• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, GC&GC said:

i think thats a 24 and you mean outboard rudder ???

You're wrong

Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The early C&C 27 of Mark 1  2  3 and so on had inboard motors. The rudder was also underneath as I recall. The latest C&C 27 had an OBM hung off the transom, and a transom hung rudder. The above looks like the newer version to me.

The new 27 would make a good Wednesday night race boat against the S2 7.9, a Catalina 27 and the like. The above are quicker than my Tanzer 22, or an around the world type San Juan 24, or a C&C 24.

Unkle Krusty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been a great boat with a bigger rig.  I liked sailing them but they were not really very quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sailingworld.com/sailboats/cc-27-mark-v-canadian-gem

A brick in under 10 compared to what?  A Melges 24? - yeah...A Catalina 27? nope, not at all.

They came with inboards as an option...you can see it in the drawing.  Many came with/had  a pedestal and wheel installed.  Deck stepped mast.  Seen a couple with main bulkhead fractured on port side of "oval cut out" to forepeak, also as that bulkhead sits in a channel in the pan, if PO's let water sit there, rot along the bottom of the bulkhead is not uncommon.

It's one of the boats on my "short list" of nice beercan racers, that could handle a couple & kid for an overnight or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crash said:

https://www.sailingworld.com/sailboats/cc-27-mark-v-canadian-gem

A brick in under 10 compared to what?  A Melges 24? - yeah...A Catalina 27? nope, not at all.

They came with inboards as an option...you can see it in the drawing.  Many came with/had  a pedestal and wheel installed.  Deck stepped mast.  Seen a couple with main bulkhead fractured on port side of "oval cut out" to forepeak, also as that bulkhead sits in a channel in the pan, if PO's let water sit there, rot along the bottom of the bulkhead is not uncommon.

It's one of the boats on my "short list" of nice beercan racers, that could handle a couple & kid for an overnight or two.

Yes, I'd happily downsize to a 27-5 when the time comes that we don't need the 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

You're wrong

Again.

Not much of a surprise. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Schnick said:

Would have been a great boat with a bigger rig.  I liked sailing them but they were not really very quick.

SA/D is over 20 - what do you regard as "big enough"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big enough to be consistently faster than the mark 3 27s?  Same fore triangle and 4' more main for starters..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at one tonight - that is a BIG 27' boat.

Quote

they were not really very quick.

Yeah I'm thinking no way rating around 200 it beats my old SJ24 in EB under 10. Even boat for boat.  

Friends frac Niagara 26 has slightly bigger main and does alright but weighs +400# less.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, By the lee said:

I was looking at one tonight - that is a BIG 27' boat.

Yeah I'm thinking no way rating around 200 it beats my old SJ24 in EB under 10. Even boat for boat.  

Friends frac Niagara 26 has slightly bigger main and does alright but weighs +400# less.

 

So different PHRF fleets list the C&C 27 differently.  Some group the Mk 1& 2 together and call them the 27-1, and group the Mk 3&4 together and call them the 27-2, and call the Mk V the 27-3...

PHRF NE groups them this way, and rates all versions as follows:

27-1 (Mks 1&2) Rates 207 for standard mast/201 for the tall mast

27-2 Rates 195 (Mks 3&4)

27-3 (the Mk V) rates 180 for the inboard version and 174 for an outboard.

 

San Juan 24 rates 222

Niagara 26 rates 204 (Nova Scotia).

 

So sailed by the same reasonably competent crew, and equipped with comparable sails, a C&C 27 Mk V will sail faster than any of the other listed boats...by a notable margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Schnick said:

Big enough to be consistently faster than the mark 3 27s?  Same fore triangle and 4' more main for starters..

 

The MK V has the highest SA/D and the lowest PHRF of all the 27's so I don't understand your point.

Is it a rating issue or an actual performance issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a winner, come over to our house and I'll show you a room full of trophies from windward-leewards, point to point, and distance races. I was sad when we sold her in 1994 and my daughter wanted to kill me since her big boat racing career started on our C&C 27-5 Si & Si. Great MORC and PHRF boat that could easily sail to her rating. I think the inboards were about the same # as outboards; ours was an outboard. Five crew were ideal, but we also successfully raced her double and single handed. Finally, unlike many stern hung rudder boats (e.g., J30), her helm was nicely balanced and no heavy weather helm. I think there were two rigs, one with standard upper and lower, single spreader, and a more race version with an intermediate shroud but still single spreader. If you've found one available, get it! 

Cheers, Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crash said:

So sailed by the same reasonably competent crew, and equipped with comparable sails, a C&C 27 Mk V will sail faster than any of the other listed boats...by a notable margin.

Nope. "Horses for courses". You may have heard of it?

2 hours ago, Student_Driver said:

Sailed well. 

Where?

1 hour ago, gcutter said:

It's a winner, come over to our house and I'll show you a room full of trophies from windward-leewards, point to point, and distance races.

Again, where?

Quote

The new 27 would make a good Wednesday night race boat against the S2 7.9

No, come on now Uncle Krusty, put down the bong. An S2 7.9 would kill it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Crash said:

So different PHRF fleets list the C&C 27 differently.  Some group the Mk 1& 2 together and call them the 27-1, and group the Mk 3&4 together and call them the 27-2, and call the Mk V the 27-3...

PHRF NE groups them this way, and rates all versions as follows:

27-1 (Mks 1&2) Rates 207 for standard mast/201 for the tall mast

27-2 Rates 195 (Mks 3&4)

27-3 (the Mk V) rates 180 for the inboard version and 174 for an outboard.

 

San Juan 24 rates 222

Niagara 26 rates 204 (Nova Scotia).

 

So sailed by the same reasonably competent crew, and equipped with comparable sails, a C&C 27 Mk V will sail faster than any of the other listed boats...by a notable margin.

Sailed one light air regatta on a MkV, hated the step down in the deck next to the toe rails, and really hated being beaten boat for boat by a 27 Mk3.

http://lorc.org/Results2016/EYC Level & Open Course Delta.htm

and the next years results:

http://lorc.org/Results2017/EYC Course Delta.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTL.

I guess I need to spell it out. A good Wednesday night race boat, against an S2 7.9 and Catalina 27 using the PHRF rating system. Yes the S2 is quicker, and yes the Catalina 27 is slower, and yes my Tanzer 22 is slower. My point was not about an examination of the PHRF system, it was about the fact the latest C&C 27 with the transom hung rudder and an OBM, would make a good Wednesday night race boat. An okay weekend cruiser too. Obviously there are better cruising boats, and better race boats. It seems as if folks have to compromise a bit, especially with small boats. I like the Bob Perry designed 26 Aloha. I do not like the Catalina 27. We all have our different ideas.

I have sailed against the C&C and the S2. There is an S2 near me on Gabriola, belongs to Ozzy Dave. I have been on that boat.

Unkle Krusty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C&C has a much better row away factor than the S2 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, By the lee said:

Nope. "Horses for courses". You may have heard of it?

Where?

Again, where?

No, come on now Uncle Krusty, put down the bong. An S2 7.9 would kill it! 

Ahhh, there is a Norfolk, VA on the Location: part of the signature. Or, do you mean where racing? Chesapeake Bay, so lots of light air, but plenty of big wind in the Spring, plus summer T-storms, and then there's the short chop...

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owned a C&C 27-5. Very nice boat which sailed quite well. A Rob Ball design intended to be MORC competitive.  If I recall, manufacturer's data stated a weight of 4500 #'s or so but I was told when weighed for MORC some approached 5800 #'s. Really tough in light air but It was as fast and high as an S2 7.9 upwind in a good breeze (12knots +) but the S2 would run away downwind. I really liked the boat but it was not competitive with it's then PHRF # in the low 170's. Believe most areas have it at around 180 now.  I now sail a S2 7.9  and I'm sure it would, most of the time, correct better than the C&C 27.  If I were cruising more than racing I might well but another C&C 27.

Edited by commotion
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ozzy said:

Sailed one light air regatta on a MkV, hated the step down in the deck next to the toe rails, and really hated being beaten boat for boat by a 27 Mk3.

http://lorc.org/Results2016/EYC Level & Open Course Delta.htm

and the next years results:

http://lorc.org/Results2017/EYC Course Delta.htm

So when I go and look at the elapsed times for those races I see that in 2016:

Race 1: 3 Mk V's beat the Mk III boat for boat

Race 2: 5 Mk V's beat the Mk III

Race 3: 0 Mk V's beat the Mk III

Race 4: 1 Mk V beat the Mk III

Race 5: 1 Mk V beat the Mk III

for 2017

Race 1: 3 Mk V beat the Mk III boat for boat

Race 2: 1 Mk V beat the Mk III

Race 3: 4 Mk V beat the Mk III

Race 4-6: 2 Mk V beat the Mk III

So clearly, a well sailed Mk V can beat the Mk III boat for boat.  Also the results clearly show that Willi Steinke is a hell of a good racer, and knows how to make his Mk III perform well in a variety of conditions...

Getting beat by a boat that rates slower than you happens all the time.  I had a J/105 pass me on a reaching leg to the finish when I was racing my J/109 one time.  As gcutter will attest, in Hampton Roads, there is a very well sailed Cal 3-30 that used to be in the B fleet.  He beat me on my S2 9.1 boat for boat a number of times, even though I owed him 27 secs a mile.  In Pensacola, I caught and passed a Laser 28 on a reaching leg to the finish on my J-24.  When a slower rated boat beats you boat for boat, it means they sailed well, and you sailed less well.

Some of you guys are letting your subjective opinions or prejudices outweigh the plain facts.  

Using the data from the C&C 27 Class Association Site, the:

C&C 27 Mk V has a SA/D ratio of 19.55 and a Disp/L ratio of 173.19

C&C 27 Mk 1&2 have a SA/D of 17.66 and a Disp/L ratio of 265

C&C Mk 3&4 have a SA/D of  19.16 and a Disp/L ratio of 205

So the 27 Mk V weighs about 750 lbs less than a Mk I-IV, has the longest waterline, the highest SA/D ratio and the lowest Disp/L ratio, and has a more modern underbody.  If your not routinely faster boat for boat on a C&C 27 Mk V, it's because you are not sailing it well.

 

As for the S2 7.9 vs C&C Mk V comparison, the S2 7.9 is some 500lbs lighter, has a higher SA/D ratio, and a lower Disp/L ratio (once it immerses its aft overhang) so it should be somewhat faster than the Mk V.  PHRF gives it around 9 sec/mile and that seems about right to me.  No big surprise there, but a 7.9 ought not kill a Mk V.  Again, if you're getting killed by a 7.9, you're not sailing your Mk V to its potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The C&C has a much better row away factor than the S2 as well.

Hmmm.....disagree, I like the clean lines and sheer of the S2.

1 hour ago, commotion said:

Owned a C&C 27-5. Very nice boat which sailed quite well. A Rob Ball design intended to be MORC competitive.  If I recall, manufacturer's data stated a weight of 4500 #'s or so but I was told when weighed for MORC some approached 5800 #'s. Really tough in light air but It was as fast and high as an S2 7.9 upwind in a good breeze (12knots +) but the S2 would run away downwind. I really liked the boat but it was not competitive with it's then PHRF # in the low 170's. Believe most areas have it at around 180 now.  I now sail a S2 7.9  and I'm sure it would, most of the time, correct better than the C&C 27.  If I were cruising more than racing I might well but another C&C 27.

Thanks co.... exactly the info I was looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, By the lee said:

Hmmm.....disagree, I like the clean lines and sheer of the S2.

The S2 hull is very nice but the cabin is a bland suppository IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good looking boat and checks a lot of the right boxes for a small racer / cruiser - there is one in our local PHRF fleet that shows promising speed relative to rating against Merit 25 - Capri 25 -  Wavelength 24 - Santana 525 - Santana 23 and has the advantage of a cruise friendly interior to keep the wife happy.   Wish there was one for sale on the Western half of the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly true that the C&C Ml V has a much nicer interior, many have diesel inboard, built in cooler and sink. As I said if I were more of a cruiser the C&C would definitely be something I would consider.  I can tell you that a highly skilled sail maker (kids placed in Olympics) in our area campaigned a factory C&C 27 and was never really able to get the better of the S2. So, it depends on the fleet you're racing in. If it's not top notch you will likely have a good chance of being competitive.  The C&C really has no bad habits and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. If you like go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peril in using published specifications is that one of the numbers is in error by a considerable amount and that is the weight. That will have a significant influence when calculating ratios. Goes a long way in explaining the light air struggles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commotion,

I don't doubt that the Mk V is heavier than its design or brochure weight.  But that is not an issue unique to the Mk V.  Most boats are over their design weight.  And even if the builder hits the design weight nail right on the head, that weight doesn't account for the boat being in racing trim, esp rules like IRC or MORC.  Short of putting all the boats discussed here into the same racing trim, and then weighing them on the same scale (or at least scales certified by the same method), it's hard to have a true apples to apples comparison.  I used the numbers from the C&C 27 class association as I figured they'd at least be accurate, relatively (or at least contain the same percentage of error) for all versions of the C&C 27.  

The real question is:  Is the Mk V significantly heavier (as a percentage) than other Mks, or than other boats its likely to race against in PHRF....I don't know if it is or isn't.  I just don't think its fair to only bring up actual weights of only one boat type.  To be fair, you'd need the weights of a number of different boat types, and then be able to show if the Mk V is abnormally heavier...

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Crash said:

and then be able to show if the Mk V is abnormally heavier...

Crash

This is conceptually illogical as applied to this issue . It is what it is. Others, are what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not at all illogical.  Commotion was saying that if the weight is heavier (and it appears to be so for the Mk V) then all the ratios calculated are off.  And that is true.  But as we are comparing the Mk V against other boats (notably the Mk III and S2 7.9) then we have to have actual weights for those boats too.  You have to compare apples to apples.  It's not fair to say boat A is heavier than its brochure weight, and not say whether the other boats in the comparison are over brochure weight as well...

That's the same as people who say J-24s have wet decks.  True, many do.  But percentage wise, so do S2 7.9s, and Capri 25s, and every other cored race boat from that time frame. 

If every boat is 20% over its brochure weight, then all the ratios are off, but by roughly the same amount.  If the Mk V is 25% heavier, and the other boats are only 15% heavier, then there will be a relative change in the ratio's between the boats, and it would show the Mk V as not performing as well relative to those other boats... I don't like it when people cast aspersions towards only one boat, when that aspersion is typical of all boats of the type and era, that all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lotsa experience racing on MkVs and against them on my MKIII, also several years racing S2 7.9s so I'm familiar with all three.

 

Other than the obvious size and era differences between the C&C 27 MkIII and MkV, the truth of their potential lies in their abilities.  Any numbskull with half a sailing brain can keep the older MkIIIs moving to very near their full performance ability, whereas the MkV's a slightly more challenging boat to sail to it's potential.  We raced against an active fleet of 4-8 MkVs for several years on our MkIII and found the following generalities over that time:

In under 5 true a MkIII can stay with or ahead of a MkV on the water upwind and down.

From 5-15 true a MkIII can hold it's own on corrected time upwind if it stays relatively flat, in the chop a MkV'll get us every time,.  We can stay even on the water downwind due to larger chutes and deeper angles.

Over 15 true it's all MkV, we might hold them on corrected time but more likely not.

With its frac rig and movable daggerboard, the 7.9's a more technical boat.  It is not difficult to get 90%+ out of the boat, but the tinkerer and adjuster is rewarded more on the 7.9 than either of the C&Cs.

The 7.9's the most comfortable platform to sail on - big cockpit, comfortable coamings, and wide open side decks.  The MkV layout looks good at the dock but turns out to be a squeezebox on the water - there's not enough room anywhere to do the jobs effectively.  And the MkIII deck design goes way back to 1971 when ergonomics and practicality hadn't been invented yet.

Interiorwise, the MkIII's got by far the most space and headroom, but a pretty antiquated dinette layout.  The MkV's got a nice layout and finish down below, but with 5'6" headroom it isn't really all that practical.  The 7.9's interior layout's funky and basic with similar headroom, but if you see one with all the fabric stripped off the sides and ceiling it is a pretty practical layout...

For appearance, I can see how all three have the row away factor for different types - I've always loved the exaggerated sheerlines of the older C&C designs, but my MORC heart loves the practicality and wolf-in-sheep's-clothing appearance of the 7.9.

One last FYI, our MkIII (1976 hull #632) was weighed by load cell following a refit in 2004 and tipped the scales at 6,420 pounds (no rig, ~1 gallon of fuel, and absolutely empty of anything not attached to the boat) vs. a design displacement of 5,500 pounds.  We had our fair share of success with the boat so I don't believe she's typical of MkIII  weights.

Cheers!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CriticalPath said:

 

One last FYI, our MkIII (1976 hull #632) was weighed by load cell following a refit in 2004 and tipped the scales at 6,420 pounds (no rig, ~1 gallon of fuel, and absolutely empty of anything not attached to the boat) vs. a design displacement of 5,500 pounds.  We had our fair share of success with the boat so I don't believe she's typical much different from other MkIII weights.

Cheers!

 

Edit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great breakdown of the relative performances and insights into the boats ...thanks CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CriticalPath said:

Edit...

Why do you think there is a 900 pound difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual measured data here. 

http://cc27association.com/f3/toast/toast.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=2&tid=7263

The S2 7.9, which I believe was referenced by the OP, maintains (class association) a data base of actual weights. Boats are weighed before participating in regattas.  The weights are remarkably close to manufacturer specs as the boat, from the outset, was conceived for one design.  I would say most boats weighed in UNDER spec requiring corrector weights. Comparing the actual weights of the C&C 27-5 versus design spec reveals a significant difference....about 33 % heavier. Calculated ratios comparing the S2 to C&C 27 will not be of much value given the weight differences. Having said that I loved mine and would consider one again if circumstances change. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, basketcase said:

Why do you think there is a 900 pound difference? 

C&C wasn't in the one design business and in the 70's a build bill of lading was probably just a suggestion unless it was a custom or semi-custom race build - lotsa overbuilt and oversized details on the boat.  It was still an era when one added more material whenever in doubt...  At least that's my story and I'm sticking with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, commotion said:

Actual measured data here. 

http://cc27association.com/f3/toast/toast.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=2&tid=7263

The S2 7.9, which I believe was referenced by the OP, maintains (class association) a data base of actual weights. Boats are weighed before participating in regattas.  The weights are remarkably close to manufacturer specs as the boat, from the outset, was conceived for one design.  I would say most boats weighed in UNDER spec requiring corrector weights. Comparing the actual weights of the C&C 27-5 versus design spec reveals a significant difference....about 33 % heavier. Calculated ratios comparing the S2 to C&C 27 will not be of much value given the weight differences. Having said that I loved mine and would consider one again if circumstances change. Cheers.

S2 obviously got much closer to the manufacturers listed specifications weight (listed as 4250 on the class web site) but a quick skim of the weight data base shows a fair amount of variation, hull to hull.  Inboards tend to be heaviest.  Heaviest boat I saw was 4806 lbs,  lightest was 4115 or almost 700 lbs difference.  Also those weights are listed as empty hull, motor, fuel, and rudder.  So once sails and gear are aboard, somewhat heavier then listed.  They correct (with corrector weights) to 4600lbs...but it seems to me, we are talking 8% heavier from manufacturer's spec to OD weight.  Certainly a lot closer than some of the Mk Vs weights discussed in the forum thread!   

 

http://s279.org/Documents/s2Wts9-1-17ByHullNo.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crash said:

S2 obviously got much closer to the manufacturers listed specifications weight (listed as 4250 on the class web site) but a quick skim of the weight data base shows a fair amount of variation, hull to hull.  Inboards tend to be heaviest.  Heaviest boat I saw was 4806 lbs,  lightest was 4115 or almost 700 lbs difference.  Also those weights are listed as empty hull, motor, fuel, and rudder.  So once sails and gear are aboard, somewhat heavier then listed.  They correct (with corrector weights) to 4600lbs...but it seems to me, we are talking 8% heavier from manufacturer's spec to OD weight.  Certainly a lot closer than some of the Mk Vs weights discussed in the forum thread!   

 

http://s279.org/Documents/s2Wts9-1-17ByHullNo.pdf

 

I have heard a story, perhaps apocryphal, that one of the foremen at the C&C yard had a boat built for himself, and weighed everything going onto and into that boat. It still ended up 1000 lbs over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For an overall view - I get the impression that the MKV is a great little boat with no vices but not the best racer for the more serious types.

Is that a fair assessment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They shoulda' built the hull in kevlar and all the interior structure and deck in carbon, eh?

Oh, and a 15/16ths carbon rig 3' taller and main 4" longer in the foot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image result for emoticons rocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have owned a MK V for 15 years. Decent beer can racer, best in 12K and over, loves to go upwind in a chop and a breeze, sticky downwind in lighter air. If you race in a breezy location it's a good bet.  If not, find something quicker.

5a5933190f224_DTatOwners2009.jpg.3fa86b080fae98f44e7873be189dcadc.jpgWell built with not too many serious defects, (aside for the windows).  We race a lot, win a lot, and lose a lot too.

All the C&C s are over weight, but the MKV maybe more than others. Mine weighs 6,240 pounds, my neighbour 6,200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the C&C 29mkii a better choice for a racer - cruiser  in light wind venues?   They rate almost the same - not a huge jump in price on the used market - Perhaps more likely to sail to it's rating in 5 to 10 knots windspeed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TADAMS said:

Is the C&C 29mkii a better choice for a racer - cruiser  in light wind venues?   They rate almost the same - not a huge jump in price on the used market - Perhaps more likely to sail to it's rating in 5 to 10 knots windspeed ?

The 29-2 is a good light-air boat and much roomier inside than the 27-V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 29-II. Similar rating, more competitive with 7.9s in the light stuff. Roomier inside with standing head room. 29-II is also for sale since I picked up a J/92 this fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light air a 27 Mklll and a 29 MKll are both faster than a 27 MkV

All three equal in 10-12 K

MKV faster in 14+, particularly if it is choppy

5a5aa4f486b31_2003SingleDoubleHandedRace063.thumb.jpg.9507ca9c51c827c90c8e01ecfdbe54b7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 2:14 PM, DTH said:

. Mine weighs 6,240 pounds, my neighbour 6,200.

Could always just remove the interior w/a chainsaw and glass in a simple carbon bulkhead.

Guy here did that w/a Catalina 27 years ago and did real well. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why do that? You have to report it, so take a rating hit, you lose the cruiser part of the equation, and you still have to live with the cruiser compromises (small cramped cockpit, skinnier side decks, etc).  Why not just go buy an older 27 foot custom MORC boat like a Mariah, Andrews, etc?

For the same money and effort you’d have a much nicer racer wouldn’t you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have to report it, so take a rating hit

No you don't. Or in this case they didn't because IIRC correctly PHRF doesn't/didn't measure displacement. 

That's what I was told at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 7:32 PM, DTH said:

In light air a 27 Mklll and a 29 MKll are both faster than a 27 MkV

All three equal in 10-12 K

MKV faster in 14+, particularly if it is choppy

What he said...

 

untitled-149.thumb.jpg.a36be432e038d839b66612d5af0f8150.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, By the lee said:

No you don't. Or in this case they didn't because IIRC correctly PHRF doesn't/didn't measure displacement. 

That's what I was told at the time. 

At its most pure, PHRF doesn't measure any boat specification.  PHRF is an "observed handicap" rule.  PHRF uses boat specifications to come up with an initial or interim rating until it can gather enough observed performance data to update and assign a "regular" rating...

Most PHRF fleets/regions that I am aware of have a fleet policy or rule that says any changes to the hull, rig, appendages or other factors upon which a boat was initially rated must be reported...certainly gutting the interior of a Cat 27 counts in that regard.  I'm not saying the region that guy was in had such a rule, or that he broke any rules,  only that many or most regions do...Here is PHRF of the Chesapeake's as an example:

Changes to Design or Equipment. A skipper may experiment with different ways of improving the
performance of his boat without the necessity of inconvenience of re-measuring. However, if there are
changes to the hull, rig, sails, or other factors upon which the existing rating is based, they must be
reported to the handicapper for evaluation.
If possible deviations on the part of another sailboat become
apparent; other contestants are urged to appeal to the area handicapper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, By the lee said:

No you don't. Or in this case they didn't because IIRC correctly PHRF doesn't/didn't measure displacement. 

That's what I was told at the time. 

In Van...yes you do.  See Section 9 : http://bcsailing.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PHRF-Rules-Apr-21-2017.pdf  To be deemed a standard you are supposed to sail with all factory items except unsecured cushions and salon tables IIRC.

Anything other alterations must be reported, which makes you subject to a penalty - but not necessarily assessed a penalty.  I assume these alterations were reported and the PHRF committee decided it wasn't worth a penalty.  Or everyone knew and no one appealed, in which case they have no one to blame but themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now