SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Further to my earlier post about comparing boats - I'm looking at a couple local C&C 29's.
One is a 1983 Mark 2
The other is a 1979 Mark 1

The asking price is significantly lower for the Mk 1. I know much of that can likely be put back to the electronics, sails and general boat condition.

But, I've had a hard time findng much explanation of differences between the 2 boats. Any one sailed on both want to offer thoughts?
I did find a short comment that the Mk 1 is good in light air but poor in heavy air. And a comment that they are 'very different boats' (I'll likely buy access to practical sailor for the comparative review if I'm serious)
Lots of comments on the Mk 2 being a nice boat to sail and race, but not much about the Mk1.
I used the sailcalc and can see some subtle differences - but nothing that means anything sig to me.

I'd appreciate any thoughts. Esp on the Mk 1

Thanks in advance for the help.

Mark
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
19,489 Posts
The MKII is a more modern design, probably a bit less tender than the MKI, and it has nicer tooling/ crisper look than the original. It's also probably the smaller of the two boats, at not much over 28'.

The MKI has a pretty decent rep too, though, despite that particular vintage (along with the late 70s 34) having the reputation of being a bit tender. They are also relatively early forays into cored hulls so that bears looking into.

So in the end you'll have to get on both, with luck sail both, to decide if the price premium of the MKII is worth what you might gain in amenities or 'newness'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Vastly different boats. For the record I have owned 2 29-2s. The 29-1 is a foot longer and heavier. The 29-1 has a bigger interior, nav station, slightly larger cockpit. Now the downside- likely an Atomic 4 rather than diesel engine. Hull has large flat section and narrow waterline which makes for reduced wetted surface. Great for light air but causes pounding in seas. Boat needs to be sailed flat to weather as you will be sailing on your beam ends if you heel too much which is slow.

The 29-2 was made between 1983 and 1986. Some were made in Rhode Island (hull numbers in the 600s). Boat is only 28'7". Hull is more U shaped than the 29-1. It doesn't pound and sails to weather with a bit more heel.Rig is pretty balanced between main and headsail. Boat depowers easily with backstay, vang and traveler. A better all round performer than the 29-1 especially downwind in a following sea. The 29-1 reaches faster due to it's longer waterline. 29-2s came with a yanmar 2GMF engine which is quite reliable and quiet.

Things to look out for on a 29-2. Leaky main cabin ports. If they haven't been replaced they will need it as the original adhesive has reached its useful life and is brittle. Cockpit sole. I had to replace the sole in both 29-2s I have owned. It might look o'k but lean on the pedestal. If the sole flexes you have plywood delamination in the wheel and rudder post areas. Pro fix is about $2500. Gelcoat cracks around the stanchions. Starting in 1985, C&C went to a different stanchion fitting which is through bolted through the toerail. Pre 85 are bolted through the deck which might have some cracks/delam. Check the holding tank. Design is prone to have cracks in the tank where fittings attach. New tank is special order $425 from OEM. The double pullout port berth in the main cabin is great. The V-berth is a little tight if you are over 6 feet and the starboard main salon berth a bit narrow.

The 29-2 is a solid all round performer for a 30 year old boat. The keel design and rudder are updates from the 29-1. If it is in good condition its a buy for a boat in this size range
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
The 29-2 does not have a cored hull. I'm pretty sure the 29-1 hull is solid glass also. The decks are a different story. I'm familiar with the 29-2. The cabin top area where the winches and sheet stoppers reside is solid glass along with the top of the coamings in the cockpit in the area of the primary and secondary winches. The deck is solid glass from the rail to 4" in all around the boat. The buyers surveyor I used could not find any delamination in the deck. He was amazed that there wasn't any in a 25 year old boat. He checked a second time. The transom is not cored. I had an 84 Canadian built boat and now have a 85 US built boat. There are subtle differences in the construction. For instance the 85 has reinforcement in the transom area. It is factory original. Not sure why but it makes it stiffer. The Cinkel wheel steering on both boats is robust. The parts are not interchangeable with Edson but shouldn't be a problem to replace. The chain used looks like it came off a Harley.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
19,489 Posts
Sandusky... I'm not certain enough to insist, but I believed the 29MKI and the 34 had cored hulls - my understanding is that they were 'sister designs' in the late 70s. We looked at several 34s a few years back and 'wet core' in the hulls was a common concern.

With all this debate of 'cored or not' amongst all the C&c designs it's odd there's no definitive answer available anywhere...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
It was my understanding that all C&Cs 30 foot and under had solid glass hulls. I could be wrong. Interesting comments on the design at: C&C Photo Album under the tab for Hank Evans. Round up city. Yikes!
 

·
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Joined
·
4,113 Posts
My advice, find a C&C 30 mark I which is a better design in all respects. there's a reason that model was produced from 1972 to 1983.

The 34 was the first cored hull, then the 36. I do not believe the 29-1 was cored but that memory cell has died...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

Sandusky,
Thanks for the insight. That's exactly the type of info I was looking for. I'll watch for the failure points.
If the condition is comparable then the Mk1 I'm looking at is a great deal at $8500. No photos so I'll have to go look.
The Mk2 looks to be in fairly good condition from photos - $22500. Not a bad price.

Living in Halifax we see a variety of conditions. A lot of sailing in 5-15k winds (wind speed avg 6-7k during summer months). Last summer I never actually tried reefing down my sails on my Mirage 24 - but I also stayed in the harbor.

I'll have to look at the boats closely. Make sure I'm not buying a make work project! The extra space would be huge for taking kids out overnight.

Any additional thoughts appreciated. Especially anyone with Mk 1 experience.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

Sailingfool,
I see your point. But having looked at the 30' it has one less bunk.
With 4 kids the extra bunk in the 29 actually works better for me.
Plus also about availability and price. Nice 30' locally is listing for $36500. Even making a run down north eastern seaboard they are mostly over $18-20000 plus transport and taxes.

Don't want to buy a dog, but don't have the $ to buy a pearl either. If the boat doesn't look great I'll just stick with my M24 for another year or 2

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Well we sail a MkI out of Niagara on the Lake and over the years the 29's here about have sailed as a one design fleet. The MkII is a redesign of the C&C27 and carries a longer water line than the MkI and therefore should be faster. In reality of the 12 or so boats in the fleet it has been my experience that this is true only if you have a really good skipper. That being said, the MkI is an IOR design (an adaptation of C&C's winning half tonner), and as such she is a round bottom flyer. I never found her too tender but in fact carries more canvas than she should. This requires you to roll up the genny and reef early but I have sailed her in 30 knt breeze with no bad habits. She likes to be kept on her feet as she will drag the rudder like a barn door. When we raced her we had a rule that over 20 degrees we were slow, change down. C&C designed her for the Youngstown YC and they requested a club racer and family cruiser. So she is fast and comfortable and sails like a dingy. If I had a choice I would replace her with a 1985 33 or stay with what I have. But then I don't like dinette boats, (she is 11'8 wide however).

Downside, these are not cored hulls, deck yes but not hull. I have repaired the C&C smile once, and replaced the pillow block under the mast step twice, once before the YYC level regatta in 45 min flat. If you are not careful about water in the bilge, the stringers under the mast step supporting the pillow block have to be replaced since they are not glassed on the bottom. We installed a garboard plug and keep her dry over the winter and the season. I replaced the cabin windows with Beckson's but would opt for lexan inserts for the originals with new rubber if I had to do it again. MkII windows are real pain in the tush as is the case with most of the newer boats. My Atomic 4 is a joy, and I would only replace it with a Beta or Volkwagen, but I see no reason to do so. They say gasoline is dangerous on the boat but the MkII carries propane which is a hell of a lot more dangerous. I see alot of Yanmar grief here in C&C's home port, mostly because of owner lack of attention.

We don't race much anymore since the crew is off raising Jr Sailors or owners of J22's. But we have retrofitted it as a express cruiser with more electronics than a Russian Trawler, and like getting on the club cruise and arriving in time for cocktails. We did show up for the 30th aniv. at the Level regatta and took second by a hair behind a really well sailed MkII. Having made our point,people asked who invited us back for this party.

Contact me if you have any other specific questions.
fdr
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
19,489 Posts
Thanks for that, FDR, so I stand corrected about the cored hulls on MKI 29s...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
You can see the coreing on the inside of the hull.
There will be a step in the fiberglass where it goes from a thick cored hull to a thinner solid fiberglass hull. Some C&C's are solid fiberglass, some were cored to just above the waterline and some were cored to just below the gunnel.
You will see a step on the inside of the hulls' fiberglass in these areas if it is cored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrostKat

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

FDR - thanks for the insight.
I've not had a chance to see the boat yet but I'll have a better handle on what to look for.
I've read a lot online and was coming to the same conclusion you have offered - that the boat sails well as long as you don't overpower.
Intrigued to hear your positive thoughts on the Atomic 4. I thought that might be a major sticking point. I'm hoping to boat has a fresh water cooling system rather than salt water - since it sounds like the salt water systems cause more problems.

I'm looking forward to checking the boat out shortly. I will likely do a cursory evaluation - then go back when the snow clears if it looks good under its cover.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
FDR, not to start a fight, but here are some things to ponder. The waterline for the 29-1 is: 23.58', the 29-2 is 22.33. Of course the heeled waterline length is longer on both boats because of the overhangs. The I dimensions are the same for both boats. The -1 has a foot and a half bigger J and the E is a 1/2 foot shorter compared to the -2. The headsails and foredeck work is easier to handle on the -2.

Here is a direct quote on the 29-1 from Hank Evans, former C&C sales manager about the 29-1
"The 29 MK I (and the 26) reflected the design thinking of the time which was to take some volume out of the underbody and put it in the topsides thus reducing wetted surface. 29 was distinctly flattened on the bottom adjacent to the keel. This flat was anticipated to provide some lift or planning effect when the boat was sailed relatively flat off the wind, thus further reducing wetted surface. This volume was placed above the water line in rather extreme topsides flair. This produced a "tender" boat at the dock and initially under sail. As the boat healed the flare became immersed and the boat stiffened markedly. The more flair immersed the stiffer it became and it is actually hard to get the the windows of a MK I wet. An additional benefit of this thinking was a very beamy and roomy interior above the water line where the space could be used for living and storage and indeed that part of the concept worked nicely. Unfortunately, as the boat healed and mimersed all that topsides flair it started to slow down. The greater the angle of heel the more more the flair was immersed and the slower the boat went. Not literally, but relatively. The immersed flair created increased drag and had the unwanted consequence of providing a large surface for the water flow to tend to push the bow to windward. That combined with the rudder becoming less effective at greater angles of heel and the natural tendency of a sailboat to round up made the 29 MK I difficult to keep going straight at high angles of heel.

Every 29 MK I owner has had unintentional and undesired round ups into the wind where the combination of the immersed hull shape and rudder made it impossible to prevent unless you had someone very quick on the sheets and sometimes even that didn't help. Holding the 29 off the wind at high angles of heel requires excessive rudder and that adds dramatically to drag. That is up to the point where the rudder stalls and you round up quickly. Sometimes so quickly, the boat will actually tack itself and that can create some very hairy situations on the race course. This design thinking was pretty short lived with 29 and 26 being the prime examples. They were getting pretty far away from it with 34 . Obviously, this design thinking wasn't the best idea C&C ever came up with. About the only solution is to sail the boat relatively flat (15 to 17 degrees) and keep that flair from immersing very far, much like you would sail a dingy. People racing MK I's will ease the traveller down, carry a luff in the main and when it really blows may carry the main almost fully aback while driving the boat on the jib. Sometimes you even have to feather the jib to keep it on its feet. Whatever it takes to keep the boat upright. Don't misunderstand, you can drive a MK I with the rail in the water and its as much fun as sailing any other C&C that way. You just have to accept the fact that the 29 next to you that's at 15 degrees with the main luffing is going to kick your tail.

For the record, I looked very hard at the -1 when looking to purchase one 3 years ago. After talking to a couple of owners of both boats the -2 won out. The market price for a good not pristine condition freshwater -2 was 18K 2 years ago. The -1 were in the 12-15 k range for boats that were were 5-7 years older than the -2. So far, the Yanmar has been very good and properly sized for this boat. I like it. I had an A4 on my last boat. Pretty bullet proof no doubt. I'd be concerned about a raw water cooled one that has been in saltwater though. Fresh water cooled A4s are all aftermarket modified AFAIK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
C&C 29 - Mark 1 vs 2

To update the discussion.
The C&C 29 Mk 1 that I was trying to see is off the market. No responses from seller when I was asking to see the boat.
I'm guessing it sold.
I'm sitting back a bit watching what is avail. Couple of nice looking C&C 30's that are not terribly far away. They might be a good fit.
I'll likely wait until summer when I can have the boat assessed on the water.
Thx for all the feedback.
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
The Mark 1 is fatter and more tender. Very fast in light air but so tender in heavy air. Loves to round up. Rudder needs to be bigger. More room than Mark 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I have often wondered myself, about the height of the mast. My IOR measurement certificate lists the I=39.9 and you have the headboard on top of that, maybe 8 to 10 inches from the black band to the top of the mast. I am 6 ft tall and when I stand toes in the water on the stern ladder I can't touch the end of the boom. Waterline to the boom must be eight to ten feet. So that would put the waterline to the top of the mast somewhere just over 60 ft n'est pas. On top of that I have a Metz VHF antenna that extends above the top of the mast maybe three or four feet. I must admit the closest to the bridge deck I have ever come was at Oak Orchard on Lake Ontario. But my chart application is on the boat, and I don't recollect the water level at the time. The antenna did not hit, but it looked close. You can check the harbor on the NOAA chart site and read up in the Pilot manual. If you find a definitive answer I would love to hear it......

Oh I see you are asking about the Mk II, guess you will have to find an owner.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
19,489 Posts
Could you please provide the height of the mast on the 29-2 from the waterline to the top. Much appreciated, thank you.
The 29 mk1 is listed with an I of 39.5 and a bridge clearance of 45 feet. The Mk II has an I of 38.5, so the bridge clearance would be similar, possibly a few inches less but the cabintop is likely higher above the waterline so it's tough to say.


FDR14127:
My IOR measurement certificate lists the I=39.9 and you have the headboard on top of that, maybe 8 to 10 inches from the black band to the top of the mast
The headboard height is included in the P measurement, and is included in the 'black band' height... the I measurement is to the top of the forestay, but from a horizontal line off the headsail tack fitting. So the I is the height above deck.. longer than the measurement to the cabintop - (ie the mast will be physically shorter than the 'I'.)

44-46 feet tops is likely the bridge clearance on either model. But if you want to use 60 feet, that's on the safe side! ;)

Our 34 foot fractional rig with a P of 42 feet or so has a bridge clearance of 55 feet (so the gooseneck is 7 feet above the waterline give or take - it has more freeboard and a higher cabin house than either C&C 29). I suspect that the C&C 29 masthead will easily be 10 feet lower to the water
 
  • Like
Reactions: FDR14127

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I think Ron's take is correct. In digging around I found this review posted when the boat (Mk I) was new so I suspect the numbers came from the builder.\

C&C29
BY WALLACE E. TOBIN
Published in Motor Boating & Sailing
June 1977

Tobin publishes the mast clearance as 43' 5" for the Mk I and my observation of my dock neighbor's MK II is that it is slightly lower. Of course your mileage will vary depending on the tide and water level. I would be wary of any bridge that was lower than 50 ft and that is pushing it.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top