bayfield 29 sailboat review

Bow and Stern

Adventures in a bayfield 29.

Bayfield 29 — An early review

I’ve had a few weeks with the new boat (Bayfield 29, la Princesa …until I change the name in a few weeks), and I’m getting a good feel for her.

Firstly, I don’t have any buyers remorse. At least not yet. I’m rather pleased with the design in general.

Under sail:

She sails remarkably well in light air. Not race boat fast; but certainly a lot better than I expected from a full keel, rather full body cutter. Under the asymmetrical spinnaker she would do three knots in around six knots indicated wind (masthead anemometer), and if I was willing to settle for two knots of speed (and I often am), I could probably keep her moving at that pace on most points of sail under working canvas in any but the lightest wind (perhaps I’m overstating the case; but given my experience so far I don’t think by much).

She is perfectly happy in heavyish weather provided she gets a reef in the main by around 20 knots wind or so. I’ve had her in the high twenties pushing thirty (apparent, indicated) under one reef and both head-sails (I’m not sure if they are the original sizes or not) and there was a fair amount of weather helm; but it wasn’t unmanageable or uncomfortable, although a second reef probably wouldn’t have been a bad idea. I haven’t explored the full range of capability yet (I JUST bought the boat); but I’m willing to bet that with the second (fairly deep) reef, 40 knots of wind will be somewhat anti-climatic (although the wave action that goes along with 40 knots might not be pleasant…I’m not rushing to find out). I find her quite stiff (a benefit of that rotund body, I suspect), dry, and comfortable throughout the twenties with probably three to four foot Chesapeake waves.

Under Power:

No trouble handling under power in forward. She will turn within her own length to port (edit: I THINK to port…My recollection is suddenly challenging that direction). In reverse I now understand all the full keel complaints. I’m sure I’ll figure it out eventually; but I haven’t yet. I back into my slip; but I am using warping lines more than engine power at the moment. It’s a bit more work; but even single handed in a cross breeze I know I can get the boat in that way. I have watched some maestros under power, though, and I know it can be done with some more experience.

Cockpit and Deck:

The cockpit is deeper than I would like. It feels quite secure; but I need a huge cushion to sit high enough for good visibility (and I’m not a tiny man!). The seat coamings are practically vertical, the seat bottoms are too narrow, and the foot well area is so wide it is difficult to brace against the opposite seat. Happily, with the cushion I’m high enough I can see, and the boat is stiff enough that bracing isn’t as big a deal as it could be. But if each of the seats was a few inches wider, and the foot well was 6-8 inches narrower, and the back rest was angled a bit, the cockpit would be much more comfortable. Also I find it a little tricky to have one person at the tiller while another is tending the sheets as they both want to occupy the same space. This can be worked around, and with experimentation I am figuring it out; but some more thought here wouldn’t have been out of place. The cockpit also seems designed to hold a tremendous amount of water, with only two average size (1.5″ maybe? Less?) drains to let it all out. Hopefully if I’m ever out in conditions likely to flood the cockpit the cabin hatches are in, and the engine room hatch gasketing is more robust than it looks. Before serious contemplation of an offshore trip I’d have to think long and hard about putting in more cockpit drainage. As deep as the cockpit is, boat handling would be a challenge with more than a couple people in it.

While we are in the cockpit, I’d also like to say that I am not a big fan of having halyards run aft. Running the two head-sail halyards aft is pointless because I have roller furling (which is pretty nice, by the way). And the mains’l halyard is almost as pointless as the main seems to often get hung up on the lazyjacks going both up and down, which requires going to the mast to guide things along. While this is probably correctable either through a reconfiguration of the lazyjacks, or a change in technique on my part, what is not easily correctable is the reefing lines which are at the base of the boom. There is little point in trying to rig them to the cockpit as it is still necessary to be at the mast to get the reefing hook into the tack (although I suppose I could try and rig single line reefing…I’ll think about it). The outhaul and topping lift are also controlled at the mast. What the heck, they might as well have left the main halyard there too! I’ll think about it for the next year or so, I guess, and see if it bugs me enough to make changes. This is one of those things where the current setup appears ideal for the single hander, but I find it quite the opposite. It’s also a shame the boom wasn’t a few inches higher as this is a headache waiting to happen (a foot higher might permit standing headroom under the dodger and bimini)!

One other gripe, although this seems to also be common across most modern designs, is that one of the shroud chainplates on either side goes through the deck. The inner shrouds are attached to the house sides, and with that near vertical orientation they don’t seem to leak. The outer shrouds, though, poke a hole through the damn deck. Why? This is certainly NOT a racing boat, so a couple extra inches of sheeting angle won’t matter, especially since neither head sail extends aft of the mast. If Bayfield would have just moved the chainplates to the hull side I’m willing to bet that any water leakage, even with old caulking, would be minimal. As it is I’m going to need to caulk them up when I do my winter refit. The standing rigging will need to be replaced at some point, and I may consider moving those chain plates out at that time. I need to do research first, though, as there are likely to be unintended consequences.

The good news is the side decks are reasonably wide, the life lines are high enough to be safe, the foredeck feels secure, and the motion of the boat is quite comfortable.

Moving on to the interior we have what is, in many ways, a brilliant layout. By eliminating the v-berth (which typically in small boats becomes a catch all junk room) we not only get rid of the least comfortable berth aboard, we suddenly have room for a remarkably spacious head for a small boat. It is quite comfortable. Forward of the head is a hanging/storage locker, and further forward a huge anchor locker. There is even a funny little cushioned seat in the head, which I haven’t been able to find a point to; but it looks pretty cool even if I’m unlikely to ever sit on it. With the head further forward, we open up the main cabin. There is a centerline table with fold up leafs. On the starboard side is a berth that pulls out into a double, with a regular settee on the port side. Aft further is a half bulkhead that separates the galley (starboard) and chart table (decently sized to port). Partitions slide up from the half bulkhead to really separate the main cabin from what I’m calling the “working” (galley/navigation) cabin if the need for privacy and separation would arise (for instance, on a passage with sleeping crew). Aft of both the galley and chart table are a pair of quarter berths, port (a little too short) and starboard (plenty long). Four opening portlights plus the hatch in the head allow for decent ventilation. I’m 5’10” tall and I have standing headroom throughout, barely, although I have bumped my head a few times walking through the door to the head. Stowage is quite reasonable (I’m still experimenting on how best to utilize it). Water tankage is fine for a week or so (25 or 30 gallons I’m guessing); but could probably stand to be increased for any extended trips, especially considering the waste associated with a pressure water system (there is currently no system implemented for non-pressure water, although this is on my to-do list). The interior is teak, which some people like (me, for one), and others find gloomy. Build quality seems generally very decent.

Brilliant or not, I have a couple gripes about the interior as well. Well, I have one BIG gripe. Once again Ted Gozzard (or perhaps Bayfield yachts themselves) had an ergonomic brain fart. The settees, when in “couch” mode (that is, the seat backs are down), are too narrow, and it constantly feels like you are sitting on the edge of your seat. I guess this is OK for eating at the table; but not my cup of tea for just relaxing in the cabin. Raise the seat backs into bunk mode and they are as comfortable as any bunk I’ve personally been on. I have a few thoughts on how to make the settees more comfortable; but it will take a little experimentation. I’m going to try to avoid major surgery, or having to make new cushions ($$$); but I might not get away with that. Given that this boat will eventually be my home, though, the situation needs to be worked on a bit, and it deserves to have a few dollars thrown at it.

Ice melts fast in the ice-box. I think I’ll probably turn it into dry storage and pick up an Engle or something (I’ll snug it down into the starboard quarter berth or something, I guess).

Mechanicals:

The engine is a Yanmar 2GM, is about thirteen horsepower (although I can not get it up to max continuous RPM of 3400, meaning I’m not getting all the ponies), and seems to push the boat along just fine. When the wind and seas are calm I am just about getting to hull speed at maybe 2800 RPM (indicated). When the wind and waves are well up, I’ve been held back to as little as four knots over the ground (the knotmeter is not giving realistic numbers, so I’m defaulting to GPS…it should be correct within a quarter to maybe half knot or so, I think) at my max achievable RPM of three thousand. A few extra horsepower when the wind is blowing would not be unwelcome; but I think I’m getting an adequate amount. I think twenty horse power would have been a better choice; but not nearly better enough to consider spending the money to repower. I haven’t figured out fuel consumption, yet; but it is modest. The standard alternator is 35 amps. Given the horsepower, I’m not sure if it is reasonable to go much bigger which might put a practical limit on battery capacity.

Engine access is terrific, both through a hatch in the cockpit (although I wonder what would happen if the cockpit got flooded) and by removing the companionway steps, through the cabin. My only complaint is that the oil dipstick is in an awkward location which discourages checking it daily; but that is part of the discipline. I had a cooling problem a few days ago, so I pulled the water pump off to check the impeller and replace the belts. It was easy. I haven’t done any other maintenance on it yet; but outside of changing the oil (I think the old oil is sucked up through the dipstick port with a pump), most everything looks pretty easy to handle. Since there isn’t an hour meter on the motor and I don’t know when any scheduled preventative maintenance was last done, I’m planning on doing pretty much everything on the scheduled maintenance list to effectively reset the clock to zero before hauling in a few weeks for the winter. I may put in an hour meter at some point to help keep track, too.

I have a pair of Group 24 deep cycle batteries, in two banks. I’d like to at least double my amp capacity. It is not immediately obvious the best way to shoe-horn in more batteries, although I have a couple ideas. A tape measure will be my best friend for awhile. Given the smallish alternator, solar charging will be a good idea.

Boat options:

Air-conditioning! It is probably twenty years old and blows cool, but not cold air. I’m going to see if I can fix this up. As a soon to be live-aboard I believe I will replace this unit if I can’t get it working better (might just need a charge, or perhaps a good cleaning). It does get hot here in the Chesapeake!

Propane on demand hot water heater. It works, and generates scalding hot water. But it seems to take awhile to get going, and the water tanks are small enough that running the faucet while waiting for the hot water to show up seems like a terrible waste of fresh water. Taking a hot shower on a cool morning is pretty damn awesome, though! (Although there are pitfalls to showering aboard). I need to redo the propane lines (it’s a trust issue), so I may decide to get rid of the water heater. It will be kind of odd having a hot water faucet on each of the sinks without any hot water; but such is life. I can use my portable pump up sprayer for showers (it works well) by either solar heating the container or just boiling a pot of water.

Deck wash-down pump. The water around here is muddy. It’s very cool to be able to spray off the chain and deck after raising anchor. Very cool.

Propane stove. I guess the Bayfields came with Origo alcohol stoves; but my 29 has a Kenyon two burner propane job. I’m not a big foodie and I tend to cook simple meals, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. Gas is nice, though. Unfortunately, the stove is not gimballed (and it doesn’t have an oven, although that is of limited interest to me), and there is no easy way to install a permanent gimballed stove without doing major galley surgery and probably sacrificing the starboard quarter berth (which isn’t likely to get used much; but it might be important if it comes time to sell the boat down the road). I have a thought on how to inexpensively build a portable/removable gimballed stove sort of like the old Sea Cook stove, so when the time comes I’m sure I’ll be OK. There is currently a six pound propane tank hanging off the stern pulpit. Before doing any long distance cruising it might make sense to get another.

Conclusion:

While I have a few gripes, I find the boat meets my needs about as well, better really, as could be expected. There are always compromises; but in a sub-thirty foot live-aboard (take away the pulpit, it is probably closer to 27′) I don’t think I could ask for much more. I don’t know if many Bayfield 29s are out doing ocean crossings; but while the design might not be the best choice for a trip around the Horn, I don’t see any reason why she shouldn’t be perfectly capable and comfortable for seasonally appropriate passages providing some modest updating is done; although my experience in the matter is a bit limited.

She makes me smile when I look at her, and even though she looks a little tired at the moment, she gets a lot of compliments. She is thirty years old, and as is reasonably expected, her systems and cosmetics need some attention. Getting old sucks; but I don’t see any reason why “ la Princesa ” (I’m looking forward to the new name) can not be restored to full glory with a modest amount of elbow grease.

Feed from: http://continuousmoon.blogspot.com/

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

4 thoughts on “ Bayfield 29 — An early review ”

I will add some photos to the review above in a day or two. They will help describe some of what I’m talking about.

Any futher comments on your Bayfield? I am considering it for single handing. 63 yo woman sailor here.

My review above pretty much stands, although I’m happy to answer any specific questions you have. I’m still early days in ownership, though.

Single handing, btw, is pretty easy. She’s a stable platform. Docking is a challenge, though. I’m hoping with practice it will get easier.

We have finished year 3 with our 1979 B-29. 6 opening ports, extended bowsprit, wheel steering, no cockpit engine hatch, etc. Docking does get easier- ours pulls hard starboard in reverse but we have a different model Yanmar.

Whatcha thinkin'? Cancel reply

Great choice! Your favorites are temporarily saved for this session. Sign in to save them permanently, access them on any device, and receive relevant alerts.

• Sailboat Guide

Bayfield 29

Bayfield 29 is a 29 ′ 0 ″ / 8.8 m monohull sailboat designed by Ted Gozzard and built by Bayfield Boat Yard Ltd. between 1980 and 1983.

Rig and Sails

Auxilary power, accomodations, calculations.

The theoretical maximum speed that a displacement hull can move efficiently through the water is determined by it's waterline length and displacement. It may be unable to reach this speed if the boat is underpowered or heavily loaded, though it may exceed this speed given enough power. Read more.

Classic hull speed formula:

Hull Speed = 1.34 x √LWL

Max Speed/Length ratio = 8.26 ÷ Displacement/Length ratio .311 Hull Speed = Max Speed/Length ratio x √LWL

Sail Area / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the power of the sails relative to the weight of the boat. The higher the number, the higher the performance, but the harder the boat will be to handle. This ratio is a "non-dimensional" value that facilitates comparisons between boats of different types and sizes. Read more.

SA/D = SA ÷ (D ÷ 64) 2/3

• SA : Sail area in square feet, derived by adding the mainsail area to 100% of the foretriangle area (the lateral area above the deck between the mast and the forestay).
• D : Displacement in pounds.

Ballast / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the stability of a boat's hull that suggests how well a monohull will stand up to its sails. The ballast displacement ratio indicates how much of the weight of a boat is placed for maximum stability against capsizing and is an indicator of stiffness and resistance to capsize.

Ballast / Displacement * 100

Displacement / Length Ratio

A measure of the weight of the boat relative to it's length at the waterline. The higher a boat’s D/L ratio, the more easily it will carry a load and the more comfortable its motion will be. The lower a boat's ratio is, the less power it takes to drive the boat to its nominal hull speed or beyond. Read more.

D/L = (D ÷ 2240) ÷ (0.01 x LWL)³

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds.
• LWL: Waterline length in feet

Comfort Ratio

This ratio assess how quickly and abruptly a boat’s hull reacts to waves in a significant seaway, these being the elements of a boat’s motion most likely to cause seasickness. Read more.

Comfort ratio = D ÷ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x Beam 1.33 )

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds
• LOA: Length overall in feet
• Beam: Width of boat at the widest point in feet

Capsize Screening Formula

This formula attempts to indicate whether a given boat might be too wide and light to readily right itself after being overturned in extreme conditions. Read more.

CSV = Beam ÷ ³√(D / 64)

Embed this page on your own website by copying and pasting this code.

• About Sailboat Guide

©2024 Sea Time Tech, LLC

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Review of Bayfield 29

Basic specs..

The Bayfield 29 is equipped with a long keel. A long keel provide a better directional stability than a similar boat with a fin keel; on the other hand, better directional stability means also that the boat is more difficult to handle in a harbour with less space.

The boat can enter even shallow marinas as the draft is just about 1.07 - 1.17 meter (3.51 - 3.81 ft) dependent on the load. See immersion rate below.

The boat is typically equipped with an inboard Yanmar 2GM diesel engine at 15.0 hp (11 kW), which gives a max speed about 5.0 knots.

The fuel tank has a capacity of 75 liters (19 US gallons, 16 imperial gallons).

Sailing characteristics

This section covers widely used rules of thumb to describe the sailing characteristics. Please note that even though the calculations are correct, the interpretation of the results might not be valid for extreme boats.

What is Capsize Screening Formula (CSF)?

The capsize screening value for Bayfield 29 is 2.12, indicating that this boat would not be accepted to participate in ocean races.

What is Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed?

The theoretical maximal speed of a displacement boat of this length is 6.2 knots. The term "Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed" is widely used even though a boat can sail faster. The term shall be interpreted as above the theoretical speed a great additional power is necessary for a small gain in speed.

The immersion rate is defined as the weight required to sink the boat a certain level. The immersion rate for Bayfield 29 is about 137 kg/cm, alternatively 771 lbs/inch. Meaning: if you load 137 kg cargo on the boat then it will sink 1 cm. Alternatively, if you load 771 lbs cargo on the boat it will sink 1 inch.

Sailing statistics

This section is statistical comparison with similar boats of the same category. The basis of the following statistical computations is our unique database with more than 26,000 different boat types and 350,000 data points.

What is Motion Comfort Ratio (MCR)?

What is L/B (Length Beam Ratio)?

What is a Ballast Ratio?

What is Displacement Length Ratio?

What is SA/D (Sail Area Displacement ratio)?

Maintenance

When buying anti-fouling bottom paint, it's nice to know how much to buy. The surface of the wet bottom is about 14m 2 (150 ft 2 ). Based on this, your favourite maritime shop can tell you the quantity you need.

Are your sails worn out? You might find your next sail here: Sails for Sale

If you need to renew parts of your running rig and is not quite sure of the dimensions, you may find the estimates computed below useful.

This section is reserved boat owner's modifications, improvements, etc. Here you might find (or contribute with) inspiration for your boat.

Do you have changes/improvements you would like to share? Upload a photo and describe what you have done.

We are always looking for new photos. If you can contribute with photos for Bayfield 29 it would be a great help.

If you have any comments to the review, improvement suggestions, or the like, feel free to contact us . Criticism helps us to improve.

Bayfield 29

The bayfield 29 is a 29.0ft cutter designed by ted gozzard and built in fiberglass by bayfield boat yard ltd. (can) between 1978 and 1983., 350 units have been built..

The Bayfield 29 is a heavy sailboat which is a good performer. It is very stable / stiff and has a low righting capability if capsized. It is best suited as a coastal cruiser. The fuel capacity is originally very small. There is a very short water supply range.

Bayfield 29 for sale elsewhere on the web:

Main features

Login or register to personnalize this screen.

You will be able to pin external links of your choice.

See how Sailboatlab works in video

We help you build your own hydraulic steering system - Lecomble & Schmitt

Accommodations

Builder data

Modal Title

The content of your modal.

Personalize your sailboat data sheet

Paste a link here:

Give it a title:

And eventually a link to an image for the thumbnail:

Boat Reviews

• Boats Specs
• Marine Pros
• Boat Insurance
• Boat Warranties
• Boat Transport
• Boat Towing
• Marine Forecasts

Your Ultimate Boating Resource

1986 Bayfield 29

1986 bayfield 29 specs.

• Boat Type : Monohull Sailboats
• Quantity: 1
• Horse Power: 15
• Type: Diesel
• Hull Material : Fiberglass
• Beam : 10'2"
• Length : 29'
• Net Weight : 7350 lbs
• Looking for the Boat Manual? 1986 Bayfield Boats 29 Request Boat Manual Now

Related Boats

• 1977 Bayfield 29
• 1978 Bayfield 29
• 1979 Bayfield 29
• 1980 Bayfield 29
• 1981 Bayfield 29
• 1982 Bayfield 29
• 1983 Bayfield 29
• 1984 Bayfield 29
• 1985 Bayfield 29
• 1987 Bayfield 29
• 1988 Bayfield 29

2024 Pursuit OS 445: An Overview

Dock your boat smoothly this summer with these tips, the billionaire’s playground: where to spot superyachts around the world, summertime snack ideas for your boating adventure, de-winterize your boat the right way with these professional tips, what type of wood is used for pier pilings, what is the difference between a dock and a floating pier, what is the proper technique for pulling a beginner wakeboarder, what does ‘no wake’ mean on a lake, what is the difference between wash and wake, 10 essential tips for fishing near private property, the benefits of using a drift sock: guidance for anglers, lure fishing: secrets for imitating live bait and attracting fish, explore the untapped depths of america’s best bass fishing spots, tackle your catch-and-release adventures with these 6 tips, outboard motor maintenance: tips for keeping your engine in top shape, the essential boat tool kit: tools every boater needs, diy boat building: 8 tips and tricks for building your own vessel, the art of miniature maritime craftsmanship: ship in a bottle, antifouling paints: a guide to keeping your boat shipshape, beginner’s guide to standup paddle boarding: tips and techniques, boating for fitness: how to stay active on the water, kayak safety: how to stay safe on the water, anchoring in a kayak or canoe: how to secure your small boat, 2024 aquila 47 molokai review, 2024 sea-doo switch 13 sport review, 2024 aspen c120 review, 2024 yamaha 222xd review, 2024 sailfish 316 dc review, 2023 seavee 340z review, 2023 centurion fi23 review, gear reviews, megabass oneten max lbo jerkbait review, fortress anchors fx-7 anchoring system review, fortress anchors fx-11 anchoring system review, fortress anchors commando anchor kit review, fortress anchors aluminum anchors review, stay in touch.

To be updated with all the latest news, offers and special announcements.

• Privacy Policy

• Forums New posts Unanswered threads Register Top Posts Email
• What's new New posts New Posts (legacy) Latest activity New media
• Media New media New comments
• Boat Info Downloads Weekly Quiz Topic FAQ 10000boatnames.com
• Classifieds Sell Your Boat Used Gear for Sale
• Parts General Marine Parts Hunter Beneteau Catalina MacGregor Oday
• Help Terms of Use Monday Mail Subscribe Monday Mail Unsubscribe

How worried should I be?

• Thread starter nto1221
• Start date May 4, 2024
• Forums for All Owners
• Ask All Sailors

I have a Bayfield 29 sailboat. Today it was supposed to go in the water from its winter storage. Unfortunately, the lift operator at my marina backed the lift into my forestay causing the stainless steel cabling to snap. I’m concerned whether this caused damage beyond just the standing rigging. It’s a keel-stepped mast. When I went below I noticed the shims lying on the sole that had been between the mast and the hole where the mast comes through the deck. So there was some significant movement in the mast before the forestay snapped. Aside from the mast becoming bent, I’m worried that the pressure from the mast could have damaged the deck or the chainplates—especially on the backstay as there would have been a lot of pressure on it. I’m also worried about the potential for damage to the keel. At this point I think I need to get a survey done to assess the safety of the vessel. Am I being paranoid? Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts what I should do now.  

Sorry to hear about the accident. The first thing you should do is use the jib halyard as a temporary forestay, this will help stabilize the mast. Next call your insurance company, follow their advice. I doubt the keel was damaged. Other parts of the rigging might have suffered from the incident, which is why your insurance company should get involved. When the tension on the forestay was released, the mast probably bounced around in the partners causing one wedge to fall out, which allowed more movement and more wedges to fall out. In and of itself this may not be a big deal, but it does point to the amount pressure that was exerted on the mast and forestay. Good luck.  

Thanks, again, to that expert marina staff! I'll add that to a pretty long list of F***Ups by untrained workers. It wouldn't be as irritating if the yard wasn't charging fully trained rates.  

Aside from the mast becoming bent.... Is the mast actually bent, or are you concerned that it might be? You should be able to check by feeling for any dents by the mast collar, or by placing a known straight edge along all our sides of the mast at deck level. Good luck with a prompt, satisfactory outcome - that's a terrible way to start your season.  

brockfromwa

I also agree with calling your insurance company. I would be very surprised if your mast is bent or damaged from that accident. I've had one of my inner-lower stays break at sea and my mast was swaying at least 4' off center until I was able to tie a line to tension it back up. Once I made it to land, rigger and myself didn't notice any permanent damage. I would have a knowledgeable rigger look over your whole rig when you hire them to make you a new forestay. If your rigging is around 10 years old or older, just replace it all and save the headache of inspecting and worrying about every fitting. Take a close look around your chain plates to ensure no stress fractures were created. You may have some gel coat cracks around the chain plates, that is expected given your rig was bouncing around for a bit. Best of luck on fixing the rigging!  

Ralph Johnstone

No, you're not being paranoid in the least. Don't sail the boat until you get it surveyed and notify your insurance company. With an accident like that, the marina is just waiting for you to sail the boat once and once only and then deny being responsible for any damage. At that point, there's no going back. Might not be a bad idea to photo everything involved in the accident showing damage from every possible angle. Best of luck with this and yes, one hell of a way to stat the season.  

What is the Marina saying at this point? Agree with the above. I would think contacting your insurance and following their advice would put you on the right path. I would however be a bit worried they will want to write the whole thing off when they should rather be settling with your Marina's insurance. A full rig survey will be needed including chain plates. I would think that the back stay & chain plate might have received the worse damage. Of greater that 10 years old some of this cost may be on you. The mast will need to be pulled for a proper rig survey in this case. Sorry that the start of your season has been derailed.  

Blitz said: I would however be a bit worried they will want to write the whole thing off when they should rather be settling with your Marina's insurance. Click to expand

Crusty Ol Salt

Ralph Johnstone said: Might not be a bad idea to photo everything involved in the accident showing damage from every possible angle. Click to expand

SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John

nto1221 said: At this point I think I need to get a survey done to assess the safety of the vessel. Am I being paranoid? Click to expand

The other thing to consider is that the season in Green Bay is short. Get too many people involved, and you might as well set your sights on 2025. I would mention it to the insurance, but not necessarily get them "involved." If you can get a rigger to look at it, and press the marina to replace the standing rigging (at least the backstay was stressed to near the breaking point, but not so much the shrouds), that might be a good resolution. If there is a furler, is the extrusion bent? I would think it would be. That will need replaced, which could lead to a new furler. That will be the money. You will need to be thinking about do I do all of the this the "proper way," full of red tape, or do you want to sail in 2024. And if it cost you a full season, what does the marina feel about this loss of use that is 100% their fault? I would threaten them sith that, which might lead to getting the rigging replaced fast and move on.  

If the forestay was healthy then breaking it had to put tremendous pressure on every part of the rig. Get a surveyor.  

Project_Mayhem

I'd take off whatever fitting the forestay attaches to to look for any hairline cracks and inspect the mast for any elongated holes from said fitting attachment. Chainplates and their attachment points should also be considered. Just trying to think of items that havent been mentioned before  

Hopeful that @nto1221 will come back and say hi again. We had a boat in the Marina that a was being moved by a marina worker near Ballard WA. He misjudged the bridge lift near the locks. Upper portion of the forestay/furler ran into the bridge cross beam. Claim was the boat came to a stop before the bridge. The evidence upon delivery inspection was different. The boat and rigging showed extensive damage upon survey. You have to know what to look for in such cases.  

• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more…

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• About The Boat
• Sailboat Design and Construction
• 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?

• Add to quote

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.  

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.....  

I know the draft is going to help me alot around my home port (Charleston SC). I want to take a sailing trip to Bermuda within the next couple of years and i figured this boat would be able to do it.  

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.  

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.  

Oh yea, the other major thing i wanted to find out is can the boat be beached? Could i take it and anchor over a sandbar, wait for the tide to go out and clean the bottom? Would it get any damage?  

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  

Jeff_H said: 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 Click to expand...

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  

Johnhr said: 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 Click to expand...

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.  

I agree with Jeff and others about luck playing possibly too much a part of such a trip. As far as careening, see this link for another solution: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance-articles/20077-giving-your-boat-some-legs.html Legs like this have been used on several boats that I know of in that size range, a Vega 27 as well as Atom which is a Triton. Brian  

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.  

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....  

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  

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.  

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).  

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  

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.  

Another alternative is making fast to a pier as the tide recedes... this was the typical practice for years, but for some reason has gone out of favor.  

Hi I live in Bermuda,, with the right weather you will be fine, i have seen sailors rock up on much less of a boat,, bayfields are great,, im looking to get one here to purchase,, any change you want to sell yours when you get here lol  

2008 - He's probably been there and back again.... Of course the boat would make it, I lived there and saw a couple of them, one at Ferry Reach the other at Jews bay.  

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.  

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.  

Faster said: 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. Click to expand...

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.  

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..  

The boat is underpowered for the Bahamas. Add an outboard on the stern for extra power.  

• ?            
• 175.2K members

Top Contributors this Month