Bluewater C&C 33 - OPINIONS??
minto...@gmail.com
capable of handling big oceans. The C&C has a fin keel drawing 5.5'
with a free standing spade rudder. Should making a transatlantic
passage even be considered?
Thanks for any advice and/or opinion.
Rob
Wayne.B
>Looking for opinions on whether or not one thinks that a C&C 33 is
>capable of handling big oceans. The C&C has a fin keel drawing 5.5'
>with a free standing spade rudder. Should making a transatlantic
>passage even be considered?
=========================================
Probably not.
It's certainly a decent boat depending on condition and equipment, but
it wouldn't be my first choice. It was built as a coastal
racer/cruiser in the 1970s and is quite competent at that although
outdated. If in totally original condition, the engine, deck coring
and rigging should all be regarded as highly suspect at this point.
Others will no doubt disagree, but I personally regard 40 to 45 feet
as about the minimum for halfway comfortable offshore cruising. Other
than length, the other qualities I'd look for are heavy displacement,
redundant systems, quality construction reputation, strong hatches and
ports, small cockpit, simple rig, longer keel and a deep bilge.
Jonathan Ganz
I would say, that given the boat is seaworthy (including possibly some
upgrades, has the proper equipment, and the skipper/crew is up for it,
then a qualified yes. C&Cs, depending on the boat, year, condition,
are great boats.
A lot of qualifications, but that's typical for all boats.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
Jonathan Ganz
I would definitely take these comments with a big grain of salt. C&Cs
have a fine reputation as seaworthy boats (given all the usual
suspects). Sure, it would be nice to have something in the 40-45 foot
range, but lots and lots of smaller boats cross the pond with no
problems whatsoever.
Saying that all the stuff should be regarded as highly suspect isn't
saying much since all boats should be looked at with great care before
making a crossing commitment. Anything less is just foolish.
rhys
This is very, very dependent on condition of the boat and rigging and
condition of the crew. C&C 33s are old coastal boats frequently run
hard as club racers. If in freshwater, they probably have original
rigging, which you'd want to switch up to 1/4" or better, 5/16th for
open ocean work.
You'd also want to replace original sheaves and running rigging.
Offshore is no place to untangle a halyard.
The coach-house is borderline in my opinion in strength for heavy
weather, and the fixed plexiglass portlights will NOT take a boarding
sea in a blow. Similarly, the bunks are not commonly rigged for sea,
nor is the galley ideal.
Being more racer than cruiser, the C&C 33 would sail close-hauled
well, but she's tender and the motion would be tough on the crew. I
would also question the suitability of the compainway hatch (usually
plexi or plywood drop boards, the size of the scuppers, the smallish
main for downwind work and the boat's parsimonious cargo space and
tankage. Lastly, a lot of them still have Atomic 4s, and you simply
can't carry enough gas on a C&C 33 (safely, at least) to run the
alternator to keep your batteries charged on a three week or worse
crossing. Even with a smaller-sipping diesel, the tankage (usually 20
gallons or less) will not suffice.
My point of view is from owning a very similar (but even narrower)
C&C-designed Viking 33 with a near identical sail plan and layout.
I have always maintained that while my boat is strong enough to
survive a blow, it might kill the crew <G>. I would take my boat to
Newfoundland, or to the Caribbean, unquestionably, but it's just not
the right boat for the Atlantic. Better you should borrow a Contessa
26 or a Westsail 32...proven, if plodding, offshore designs that will
get you there with no glamour, maybe, but plenty of security.
YMMV,
R.
Capt. JG
take that much to fit her for a crossing, given all else is right.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"rhys" <rh...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a316r15oh6e65nnup...@4ax.com...
Wayne.B
<r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>The only real issue particular to that model is that the original rudder was a
>bit too small for some situations.
====================================
That's true also but I thought Rhys hit the nail right on the head
with his list of issues.
rhys
wrote:
>A nicely balanced reply.... I mostly agree, although I think it wouldn't
>take that much to fit her for a crossing, given all else is right.
Well, thanks. C&C 33s are very common at my club and on Lake Ontario
in general, and while they are fine boats and can take 40 knots in a
squall...I just don't think there's enough beef to keep the sea out in
the original configuration. Particularly the portlights and the
hatches...as I am currently replacing these on my similarly aged boat,
I just don't a quarter-inch of 7x 21" plexi staying in its frame if
hit on the beam...
They're fine boats, though...just not equipped for three weeks in the
North Atlantic. Also, being old fin keelers, they don't hove to
particularly well, and you wouldn't want to take on much water in
those flat bilges.
You know something, though? If the choice is between going and not
going, maybe you should hop to St. John's, Nfld. and see how it goes
inshore. If you find it acceptable and the boat well-found enough,
then you can do the 2,000 mile hop to Ireland...which is colder, but
shorter.
R.
Wayne.B
wrote:
>lots and lots of smaller boats cross the pond with no
>problems whatsoever.
===============================
That's true. I know a guy who went round trip in a J-35 one summer.
That doesn't make it the right boat though.
For what it's worth, he bought an Endeavor 42 after that.
Jere Lull
Just to punch up one item: The boat is *probably* strong enough or can
be upgraded so that it is. Is the crew?
Sister ships to our Xan (below) have done the trip, one did it twice. I
have a fair amount of skill and experience and we don't skimp on
upgrades and repairs, so she may be stronger than new.
We won't be doing it soon. There's too much we want to see on this side
of the pond.
My opinion is that too many people get the "right" boat for a trip they
*might* do. My experience is that those who get the boat they can
actually use for the next 5-7 years come out ahead. Few who DO strike
out to blue water do it in the boat they originally thought they *had*
to have.
We got Xan for the what we expected to do in 5 years. A dozen years
later, we've done far more than that and STILL see her serving us well
for the next five. When we need a bigger boat for a weekend or so, we
rent it.
Unless we hit the lottery, we intend to keep Xan until after we've done
at least 3 months in the Bahamas or similar to see if we like living
aboard. (It's scheduled for the next time I'm between jobs, which might
be retirement the way things are going at work, darn it.)
If we decide long distance isn't for us, she'll do just fine at the end
of our retirement home's dock.
In the meantime, our "wish list" for that long distance cruiser has
changed many times and the cruising kitty's building quickly while we're
having a HECK of a lot of fun. There's a lot to be said about not paying
the bank interest and having a tough, simple boat that's cheap to
maintain.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
Capt. JG
news:kgs6r1hatlkh5pbt3...@4ax.com...
No doubt, but it doesn't make it wrong either. It depends on a lot of
factors, and from my experience, C&Cs are up to the task if properly laid
out. Structurally, generally of course, they're fine.
Capt. JG
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:28:06 -0800, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>A nicely balanced reply.... I mostly agree, although I think it wouldn't
>>take that much to fit her for a crossing, given all else is right.
>
> Well, thanks. C&C 33s are very common at my club and on Lake Ontario
> in general, and while they are fine boats and can take 40 knots in a
> squall...I just don't think there's enough beef to keep the sea out in
> the original configuration. Particularly the portlights and the
> hatches...as I am currently replacing these on my similarly aged boat,
> I just don't a quarter-inch of 7x 21" plexi staying in its frame if
> hit on the beam...
Every C&C I've been on had hatch problems, but fixable.
> They're fine boats, though...just not equipped for three weeks in the
> North Atlantic. Also, being old fin keelers, they don't hove to
> particularly well, and you wouldn't want to take on much water in
> those flat bilges.
Hmm... actually, my experience has been that they do fine. I've sailed on
the 40, 38, 36, and 34 of various ages and general conditions, but that
wasn't a problem I observed.
> You know something, though? If the choice is between going and not
> going, maybe you should hop to St. John's, Nfld. and see how it goes
> inshore. If you find it acceptable and the boat well-found enough,
> then you can do the 2,000 mile hop to Ireland...which is colder, but
> shorter.
I believe in sea trials.....
Wayne.B
wrote:
>Structurally, generally of course, they're fine.
====================================
I agree but that is only one consideration. As I said originally it
is not the boat that I'd pick, and I stated my reasons.
Have you ever sailed offshore on an unsuited boat? It does not have
to fall apart to be unsuitable, a squirrelly motion in a seaway will
do it, so will flat shallow bilges that flood the cabin sole, so will
inadequate tankage that requires carrying fuel and water on deck,
likewise inadequate storage space, or inadequate battery and charging
capacity.
Most coastal racer/cruisers will fail on the majority of these points
and the C&C 33 is no exception. That doesn't make it a bad boat, just
one that's not particularly well suited for crossing oceans.
Wayne.B
>Unless we hit the lottery, we intend to keep Xan until after we've done
>at least 3 months in the Bahamas or similar to see if we like living
>aboard.
==========================================
You raise an interesting point there. A boat that is well suited for
living aboard is not necessarily the right one for crossing oceans. I
agree with your other point that so few people actually cross oceans
in small sail boats that it does not make sense to purchase a boat for
that purpose unless you are really going to do it.
Most people get a very quick reality check after spending a few days
going to windward on the open ocean, and quickly change their mind
regarding the "right" boat.
rhys
>
>In the meantime, our "wish list" for that long distance cruiser has
>changed many times and the cruising kitty's building quickly while we're
>having a HECK of a lot of fun. There's a lot to be said about not paying
>the bank interest and having a tough, simple boat that's cheap to
>maintain.
That's why I suggested a Contessa or a Westsail. But I also said "go
and see", even though, having taken out a sister ship in 40 knots of
Lake Ontario (which is harsh weather with square, three/four metre
pounding waves, not long swells or rollers), I would question the
amount of exhaustion a boat of this type might dish out.
Having few ways to comfortably "park" in a blow would be a bigger
problem than most of the more or less remediable <?> issues, like
stronger hatches and small tankage.
I will say one thing: I would take a 25 year old C&C over most of
today's production boats. Those big cockpits and companionways and
wide saloons would give me the heebies in a high sea.
R.
Capt. JG
No. I wouldn't do that. If I thought the boat was unsuitable, I wouldn't go.
In my experience, the C&Cs are not "squirrelly in a seaway. They are, in
fact, seakindly. They're generally stiff, fast, and well-built... sounds
like my ex... anyway... I wouldn't hesitate to take one offshore, assuming
maintenance was kept up.
I took a CT 48 down the coast from SF to Cabo non-stop. Even it did not have
sufficient tankage to drive the whole way without gerry cans on deck. I took
a Sparkmans and Stephens steel 61 foot long distance in the Med and it
didn't have sufficient water storage.
Jere Lull
Wayne.B <waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 06:05:10 GMT, Jere Lull <jere...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Unless we hit the lottery, we intend to keep Xan until after we've done
> >at least 3 months in the Bahamas or similar to see if we like living
> >aboard.
>
> You raise an interesting point there. A boat that is well suited for
> living aboard is not necessarily the right one for crossing oceans. I
> agree with your other point that so few people actually cross oceans
> in small sail boats that it does not make sense to purchase a boat for
> that purpose unless you are really going to do it.
>
> Most people get a very quick reality check after spending a few days
> going to windward on the open ocean, and quickly change their mind
> regarding the "right" boat.
Personally, I'd choose a boat that has the least flaws for the 90% of
what we do over one that had the best sailing qualities. The right set
of sails can make any reasonably-strong boat acceptable, even if not
ideal.
To my mind, being able to live together aboard the boat is a primary
consideration, mostly because my lady isn't sure she could stand being
with me 24/7 in such a confined space -- and let's acknowledge that even
a 60' cat can get pretty small for two.
We did quite well on a 25-day trip, but knowing that we *were* returning
might have helped. From what I've heard and read, it's only after a year
or so on an open-ended cruise that a crew really knows whether they can
live aboard in harmony.
The other aspect of liveaboard is that long distance cruisers spend
90-95% of their time on the hook by actual survey (Cornell, at least).
Understanding what's required to enjoy that vs. what would be nice can
only be gained by doing. [In the tropics, dryers are the #1 most-useless
addition, closely followed by ovens.]
Wayne.B
>The other aspect of liveaboard is that long distance cruisers spend
>90-95% of their time on the hook by actual survey (Cornell, at least).
And another 5 to 8% is spent under power. Here in SWFL it's more like
5 to 10%.
Capt. JG
news:sb49r1lg0f610umoe...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:06:23 -0500, Wayne.B
> <waynebatr...@hotmail.com>
> the
> Atlantic in a C&C 33 impossible or not. Yes or No. The question was not, "
> is it
> the best boat to go in?", or if it would be a piece of cake. The question
> was:
> WILL THIS MODEL BOAT MAKE THE CROSSING?
>
> I think you can assume the poster has considered that whatever boat he
> takes
> will have to be in top shape for the trip.
>
> If he only wants a safe trip with the minimum of discomfort, he'll be
> taking a
> commercial airliner.
>
Actually, the original poster, probably long since gone on his sailing
adventure, wrote:
"Looking for opinions on whether or not one thinks that a C&C 33 is
capable of handling big oceans. The C&C has a fin keel drawing 5.5'
with a free standing spade rudder. Should making a transatlantic
passage even be considered?
Thanks for any advice and/or opinion.
Rob"
The C&C 33, given it is in decent shape and fitted for the journey, and
given the skipper is aware of its limitations both of the vessel, himself,
and his crew, is certainly capable of handling big oceans.
A transatlantic journey should be considered if the boat/skipper/crew is
prepared properly.
Many opinions were given, most of them valid.
I don't even think the boat need be in "top shap" to make it safely. It
needs to be in decent shape, but top shape implies zero problems, and there
aren't any boats I know about that have that characteristic.
Wayne.B
<r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>The question was:
>WILL THIS MODEL BOAT MAKE THE CROSSING?
==========================================
And the answer of course is definitely maybe. At best it will be a
cold wet ride in a small boat. The wrong small boat in my opinion,
but people have done it in less and lived to tell about it. A lot of
people who ask questions like this have never been offshore in a small
boat and have rose colored glasses on regarding the whole experience.
It's my opinion, for what ever that is worth, that they should hear
the downside as well. Crossing oceans in a 33 ft boat should not be
taken lightly, especially in a boat that is not paticularly well
suited for the job. The C&C 33 for all of its fine qualities was not
designed and built as a passagemaker, and its designers would be the
first to tell you that if asked.
Capt. JG
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:50:18 GMT, Commodore Joe Redcloud
> <r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>
>>The question was:
>>WILL THIS MODEL BOAT MAKE THE CROSSING?
>
> ==========================================
>
> And the answer of course is definitely maybe. At best it will be a
> cold wet ride in a small boat. The wrong small boat in my opinion,
> but people have done it in less and lived to tell about it. A lot of
> people who ask questions like this have never been offshore in a small
> boat and have rose colored glasses on regarding the whole experience.
It might be a nice warm, dry ride... depends on the conditions.
> It's my opinion, for what ever that is worth, that they should hear
> the downside as well. Crossing oceans in a 33 ft boat should not be
> taken lightly, especially in a boat that is not paticularly well
> suited for the job. The C&C 33 for all of its fine qualities was not
> designed and built as a passagemaker, and its designers would be the
> first to tell you that if asked.
Of course they should, but I believe the C&C33, all things being equal,
would be fine.
It wasn't designed for this sort of trip, but it is well within its
capabilities if the situation is handled properly. I would not say the same
thing for other boats of that size. Sure, they could make it also, but the
effort to get them to that spot would be formidible.
Wayne.B
<r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>Q. Can I drive from Maine to California in my 1968 Volkswagen Beetle?
>
>A. (Wayne B) It would be torture "if" you survived. You would be better off
>driving a Cadillac. It's bigger and rides smoother. Nobody who has ever driven a
>Volkswagen Bug any distance would attempt what you propose. What if it got a
>flat tire? I'm sure by the sound of your post that you have never heard of
>Cadillac, so I thought I'd better educate you.
>
>LOL
>
>Commodore Joe Redcloud
==================================
Commodore Joe, I think you should sign on for the voyage with him.
Send me a postcard when you arrive and let me know how the trip went.
Meanwhile, a "commodore" story. One of the nicest boats that I have
ever sailed on was a custom Baltic 55. I was aboard for the
Newport-Bermuda Race in 1988. The boat had a young english guy as the
owner's sailing captain who was full of pithy sayings. One of his
favorites was when he'd notice someone standing in the companionway
hatch.
He'd say: "Only two kinds of people stand in the companionway,
commodores and arse holes".
One of his buddys would then chime in and say: "Sure doesn't look like
a commodore".
You however have now proven that it doesn't have to be either/or.
Wayne.B
<r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>I was beginning to believe you had no sense of humor. Now it's been
>confirmed.
================
Aye commodore, whatever you say.
minto...@gmail.com
to cross oceans. But this is the boat I have and don't really want to
spend the time and resources to find the "right" boat, anyway. If I
did have those kinds of resources I would probably buy a West Sail,
Pacific Seacraft, Hans Christain, or something of the like in the
32'-34' range. Unfortunately I don't have and extra $80,000 laying
around. From the advice that I've received on this forum I would
gather that based on the assumed experience of the posters that the C&C
33 is certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic, pending all systems
have been upgraded. This being said, allow me to post another
question. What would likely be the points of failure on the C&C 33
were it to encounter boarding seas and squalls. I need to know what
systems will require the most attention.
Rob Minton
minto...@gmail.com
Jack Dale
I have sailed several C&C's, but not the 33. ( I have been on one at
the dock.) In all of them, I found the windows leaked badly. This is
the result of putting flat Lexan / plastic on a compound curve. The
windows were not bolted into place, but were held in with an adhesive.
A boarding sea could blow out the windows.
The size would concern me. I did a delivery from Hawaii to BC in an
Elite 37. I found that this was about the minimum size in that style
of boat (fin keel, racing cruiser). On the other hand I met a guy who
sailied a Bayfield 29 across the Atlantic. He shipped it back.
Jack
_________________________________________
Jack Dale
ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor
CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor
http://www.swiftsuresailing.com
_________________________________________
Capt. JG
switch. :-)
FYI, just ignore Commode Joe. He can't have a civilized conversation lasting
more than two posts.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Wayne.B" <waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fhar1t5n7upaad3t...@4ax.com...
Capt. JG
news:1135963564.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rob.. I thought, when I saw your post, that you had been and returned. :-)
Actually, I believe you can find most of these answers on the website
someone posted... certainly you can get more qualified people to answer...
people who are more familiar, longer term, with the C&Cs.
Don White
>
>
> Commodore Joe Redcloud©
You'll have to tread lightly here commodore.
Mr. Wayneb has been known to ridicule other posters contributions and
announce that he's plonking them in public. Makes him feel superior I
would wager.
Capt. JG
news:tfabr1h3ppgi1qqt6...@4ax.com...
> famously
> with Jon Ganz, who has made a career out of sending complaints to ISP's of
> anyone who points out that he is a totally humorless putz.
>
And, you're a liar and a very angry person. What's your point?
gordw...@yahoo.com
Rob
I think C&C's have a pretty good reputation for build quality so I
don't think you need to worry too much about structural integrity.
After all, I don't think that many boats actually break up and sink.
What stops a voyage is a broken mast, broken rudder or blown out sails.
Its generally felt that small boats are not as comfortable at sea as
larger, heavier, boats so there will be some challenges with regard to
sleeping, cooking, navigating.
Storage space will also pose some challenges but you could store a lot
of freeze dried food on a 33 if you had to. Water capacity will need
the most consideration.
What to improve?
Well keeping the mast up is number 1 so obviously you need to at least
have the standing rigging carefully inspected. Its probably rod
rigging and this stuff has proven to be quite durable but again it
needs to be inspected or replaced. If I had the money I'd replace it
the year before I went and test it thoroughly. If you can't afford new
rod you could add some redundancy to the standing rigging by adding a
solent inner forestay and running backstays. Then you would have two
forestays, maybe 3 if you have the babystay, and 3 backstays. That
should hold the rig up in a blow. You would also want to inspect the
chain plates and their attachment to the hull. I've heard of this
happening too often but I always worry about the gooseneck breaking at
some point, perhaps during a gybe. I think I'd have this looked at and
critiqued for offshore use.
You need the rudder to stay in the boat and keep turning. I'd check
that system carefully and probably replace the steering wire. Also
make sure the emergency tiller really works.
As one poster mentioned the hatches on these 20 year old boats often
leak. I would replace the forward hatch with an ocean capable version.
Increasing the size of the cockpit drains / thruhulls may be a good
idea.
A lot of people will point to the glued-in ports as a weakness. I
don't know. They are fairly long but not that tall so they might take
some pounding. The safest approach would be to fit removable lexan
storm shutters. You could leave the original plexiglass in place and
fit an additional quarter inch layer of acrylic on the outside. This
would overlap by an inch and be held in place by bolts going through a
stainless steel trim plate. Some folks do this just to stop the leaks
rather than rebed the existing plexiglass.
Some other things to look at would be how well the batteries/fuel
tanks/water tanks/stove are kept in place.
John Cairns
<minto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135964855....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You name it. Things can and will break.You could lose the keel, the rudder,
roll the thing and lose the mast, someone else mentioned the largish
portlights could get blasted out by a wave, you could lose a key bit of
standing rigging and lose the mast, steering gear could fail, blah, blah.
OTOH, you could have fairly light winds, not break a thing but not have
enough fuel to make the crossing between motorsailing, motoring, and keeping
the batteries charged. If you're stuck on the price point, I would do a
little more research, and choose another boat. Go to yachtworld, punch in
your price point and see what's available, then do some more research.
http://www.yachtworld.com/index.html.en
There are a LOT of boats out there better suited for the task, hopefully you
can find one that you can afford.
John Cairns
Capt. JG
Ok. We all get that you're a very angry person. What are you now
contributing to the thread?
Capt. JG
news:p7ktf.40362$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
I believe he said it's the boat he has... so, my suggestion is to plan well,
inspect carefully, but above all, go for it!
Wayne.B
>What would likely be the points of failure on the C&C 33
>were it to encounter boarding seas and squalls. I need to know what
>systems will require the most attention.
=========================================
Rob, all kidding aside, the first point of failure on most small boats
in those conditions are the skipper or crew. Someone becomes seasick,
injured or terminally frightened. Seriously. Knock downs causing a
man overboard situation or injury are fairly common, as are serious
waves coming onboard. After that you've got all the usual gear
failure possibilities: dismasting, ripped sails, broken boom/goose
neck, engine failure, line/prop entanglement, fouled/failed bilge
pumps, clogged cockpit drains, hatch and deck leaks, rudder failure,
steering cable failure, hose/seacock failure, engine mounts,
batteries, autopilot, etc. None of those are hypothetical, having
either experienced them myself at one time or another, or know people
who have.
Picture your boat being picked up by a 15 foot breaking wave and
thrown down into the trough a few times. Imagine the possibility of
things breaking or coming adrift from the impact. It happens, and
steep 15 foot waves are not uncommon in a storm. Imagine someone
spraying you with a cold fire hose while all of this is going on.
Imagine what happens if these conditions persist for a day or two or
three.
Offshore, any one of these events can snowball into something more
serious, and eventually crew fatigue or hypothermia begins to set in.
That's about the time someone calls the coast guard for a rescue. A
lot of those boats are eventually found floating or washed up on a
beach somewhere, indicating that the rescue could have been avoided if
the captain/crew had been stronger or better prepared.
My advice would be to consult with an experienced marine surveyor and
tell him what you have in mind. Pay close attention to any issues
that he finds and get them all fixed in a first class manor. Then
plan a series of shake down cruises where you will be exposed to open
ocean conditions for 2 to 5 days at a time, preferably with some
experienced crew. Weaknesses in the boat, gear and your own
preparation will begin to show up, and you will learn how to deal with
them when you are not 1,000 miles from assistance.
After that you might be ready to go.
Capt. JG
Excellent post!!
minto...@gmail.com
colorful. So far there has been the "go for it", the "hell no I
wouldn't go", the "it COULD make it", the "it WILL make it". But
underlying all of these points have been "IF you do go, THEN you should
do______." And that is what I've been looking for. I've considered
selling and buying something else - but so much freakin' hassle. And
I've considered upgrading all systems on the boat I've got. I'm going
to haul her out for several months and then make a decision. I'll
definitely talk to you guys soon. I've found more info and opinions on
R.B.C. than on any other forum. Have a good new year.
Rob Minton
Capt. JG
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:57:22 -0800, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
> people to
> ignore me, because you are having another of your patented homo
> hissy-fits. I
> actually know something about C&C's since I have owned several of them and
> currently own one. I was also the "someone" in this thread who posted the
> link
> for the C&C website that you now recommend.
You need an anger management class!!
Capt. JG
news:1136046990.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeh, but don't listen to Commode Joe.
Capt. JG
>
Ok!! I think I won this troll....
rhys
>gather that based on the assumed experience of the posters that the C&C
>33 is certainly capable of crossing the Atlantic, pending all systems
>have been upgraded.
Yes. Despite my extensive criticisms, that is likely the case.
This being said, allow me to post another
>question. What would likely be the points of failure on the C&C 33
>were it to encounter boarding seas and squalls. I need to know what
>systems will require the most attention.
If the C&C has been raced on the Great Lakes (which is likely), you're
going to have a different list than if it's been sailing inshore in
salt water.
The balsa core deck is probably delaminated in spots, and will require
repair. How to do that is in the archives at least a dozen times. Also
consider putting 1/4" aluminum backing plates and on rebedding ALL
deck gear, not just winches.
You should also grind and retab all suspicious bulkheads...beef 'em
up. You should also remove all chainplates, replace all original
through-bolts (30 years old?) and rebed everything.
You will want to have ALL standing rigging, particularly if original,
examined closely and dye-tested/X-rayed for stress by a professional
rigger. If it's been in salt and is original, don't even think of not
having everything replaced. A rig failure at sea can kill you and a
lot of that rigging could be cracked microscopically or
"work-hardened" to the point of fatigue/failure. Consider upping the
wire dimensions to at least 1/4" or even 5/16" all around...it could
be 7/32" at the moment. Consider wire terminals you can replace
yourself (Nicro? can't remember which one use the hand tool) while
underway, and have the best of your old stays rigged as a
forestay/backstay spare. Replace the original sheaves and sheave box
(if you get all rope halyards, this will have to happen anyway)...the
difference in ease of hauling will impress you. Rewire the mast and
consider LED nav lights for the low power draw (means less engine time
to charge the batts). Rig at least one external block at the masthead
both fore and aft should the internal runs be fouled. Figure the best
way to ascend the mast solo in a seaway. Inspect and repair your mast
step...the wooden stringers in the bilges and the floors tend to rot.
The good news is that the original C&C masts were beefy enough to live
50 years. Just inspect and service.
Break down all winches and service. This means taking them apart. Do
not attempt over water <G>. Carry spare pawls and springs, and if you
can get self-tailers reasonably, do so. If they are bigger than you
think you need, so much the better.
Inspect and consider replacing all running rigging if not less than
five seasons old. A real advance is Spectra running rigging over
wire/rope for more strength/less
Have all sail inspected and leave behind what's dubious. Your main
will probably be OK with just a third set of reef points, but you'll
want a bulletproof No. 3 and a bulletproof No. 4/storm jib. Given the
J of the C&C 33, I would NOT recommend a furler. I would recommend
hank-ons for the Atlantic, because the Atlantic is frequently about
reducing sail, and a 1/3 unfurled yankee-cut is damn near useless
compared to a No. 3 on a reach. Bring at least one whisker pole and an
asymmetrical spin for light air downwind work. Trans-atlantic south
and north routes are very different in this respect, so ask around.
Rig beefy preventers. Some favour these rigged forward, others to the
toerail. Given the short boom of the C&C 33, ask around and see what
works.
Rig jacklines either side. Get a harness and WEAR IT and SNAP ON. Rig
higher lifelines, or thread shock cord as a "webbing" to the typical
24" stanchions (which should be back-plated and bedded, not just left
with the usual fender washers). Trail a "hail mary" poly line aft with
a float...if you DO fall over, you'll have a shot at getting back
aboard.
Rig some sort of self-steering. A vane makes sense on this type of
sloop. Voyager Windvanes in St. Catharines, ON, makes very nice models
I've seen on plenty of C&Cs...
As to structural issues, the biggest ones are probably making the big
locker lids watertight (or watertighter) and increasing the size of
the lame scuppers in the cockpit, particularly if your engine controls
are on the port side locker near the sole. You want to get water OUT
quickly, and bigger-than-original scuppers in the cockpit are going to
do a better job. This will take some doing on a C&C 33, given that
you'll have to route the scupper hose through the engine compartment,
but it's tight quarters.
The biggest thing to do re: safety is to beef up the portlights,
which are too big and weak to take a serious sea, in my opinion, and
which need storm shutters. Same thoughts on the companionway hatch and
drop boards, which are, in my opinion, strictly inshore in design and
ability to keep the ocean out. At the very least, you need positive
locking so that you can seal yourself IN and if the boat rolls, your
hatch and boards won't fly open and sink you. Same with the cabin
sole...you want those latched shut so that they don't fly loose at the
worst time. Same with your ground tackle and your engine compartment
and your saloon cabinetry...which in the C&C is just sliding plastic
panels, as I recall.
Sorry it's a long list (and I'll stop it here!), but while the C&C can
be *made* an offshore boat, it wasn't sold as such, and the equipment
and design choices reflect that it's essentially a
freshwater/coastal/Caribbean cruiser-racer made for short passages.
There are people who've taken C&C 41s and 38s and even modified 35s
around the world...so we know it can be done...but a 33 across the
Atlantic in a safe and seamanlike fashion, by which I mean prudence
tempered by experience, is going to take a fair bit of retrofitting.
Because it isn't the sea that would kill you or the boat...it's the
flying tin of beans you were unable to secure in the 33's open galley,
or the water you couldn't pump out of the shallow bilge because of the
dripping decks...etc. To make these things right won't necessarily
cost lots of money, but a few hundred hours, minimum.
Good luck,
R.
rhys
<waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:50:18 GMT, Commodore Joe Redcloud
><r...@rustcloud.com> wrote:
>
>>The question was:
>>WILL THIS MODEL BOAT MAKE THE CROSSING?
>
>==========================================
>
>And the answer of course is definitely maybe. At best it will be a
>cold wet ride in a small boat. The wrong small boat in my opinion,
>but people have done it in less and lived to tell about it. A lot of
>people who ask questions like this have never been offshore in a small
>boat and have rose colored glasses on regarding the whole experience.
>
>It's my opinion, for what ever that is worth, that they should hear
>the downside as well. Crossing oceans in a 33 ft boat should not be
>taken lightly, especially in a boat that is not paticularly well
>suited for the job. The C&C 33 for all of its fine qualities was not
>designed and built as a passagemaker, and its designers would be the
>first to tell you that if asked.
You could ask George Cuthbertson and Rob Ball (The Mark II, a
different boat from the Mark I...and you should specify which one you
have). Both are still living. Read the articles and check the owners'
database on http://www.cncphotoalbum.com/ .
Anyway, these guys will give you the straight dope. George C. is in
his late '80s, but is still sharp and opinionated on the topic of
boats.
R.
Capt. JG
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:46:09 -0800, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
>
>>"Commodore Joe Redcloud" <r...@rustcloud.com> wrote in message
>>news:qcmdr1tvbkagubucn...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:03:25 -0800, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>><minto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1136046990.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Thanks all. The points of view on this forum are, needless to say,
>>>>> colorful. So far there has been the "go for it", the "hell no I
>>>>> wouldn't go", the "it COULD make it", the "it WILL make it". But
>>>>> underlying all of these points have been "IF you do go, THEN you
>>>>> should
>>>>> do______." And that is what I've been looking for. I've considered
>>>>> selling and buying something else - but so much freakin' hassle. And
>>>>> I've considered upgrading all systems on the boat I've got. I'm going
>>>>> to haul her out for several months and then make a decision. I'll
>>>>> definitely talk to you guys soon. I've found more info and opinions
>>>>> on
>>>>> R.B.C. than on any other forum. Have a good new year.
>>>>> Rob Minton
>>>>
>>>>Yeh, but don't listen to Commode Joe.
>>>
>>> What are you so afraid of, Jon?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Ok!! I think I won this troll....
>
> here
> is simply as a disruptive troll.
Only for you billy. I actually contributed to Rob's query.
Capt. JG
news:5dvfr19qdqjd4qulm...@4ax.com...
Not that I would regularly quote Ted Turner, but didn't he say that the Mac
was one of the worst races (in terms of conditions) that he ever
participated in?
rhys
wrote:
>
>Not that I would regularly quote Ted Turner, but didn't he say that the Mac
>was one of the worst races (in terms of conditions) that he ever
>participated in?
If you mean the northern Lake Michigan race, and if he was sailing a
ULDB, then sure. The Great Lakes in a mood can throw very severe
conditions at a smaller boat, and even for Lakemax (740-odd feet)
tankers and freighter, certain spots and certain conditions can snap
'em in half. Even "small" Lake Ontario kills people in "seaworthy"
boats every year.
But the Great Lakes are rarely stormy for long, and the worst of the
storms are not sustained. An Atlantic gale can surround a boat for
four or five days if it's slow moving or part of a train of
depressions. At least on the Great Lakes, you have a reasonable
expectation of seeing a heavy squall pass through quickly. Even stuff
spun off hurricanes will move off in a day.
That's why sailing on the Great Lakes in crap weather is good
training, or so the saltwater boys tell me. Three hours of 40 knots
and "square" 10 foot lake waves is like a day of 40 knot, 15 foot
Atlantic rollers, because the period is a lot longer and the boat gets
bashed in many situations with fewer wrenching motions.
I was out in six to eight foot waves and 30-35 knots out of the east
(long fetch for here) in mid-October and we had a hell of ride down to
Toronto. That's why my caution isn't so much about the *hull* of the
C&C as about other stuff. We took a wave aft that put about six inches
in the cockpit, and it didn't drain as fast as I would have liked,
despite the scuppers being open and clear. Had it been three times as
much, the engine panel would've likely shorted and the stern would
have squatted and the lockers would've let water below.
Such were the compromises in making a lake/inshore racer in the '70s.
Such would be the concerns of taking such a boat across the pond
today.
R.
DSK
> Thanks all. The points of view on this forum are, needless to say,
> colorful. So far there has been the "go for it", the "hell no I
> wouldn't go", the "it COULD make it", the "it WILL make it". But
> underlying all of these points have been "IF you do go, THEN you should
> do______." And that is what I've been looking for. I've considered
> selling and buying something else - but so much freakin' hassle. And
> I've considered upgrading all systems on the boat I've got.
That can be at least as expensive a buying another boat.
Definitely have a rigger go over both standing & running
rigging. Make sure that whatever type of reefing system you
have, that it works well & that the crew is familiar with it.
On deck, go around & rebed & upgrade backing plates to all
hardware... checking for delam/core problems at the same
time... and consider beefing up the hatches.
One thing I'm not sure anybody else mentioned is steering.
I'd recommend replacing the bushings & bearings, and replace
anything that looks worn in the workings; inspect & tune up
the sheaves, alignment, etc etc. On an ocean passage the
steering gets a real workout!
Whatever you do, make sure that you get enough time aboard
with all new systems to get familiar with it & work the bugs
out. It is very unpleasant to be offshore trying to decipher
an owner's manual by flashlight!
> .... I'm going
> to haul her out for several months and then make a decision. I'll
> definitely talk to you guys soon. I've found more info and opinions on
> R.B.C. than on any other forum.
And many of them are worth exactly what you pay for them!
> .... Have a good new year.
> Rob Minton
>
And best wishes for 2006 to you.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
waynebatr...@hotmail.com
>>(long fetch for here) in mid-October and we >>had a hell of ride down to
>>Toronto.
Six to eight foot waves are commonplace on the Atlantic, and are to be
expected any time the wind blows 15 kts or more for over a few hours
time. They are not gentle rollers either. The REALLY nasty stuff
(over 20 feet) happens with winds over 35 kts for a day or so.
The ocean pilot charts used to list the percentage of time that gale
force winds could be expected for any given location and month. I'm
not sure if they are still available or not, but there are no months
when the probability is zero.
Capt. JG
know how to attach it.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
news:%6%tf.31807$Lb1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Jere Lull
waynebatr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Six to eight foot waves are commonplace on the Atlantic, and are to be
> expected any time the wind blows 15 kts or more for over a few hours
> time. They are not gentle rollers either. The REALLY nasty stuff
> (over 20 feet) happens with winds over 35 kts for a day or so.
<rant>
Why does it seem everyone is so obsessed with withstanding "perfect"
storms?
Sorry, but 15 knots in open ocean is pretty much perfect conditions. The
waves and swells are LONG.
In my home waters, 25-30 knots is a BAD time to be out and sometimes 15
can be nasty, but my admittedly limited experience in the Atlantic off
of the BVIs during the Christmas winds tells me that a properly reefed
boat isn't going to have any problems at all in those conditions. Hell,
Xan will gobble up those conditions for a light snack and ask for more.
Yeah, I'm going to stay out of the Gulf Stream during a northerly, but
that's a short part of the "pond' jump.
The numerous circumnavigation logs I've studied also tell me that they
most often want MORE sail due to light winds. A Chesapeake summer squall
is far worse than conservative cruisers ever see on the water.
</rant>
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
waynebatr...@hotmail.com
>>is far worse than conservative cruisers ever see on the water.
Not to take anything away from a Chesapeake squall, but we are talking
about crossing the North Atlantic, not conservative cruising. You've
got to be able to take whatever comes along for 3 or 4 weeks, and even
in June/July, the probability of making it all the way across without
seeing some wind in the 30s is very low. Worse yet is the probability
of seeing it sustained for a couple of days. The nice thing about
squalls is that they are over in 20 or 30 minutes.
Capt. JG
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 11:29:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
> troll
> more effectively. Meanwhile most of your "contribution" was repeating
> things
> already said by others, or offering a useless "me too" reply.
>
> I, on the other hand, posted a link to the worldwide headquarters for C&C
> owners
> which is one of the best and most comprehensive sailboat references of ANY
> make.
> I also offered to supply the OP with links to personal websites of C&C
> owners
> who have photographed and documented major and minor repairs and
> improvements
> they have done. Want to know what is involved in re-coring a deck?
> Somebody has
> done it, and put the whole project up on a website. Rewiring? Re-plumbing"
> Replace tanks? Make a new and better rudder? It's all there. Yeah, you
> were a
> big help, TROLL!
You're a liar, as we all know.
Capt. JG
>
> Jon - You seem to think you are posting in another well known sailing
> newsgroup
> where bad behavior is the norm. That other forum is a good place for the
> disgruntled likes of you. If you can't behave yourself here, please go
> back
> where you came from. This is not the place for your trolling crap.
You're a liar and it shows. You're a very angry person, who stalks people
and posts their street addresses and telephone numbers in public places. You
need serious psychotherapy.
rhys
>>>I was out in six to eight foot waves and 30-35 >>knots out of the east
>>>(long fetch for here) in mid-October and we >>had a hell of ride down to
>>>Toronto.
>
>Six to eight foot waves are commonplace on the Atlantic, and are to be
>expected any time the wind blows 15 kts or more for over a few hours
>time. They are not gentle rollers either. The REALLY nasty stuff
>(over 20 feet) happens with winds over 35 kts for a day or so.
Exactly. My boat would survive days of that, but the crew would get
bashed. Hence...it's on a restricted salt intake.
R.
Unknown
news:11rdles...@corp.supernews.com:
May you guys should have a dual!
Jonathan Ganz
I don't fight with mental midgets.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com