My wife and I had the opportunity to sail aboard a Bayfield 40 this weekend.
It is a boat owned by some friends who made the switch from power to sail.
He's and excellent sailor, having raced dinghies as a kid.

Does anyone have experience with this boat? I rather liked it, and it seems
to sail particularly well in the 13kts. we had on Lake Michigan on Sunday.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
My wife and I had the opportunity to sail aboard a Bayfield 40 this weekend.
It is a boat owned by some friends who made the switch from power to sail.
He's and excellent sailor, having raced dinghies as a kid.

So, when did he switch? In the womb?


Does anyone have experience with this boat?

No but I have with some of the smaller Bayfields. IMHO they're pretty
well built, very heavy but the weight is functional, structurally; the
rigging, wiring , piping, etc etc all above average.


... I rather liked it, and it seems
to sail particularly well in the 13kts. we had on Lake Michigan on Sunday.

Did you try it in less wind?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Doug... the Bayfields I agree are well built.... not speedy vessels but
solid. My friend completed a Trans-Atlantic on a Bayfield 29. I haven't
sailed the Bayfield 40 but I have sailed the 25, 29 and 32. I believe they
also make a 36 foot version. I haven't sailed that one either. My Nordica 30
is much faster than any of the Bayfields I've ever sailed on.

Another excellent choice is the Gozzard 36

CM

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
| Maxprop wrote:
| My wife and I had the opportunity to sail aboard a Bayfield 40 this
weekend.
| It is a boat owned by some friends who made the switch from power to
sail.
| He's and excellent sailor, having raced dinghies as a kid.
|
| So, when did he switch? In the womb?
|
|
| Does anyone have experience with this boat?
|
| No but I have with some of the smaller Bayfields. IMHO they're pretty
| well built, very heavy but the weight is functional, structurally; the
| rigging, wiring , piping, etc etc all above average.
|
|
| ... I rather liked it, and it seems
| to sail particularly well in the 13kts. we had on Lake Michigan on
Sunday.
|
| Did you try it in less wind?
|
| Fresh Breezes- Doug King
|
|

"Capt. Mooron" wrote ...
My Nordica 30
is much faster than any of the Bayfields I've ever sailed on.


tee hee he...

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

... I rather liked it, and it seems
to sail particularly well in the 13kts. we had on Lake Michigan on
Sunday.


Did you try it in less wind?

Yeah. We sailed it downwind with main, mizzen, and non-lapping headsail
only (staysail furled) in roughly 3-5 kts. of wind. It moved along rather
well. In fact the C&C 40 belonging to another friend stayed with us or fell
slightly behind. The Bayfield seemed to do well in just about any wind.
That's what impressed me most. It's only failure, IMO, was that it isn't
particularly weatherly. At 60 degrees off the apparent wind it moves well,
but closer and it slows significantly.

Max

Did you try it in less wind?


Maxprop wrote:
Yeah. We sailed it downwind with main, mizzen, and non-lapping headsail
only (staysail furled) in roughly 3-5 kts. of wind. It moved along rather
well.

uh huh.

.. In fact the C&C 40 belonging to another friend stayed with us or fell
slightly behind.

Yeah right. The C&C must have been backing up.

Actually, in 3 ~ 5 knots true wind, the Bayfield is doing pretty well to
maintain steerageway. That one must have a clean bottom and good sails.


.... The Bayfield seemed to do well in just about any wind.
That's what impressed me most. It's only failure, IMO, was that it isn't
particularly weatherly. At 60 degrees off the apparent wind it moves well,
but closer and it slows significantly.

Considering that the rig and the "foils" (if you'll excuse the liberty
of using this term so loosely) have been designed with every trade-off &
compromise slanted against weatherliness, that's actually not bad.

The major 'failure' of the Bayfields I have sailed... prone to steer
like garden sheds. Considering their design and weight, they sail pretty
well. But all else being equal, a C&C 40 is going to sail rings around
any Bayfield. It's like comparing a Flying Dutchman to a Beetle Cat.
That doesn't mean the Beetle Cat isn't a good boat, and fun to sail.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

Did you try it in less wind?


Maxprop wrote:
Yeah. We sailed it downwind with main, mizzen, and non-lapping headsail
only (staysail furled) in roughly 3-5 kts. of wind. It moved along
rather
well.

uh huh.

.. In fact the C&C 40 belonging to another friend stayed with us or
fell
slightly behind.

Yeah right. The C&C must have been backing up.

Actually, in 3 ~ 5 knots true wind, the Bayfield is doing pretty well to
maintain steerageway. That one must have a clean bottom and good sails.

I knew you'd be skeptical. But I was there, and the boat thoroughly
impressed me. At dinner that evening, the owner of the C&C simply
approached and shook hands with the owner of the Bayfield. Those on board
the C&C were simply shaking heads and engaging in conjecture as to why the
C&C got bested by a fat, slow old cruising boat. No one had a valid
explanation, which leads me to conclude that preconceptions are often just
that, as opposed to reality.

.... The Bayfield seemed to do well in just about any wind.
That's what impressed me most. It's only failure, IMO, was that it
isn't
particularly weatherly. At 60 degrees off the apparent wind it moves
well,
but closer and it slows significantly.

Considering that the rig and the "foils" (if you'll excuse the liberty
of using this term so loosely) have been designed with every trade-off &
compromise slanted against weatherliness, that's actually not bad.

The major 'failure' of the Bayfields I have sailed... prone to steer
like garden sheds.

Are you making this appraisal only of Bayfields, or any 40' boat with a full
keel and barn door rudder? Both of my boats have been full keel, so I
thought the Bayfield steered as well as any full keeler. If you're
comparing the Bayfield to a fin keel boat, of course it seems sluggish by
comparison.

Considering their design and weight, they sail pretty
well. But all else being equal, a C&C 40 is going to sail rings around
any Bayfield. It's like comparing a Flying Dutchman to a Beetle Cat.
That doesn't mean the Beetle Cat isn't a good boat, and fun to sail.

Don't know what to tell you, Doug. I was there, you weren't. The C&C
couldn't catch us on a beam reach in 12-15kts, nor on a broad reach in
3-5kts. The boat ain't slow, contrary to preconceptions. Under power it
cruises at 7kts at 2000rpm and roughly 8kts. at 2600rpm. Under sail the
owner reports that it does hull speed easily in 15kts or better, and will do
5.5kts. in 10kts of wind. Not bad.

Incidentally, all the speeds quoted were verified by GPS as the knotmeter
reads 88.8 alla time.

Max

Geez Max.... now you've done it. You've made a claim as to a vessel's
ability that isn't listed as possible in Doug's library!!

Next thing you know Loco will be telling you about an interview he saw about
the subject.

No fears man... I for one do indeed believe you. Seems like fin keelers
think a full keel boat can't possibly sail faster than 3 knots..... in any
conditions.

CM


"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
|
| "DSK" wrote in message
|
| Did you try it in less wind?
|
|
| Maxprop wrote:
| Yeah. We sailed it downwind with main, mizzen, and non-lapping
headsail
| only (staysail furled) in roughly 3-5 kts. of wind. It moved along
| rather
| well.
|
| uh huh.
|
| .. In fact the C&C 40 belonging to another friend stayed with us or
| fell
| slightly behind.
|
| Yeah right. The C&C must have been backing up.
|
| Actually, in 3 ~ 5 knots true wind, the Bayfield is doing pretty well to
| maintain steerageway. That one must have a clean bottom and good sails.
|
| I knew you'd be skeptical. But I was there, and the boat thoroughly
| impressed me. At dinner that evening, the owner of the C&C simply
| approached and shook hands with the owner of the Bayfield. Those on board
| the C&C were simply shaking heads and engaging in conjecture as to why the
| C&C got bested by a fat, slow old cruising boat. No one had a valid
| explanation, which leads me to conclude that preconceptions are often just
| that, as opposed to reality.
|
| .... The Bayfield seemed to do well in just about any wind.
| That's what impressed me most. It's only failure, IMO, was that it
| isn't
| particularly weatherly. At 60 degrees off the apparent wind it moves
| well,
| but closer and it slows significantly.
|
| Considering that the rig and the "foils" (if you'll excuse the liberty
| of using this term so loosely) have been designed with every trade-off &
| compromise slanted against weatherliness, that's actually not bad.
|
| The major 'failure' of the Bayfields I have sailed... prone to steer
| like garden sheds.
|
| Are you making this appraisal only of Bayfields, or any 40' boat with a
full
| keel and barn door rudder? Both of my boats have been full keel, so I
| thought the Bayfield steered as well as any full keeler. If you're
| comparing the Bayfield to a fin keel boat, of course it seems sluggish by
| comparison.
|
| Considering their design and weight, they sail pretty
| well. But all else being equal, a C&C 40 is going to sail rings around
| any Bayfield. It's like comparing a Flying Dutchman to a Beetle Cat.
| That doesn't mean the Beetle Cat isn't a good boat, and fun to sail.
|
| Don't know what to tell you, Doug. I was there, you weren't. The C&C
| couldn't catch us on a beam reach in 12-15kts, nor on a broad reach in
| 3-5kts. The boat ain't slow, contrary to preconceptions. Under power it
| cruises at 7kts at 2000rpm and roughly 8kts. at 2600rpm. Under sail the
| owner reports that it does hull speed easily in 15kts or better, and will
do
| 5.5kts. in 10kts of wind. Not bad.
|
| Incidentally, all the speeds quoted were verified by GPS as the knotmeter
| reads 88.8 alla time.
|
| Max
|
|

Maxprop wrote:
Don't know what to tell you, Doug. I was there, you weren't.

Oh, I'm not calling you a liar at all. It can happen. Beetle Cats
occasionally outsail FDs.

If the C&C was sailing with their sails badly trimmed, and a foul
bottom, the engine running & in reverse gear, towing a partially swamped
dinghy, etc etc then it'd be a piece of cake.

There are conditions that would favor the Bayfield, such as broad
reaching in heavy air & white sails only... but I doubt that's quite
enough. If both boats were equally well sailed, equally outfitted &
tuned etc etc, then the C&C should be somewhat faster even then... and
much faster most other cases.

I've been on both sides of the crab-crusher vs modern design equation.
It depends on the boats... some are just plain pigs, and IMHO none of
the Bayfields are... and it depends a LOT on the skippers.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Shiloh?
We knew the owner's once removed who bought her new....
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
My wife and I had the opportunity to sail aboard a Bayfield 40 this
weekend.
It is a boat owned by some friends who made the switch from power to sail.
He's and excellent sailor, having raced dinghies as a kid.

Does anyone have experience with this boat? I rather liked it, and it
seems
to sail particularly well in the 13kts. we had on Lake Michigan on Sunday.

Max