know the tidal influence on the St Lawrence. Certainly the state of the tide affects BC's Fraser river, but it truly only reverses in light runoff conditions.. during spring melts and heavy rains it simply slows down some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arcb
#31 · (Edited)
If the job description is 'upwind and up current' most of the time, not sure this is the boat for you unless you're in serious 'cruise' mode. Of course, if the currents are tidal (ie reversing during the day) your timing can make a world of difference. However I don't know the tidal influence on the St Lawrence. Certainly the state of the tide affects BC's Fraser river, but it truly only reverses in light runoff conditions.. during spring melts and heavy rains it simply slows down some.
Well, its not as dramatic as all upwind all up current all the time, although that is a major component. Basically day sailing or evening I sail back and forth across the river, upwind performance is a non issue. There is no racing on my part of the river, at least no sailboat racing, there is however, some very exciting, very fast power boat racing- but I/m just a spectator for that.

Current I'm afraid is one way in my neighbourhood. The tidal influence ends at Trois Riviere which is about 200 miles down river from me, so not much help.

My greatest area of concern is my week ending, we like to sail up to a series of anchorages upriver of me in the islands. It's a distance of about 12 miles, current is only about a knot in this zone. On each leg I can get about 1/2-1 mile of sea room before tacking. I'm not new to full keel boats, I do this trip under sail in my Fantasia 35, which doesn't exactly have a reputation for being an upwind power house in 3-4 hours, usually closer to 3, however, I definitely work up a sweat doing so. I guess if I could make 3 knots to windward, that would allow me to do the trip in a cool 6 hours, I have no issues with 6 hours.

Things change once in the islands if I'm cruising. The current picks up to 2-3 knots in places, however, there are lots of eddies behind the islands, both wind and water that are easy to ride up river if you know where to look. In this case the very shallow keel on the Bayfield would give me an edge, because I could take advantage of the shallow bits on the downstream portions of the islands and grab a lift with the current. There are short sections where the current is so strong I have never seen a boat sailing upriver against, that's okay, I'll use my motor for those sections. Any way, I'm, not too concerned about the next 78 miles or so to Lake Ontario, here shallow draft is king because it turns 600 foot tacking legs into 3000 foot tacking legs. Again, full keel is nice here, in case you smoke one of the submerged granite mountain tops at 5 knots.

If my vacation is long enough to make it to Eastern Lake Ontario, current and prevailing wind stops being an issue. It is rough in that section of lake though.

So I guess that's my question, can I make 3 knots up wind (no current) with a Bayfield 25 in 10-15 knots of wind, assuming I'm a reasonably competent sailor with decent sails?
 
#33 · (Edited)
So are these boats good performers down wind?

I'm not a keel boat racer, so I'm kind of bad at interpreting PHRF numbers.

When I compare a Bayfield 25, to the other boats on my short list, all within 2' of waterline length, the Bayfield is the second fastest boat.

The boats I'm comparing it to are a Tanzer 22, a Catalina 22, a CS22 and a Sirius 21. These boats can all be trailered behind a Santa Fe and can all be purchased in good shape for less than $10k cdn.

The Tanzer 22 is by far the fastest, no doubt at least partially due to the fixed fin keel and low profile cabin top. It was showing about 15 seconds faster than the Bayfield.

The Sirius 21 and CS 22 were both showing about 6 seconds slower than the Bayfield. The CS 22 had the shortest waterline length of the bunch at 18' but also the highest ballast/displacement ratio at 50%. The Sirius 21 had the highest SA/D at 20.75 and the lowest ballast displacement at only 26%.

By far the slowest of the bunch was the Catalina 22 at around 24 seconds slower than the Bayfield with only 12" less waterline length.

So is the Bayfield making up the time against these other boats at 90-180 degrees off the wind? Am I using a flawed Handicap numbers?

I definitely understand the hydrodynamics behind the low aspect keel and why it shouldn't theoretically provide as much lift, but...?

A couple of observations is the Bayfield has a fairly high SA/D for this type of boat at over 20 and is the only one of the bunch with a lead ballast.
 
#34 ·
PHRF numbers aside, I have a hard time picturing a B25 sailing faster than a C22, assuming both well-sailed, and esp upwind.

But they are 'cute' in their own way and certainly have more headroom than the others, so once again it's down to the compromises you're willing to make vs your priorities..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arcb
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top