[Silverton10]

I was reading old posts (2008) and saw this comment about C&C 34 vs 35:

12-09-2008

FWIW, the C&C 35 Marks I or II are twice the boat the 34 is... better made, stiffer and faster...



I am fairly new to sailing, and looking to get my first boat. I am in North Carolina. I will be doing mostly day sailing and weekend coastal cruising for the next several years.

In my general vicinity, there are several C&C boats for sale. I'm attracted them based on their performance stats and reports of quality build, as well as aesthetics. The boats are a '75 33 MKI, '79 34, and a '82 Landfall 35.

The 33 seems like it would be a good performer (not looking to club race, but of course would enjoy coaxing out as much speed as possible), and the Landfall seems like the cabin would be a little more accommodating but not as performance oriented. I'm balancing my desire to enjoy the speed and fun of sailing and pushing this level boat, but also would appreciate moderate comforts when I have guests, or decide to slow down and enjoy a trip to the islands, etc.

In light of comment above from an older post, was wondering if others had any other insights or experience/recommendations?

All boats seem fairly well maintained, relatively equally equipped, and similar price range - $17K-$22K.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Randy

 

[sailors]

I've owned two C&C's and have sailed on many others. IMHO, all were well built and some sail better than others. You can look at reviews right on this site under Resources, and then C&C of owners telling of the good and the bad of each model. Also check out the THE C&C PHOTO ALBUM & RESOURCE CENTER for more information.

 

[miatapaul]

The 33 will be the most tender from my research, the the 34 and finally the 35 should be the least tender (tender meaning that it will lean more to a given amount of wind) as it is there cruising hull. The 34 should be the fastest with the 33 and 35 coming in some bit slower, but not a lot. Some of the 35 landfall have a layout with the salon forward in the V and have a huge v shaped settee that makes into a giant bed, and a double quarter birth. Really nice layout for a cruising couple but not necessary a family. I like the layout, but not everyone does.

Keep in mind the 35 has a cored hull, and the 34 might as well. This is not necessarily bad, but will require a careful survey. Also rod rigging is long lasting, but do not show much in the way of deterioration, so may need to be replaced.

 

[Faster]

The C&C 34 is definitely a cored hull, the 33 probably not, the LF35 likely is as MP indicated.

Unless you're planning on doing a fair bit of weekending/overnighting and summer cruising I think the LF 35 would be more than you want/need. Also as MP mentioned, the LF layouts are a 'love'em or hate'em' kind of thing. You'd need to check it out in person.

Of the three mentioned the 34 is probably the nicest mix of performance and accommodation, though they are known to be tender and apparently had trouble sailing to their ratings (my recollection of sailing a 33mk1 was not of a tender boat, but IIRC there wasn't a lot of wind that day) If not racing then rating vs performance is not an issue.

The LF 35 is certainly the 'cruisiest' of the lot.. but might have the better cockpit too.

 

[Silverton10]

Thanks to all for replies so far.

sailors - yes, I did read all the reviews I could find for each of the boats, as well as watching videos on Youtube, reading specs, etc. My reason for posting this question was to hopefully get input from people who had experience on two or more boats for direct comparisons, rather than just reading reviews of each individually and me extrapolating comparisons.



miatapaul - Appreciate the comparison - as above, that's what I was hoping for. I believe this 35 has the V-berth forward, but after reading the above replies, that one is on the bottom of my list.


Faster - thanks also - the 34 is on the top of my list. My only hesitation now - as I mentioned, I'm in North Carolina, and from what I can tell, shoal drafts are preferred, and the 6' listed draft for the 34 seems like the outside edge of what would be comfortable around here. Any additional thoughts on that?

And now, to throw a wrench in it all, I just saw that there is an Irwin Citation 34 in my town. Of course, I've done all the same reading - reviews, Youtube, specs, etc. Hopefully will get a reply to go see it soon. So, any thoughts on the Irwin 34 versus the C&C 33 and 34? The Irwin seems to have a more comfortable cabin, and while it may not perform quite as well, seems like reviewers are generally pleased overall, stating it performs better downwind, and doesn't point quite as well as others.

Ultimately I'll take the top contenders out and do the in-person check out and even survey, but the C&Cs are 6-10 hours away by car, so trying to be as thorough as possible up front to make informed decisions about what I want to invest in for in-person review.

Thanks again for all the input.

 

[kwaltersmi]

The C&C 34 is definitely a cored hull, the 33 probably not, the LF35 likely is as MP indicated.

According to a review on the C&C website, the LF35 hull is indeed cored with 1/2" end grain balsa.

BTW, plenty of good details, pros and cons are given in the thorough review of the LF35.

 

[Faster]

I believe there are quite a few satisfied, happy Irwin owners here on SN.. given the location it's definitely worth a look. A bit more 'sedate' looking than the C&Cs in general.. but I think they're decent boats. No personal experience with them though.

 

[Silverton10]

kwaltersmi - yep, I read that review - wish I could get that level of detail for every boat that I wanted to explore!

Faster - that seems to be my impression about Irwins - adequate, satisfying, good all around. I agree though, I do like the lines of the C&C compared to the Irwin. I'll get to check out the Irwin tomorrow. Proximity, and listed cost at about $6K less, with new standing/running rigging, etc etc is certainly weighing in favor of the Irwin.

 

[miatapaul]

Yes, Irwins seem to be kind of hit or miss on quality. There seemed to be times that the construction got kind of wonky. But if it is a good one they are by all accounts very solid tanks, but quite a bit slower than a C&C.

Best thing is to try to get out on as many boats as you can. See if you can get out on a cruising tank to see if you would be frustrated by it's performance, and try to crew on some race boats. Some folks are quite happy and prefer a stable slower cruising boat even for day sails.

There are two numbers I think are useful for comparing boats PHRF rating and sail area to displacement ratio. PHRF rating can give a good indication as to the general performance. A boat that has a higher rating will tend to be more cruise oriented, while lower ones will be more performance oriented in general. So if you are looking at a 35 foot boat that rates 95 (making up hypothetical numbers) vs one that rates 195 the one that is 195 will take a hundred more seconds to cover an average course mile. At least in theory it is likely be more stable but not always. But it generally gives a good idea as to performance.

http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content...Current Base Handicap Class Hi Lo Average.pdf

C&C 33 150
C&C 34 144
C&C 35 LANDFALL 156

So they are all in the same vicinity.

Irwin 34 range from 162 to 174. So they are a bit behind, but not too bad, though the center board version is getting up there. But on the other hand it is a sailboat, so who cares it is not like you are going to be going over mid 6 knots at best anyway. Get on them and see what you like and don't like about them.

The other number worth noting is the SA/Displacement ratio. It will give an idea of light wind performance. This can be very important if you live someplace that often has light winds such as Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake.
Sail Calculator Pro v3.54 - 2800+ boats

C&C 33 17.95
C&C 34 17.7
C&C 35 LANDFALL 14.88 (Other sources give it a 15.01)
Irwin 34 16.9

So they are all in line with the exception of the landfall, but I am not sure that number is correct. Generally anything over say 16% should give decent light wind performance.

There are lots of other numbers that can be looked at, but mostly for specific purposes such as offshore work. Such as capsize ratio but for weekending and coastal sailing it is not as important as finding a boat you will be happy with it's performance. But if you see an ad for a boat you are not familiar with I would suggest looking at the above numbers, and then look on Sailboatdata.com and take a look at the line drawings. That will give you an idea if it is something you want to look at.

One other thing if you are going to be spending weekends on the boat don't discount the level of comfort below. If you have a significant other that you want to participate this can be critical if you don't want to find yourself alone out there!

 

[aelkin]

Silver;
Good topic.
I own a C&C 35-1, and race in a fleet that includes a 34, a 33-1, a 33-2, and a number of 25-30 foot C&C's.

In the 90's, this particular 33-1 won everything there was to win on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. It was a real racing program, with top sails and superb crew. Fast, stable and fun to sail.
the 34 seems to struggle in the fleet, but is a family cruising boat, sporting a stack-pak, davits, etc.
my 35-1 is a top contender, and has cruised my family of 6 in weather I shudder to think about.

All this is to say that C&C boats of the size and vintage you're looking at are top-quality performance cruisers. You seem to have a good idea about what you want and what you need. Make a little matrix of the things that are most important to you, and get on the boats. the layout will likely be the deciding factor, both cockpit and cabin, for your intended purposes.

You can't go too far wrong with a C&C, IMHO.

Good luck.

Andy

 

[Faster]

As you can see.. C&C enjoys a lot of owner/brand loyalty.

From (IMO) a fit-and-finish perspective in this range I'd include a CS 33 and 36T as well.. if you can find one. They'll be a bit more money perhaps but worth a comparison look...

 

[miatapaul]

As you can see.. C&C enjoys a lot of owner/brand loyalty.

From (IMO) a fit-and-finish perspective in this range I'd include a CS 33 and 36T as well.. if you can find one. They'll be a bit more money perhaps but worth a comparison look...

I have never seen a CS 33/36 T in person (that I am aware of) but they seem to be really nice. They do tend to hold there value though. If I found one in my budget they likely would be on the top of my list of boats to see.

 

[jsaronson]

Raced my C&C 35/3 from Annapolis to bermuda. The 34 is similar, the Landfall is the cruising line. Lots of LF38s, the 35 is fairly rare. I'd sail a C&C almost anywhere, and get there a lot faster than most cruisers.
Joel

 

[Silverton10]

Thanks to all for all the information, personal experiences, and tips. Thanks for the PHRF comparison. I had been using sail area/displacement figures, and have read about the PHRF ratings but I guess just kind of dismissed the latter since I never planned to race. Your discussion helped and I will also use that as a comparison point. It is good to see that all of these boats are in the same general area, but I think I'm leaning towards a C&C if I can find one in good shape relatively nearby.

More to follow.....

 

[krisscross]

Silver, I would think that getting a boat with a draft deeper then 5 feet in NC waters is unwise as it will keep you away from a lot of beautiful spots and safe anchorages. And the constantly shifting shoals in various inlets and tight spots will only add to your worries.

 

[BarryL]

Hey,

I used to race on a 1980 C&C 34, currently race on an 88 C&C 35, and own a 2002 C&C 110. Yes, I like C&C boats.

PHRF ratings are a good way to compare the performance of various boats. But don't get hung up on absolute numbers so much. You need top notch gear and dedication to make the boat sail to those numbers. For example, my O'day 35 had a similar PHRF rating as the C&C 34 I raced on. But the C&C was MUCH faster. This was because the owner took racing seriously. He had good quality sails, a folding prop, kept the boat light (no water in the tanks, 1/2 tank of fuel, small anchor and rode, etc.), and the bottom fair. My boat had older sails, fixed blade prop, roller furling, 50 gallons of water, 35' anchor with 50' of chain, etc.

When I was looking for a newer boat, one requirement was that it had to be SIGNIFICANTLY faster. I wanted something under a 100 PHRF rating. My 110 more than meets that!

Another point is that you are talking about older boats, and that's fine as there are lots of good ones out there. But at this stage, the maintenance a boat has received is way more important than who originally built it. Irwin was a low cost boat when built but if it has been loved, maintained and improved, it could be a very nice boat now. If not, it will be a real piece of junk. Unfortunately, the same will be true of the C&C's.

Lastly, I don't know why people seem to dislike the C&C 34. I think they are pretty good boats and sail well. The 6' draft might be bad for you. The 35 I race on has a wing keel, but I think those boats are out of your budget. I don't know much about the LF line, but I believe the hulls are the same so I'm sure they sail well too.

Good luck,
Barry

 

[miatapaul]

Hey,

I used to race on a 1980 C&C 34, currently race on an 88 C&C 35, and own a 2002 C&C 110. Yes, I like C&C boats.

PHRF ratings are a good way to compare the performance of various boats. But don't get hung up on absolute numbers so much. You need top notch gear and dedication to make the boat sail to those numbers. For example, my O'day 35 had a similar PHRF rating as the C&C 34 I raced on. But the C&C was MUCH faster. This was because the owner took racing seriously. He had good quality sails, a folding prop, kept the boat light (no water in the tanks, 1/2 tank of fuel, small anchor and rode, etc.), and the bottom fair. My boat had older sails, fixed blade prop, roller furling, 50 gallons of water, 35' anchor with 50' of chain, etc.

When I was looking for a newer boat, one requirement was that it had to be SIGNIFICANTLY faster. I wanted something under a 100 PHRF rating. My 110 more than meets that!

Another point is that you are talking about older boats, and that's fine as there are lots of good ones out there. But at this stage, the maintenance a boat has received is way more important than who originally built it. Irwin was a low cost boat when built but if it has been loved, maintained and improved, it could be a very nice boat now. If not, it will be a real piece of junk. Unfortunately, the same will be true of the C&C's.

Lastly, I don't know why people seem to dislike the C&C 34. I think they are pretty good boats and sail well. The 6' draft might be bad for you. The 35 I race on has a wing keel, but I think those boats are out of your budget. I don't know much about the LF line, but I believe the hulls are the same so I'm sure they sail well too.

Good luck,
Barry

Yea, that is why I said not to worry to much. It is a good help to tell if it is going to be a slug or a reasonably fast boat. Seems to me that C&Cs seem to run faster than there ratings. I think that may well be that they are often owned by racers and have all the good kit as you mentioned. Where as Catalinas often have 2 grills off the back. (hey how is Cruising Dad doing anyway?) Seems that C&Cs tend to attract people who performance is just important to them.

 

[Faster]

......
Lastly, I don't know why people seem to dislike the C&C 34. I think they are pretty good boats and sail well. The 6' draft might be bad for you. The 35 I race on has a wing keel, but I think those boats are out of your budget. I don't know much about the LF line, but I believe the hulls are the same so I'm sure they sail well too.

Good luck,
Barry

I think that overall the 34 was regarded as 'too tender', esp compared to her predecessors, and at least in our area they seemed to have trouble sailing to their ratings... very few regularly racing here, whereas 35MkIs are still PHRF 'killers'.

Don't think the LF series is the same hull at all.. very different keel configuration for sure.

 

[aelkin]

very few regularly racing here, whereas 35MkIs are still PHRF 'killers'.

HEY!!

From one racing sailor (who races a CC35 MkI) to another....shhhhh, please!!



Andy

 

[Silverton10]

Hey everyone who has replied and chimed in, thanks a lot! As I mentioned, I'm pretty new to all this, and having all your experience and discussion has helped a lot!

Interestingly, this afternoon and evening between my log ins here at SN, I've done more reading and looking, and I've focused in on the C&C 35s. I would take the 33-36, but from what I can tell, for some reason, the 35 MKIIs have a slightly more shallow draft. I mentioned earlier that there's an Irwin Citation 34 in my town, and the owner listed it at 4' draft, but sailboatdata has it as a little over 5. So, I figure if I don't break the 5.5 mark, I'll be OK. Been out with friends on their 5'9" and we get by (theirs is a Yamaha 30' - never seen one before).

Seems like what I'm seeing is consistent with what y'all are saying, of course - often fairly well cared for since they typically race, have good gear, etc. My opinion is I'd rather have the good gear even if I have to do some aesthetics work.

Oh, and blisters - saw one that had blister repair done. From what I've read, a boat that's had blister repair done correctly wouldn't necessarily be any more prone to developing blisters than any other comparable hull, right?

And CruisingDad - I lived in Seattle for 6 years before moving to NC. I did a lot of kayaking in WA, but no sailing, but there's a good chance I'll be back there eventually. Will look forward to learning more about sailing on the opposite coast.

Thanks all!