port tack
Member
Pros cons ? Looking for a more comfortable boat for fun racing. How are they holding up? I did search. Flame away.
Thanks
Thanks
C&C 115
- Thread starter port tack
- Start date
Rain Man
Super Anarchist
Sailed on one for WIRW a few years back. Nice boat. The boat had been raced hard but still looked to be in great condition. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if you can find one.
This boat had symmetrical kites and in breeze it took two people to do the pole. The smallest person on the boat had no trouble bringing the class 100% headsail in in decent breeze.
The boats are a trifle underpowered in light air because of the non-overlapping headsail.
I sailed on a different one with asymmetrical kites a few times. The kites are so large in that case that gybing was not a lot easier than doing the pole on the symmetrical boat. Getting the big kite around the forestay was a bit tricky.
Not a good short-handed boat if the kites are symmetrical.
This boat had symmetrical kites and in breeze it took two people to do the pole. The smallest person on the boat had no trouble bringing the class 100% headsail in in decent breeze.
The boats are a trifle underpowered in light air because of the non-overlapping headsail.
I sailed on a different one with asymmetrical kites a few times. The kites are so large in that case that gybing was not a lot easier than doing the pole on the symmetrical boat. Getting the big kite around the forestay was a bit tricky.
Not a good short-handed boat if the kites are symmetrical.
glass
Member
Like maybe you I supose? Tim has designed for C&C/Tartan for many, many years. Rob Ball obviously thought him qualified...Last time I raced at Key West, the C&C 115 in our class beat both of the Beneteau 40.7s and all of the J/109s. Does that make Bruce Farr and Rod Johnstone less better than Tim Jackett?
Serious question: What do you think makes someone more or less "better" as a designer of sailboats?
Serious question: What do you think makes someone more or less "better" as a designer of sailboats?
glass
Member
Serious question: what's wrong with you? Why do you magnify a simple difference of opinion into a death cage match with "two men in one man out" ?
DFG
Member
I have had my 115 since 2005. It is a good, solid boat that I would recommend. We use it mostly for racing, but have cruised with it also. The boat can compete with other boats in its ratings band very nicely. I have found it requires 6 to sail competitively, as you need a good bowman, mastman, two trimmers, main trimmer, and skipper. Having a good mainsheet trimmer is the key to making the boat go. We only fly asym spinnakers and can either tack it to the bow, if shorthanded, or use a pole. It is not a good boat if you want to double hand, as the large wheel makes it difficult to move forward from the helm position. However, my wife and I can handle it just fine for cruising. It is a bit sticky in light winds due to the 105% jib, and we are adding a Code Zero to alleviate that issue. If comfort is an issue, it has a very nice interior, one that will make your significant other happy. It is a true racer/cruiser, not a flat out racer. I have had no major issues with the boat, just the normal nit picky stuff that always crops up. If you want to have a good race boat, but one that is also cruiser friendly, you can't go wrong with the 115.
Sorry, you’re right, that was “internet snarky” and uncalled for. I apologize. But the question re Tim Jackett stands. Which designers do you think are “significantly “ better, and what, in your opinion, makes a designer better or worse?
glass
Member
I can't help you if you can not see potential problems when an egotistic owner of a boat building company appoints himself as the chief designer.
Last edited by a moderator:
slap
Super Anarchist
Like Frank Butler? Or Rod Johnstone?
And Tim Jackett was their chief designer well before he became management.
'Bacco
Member
The are pretty boats with great interiors and seem to sail well. Some of the Jackett designed C&C's had delamination problems in the epoxy hull. Its fairly well documented on the internet. We had a 99 at our club have a structural delamination failure and the insurance company totaled it. I believe it was aft of the keel The guy only owned it for a year, but never had a survey done before he bought it.
That was most likely "Primal Scream" a very successful 115, which has won KWRW, CRW and other major regattas. They were a pretty strong program 10 years ago. Are they still around? I have a friend who bought a 115 a couple years and could use their tuning numbers.
I've raced on @Goatish's 110. It's setup with big A-Kites and not symmetric kites. It also had a big overlapping (150-155%) Genoa.
I find it a being in a bit of a transition from the older masthead C&Cs and a modern fractional rig and hull shape. It felt sticky in light air even with the genoa but it was always a joy once you could get the kite up on a reach or run. Slammed a bit more than I would like for a cruising boat upwind and I've heard some complaints about the transom slapping in a wavy anchorage.
I find it a being in a bit of a transition from the older masthead C&Cs and a modern fractional rig and hull shape. It felt sticky in light air even with the genoa but it was always a joy once you could get the kite up on a reach or run. Slammed a bit more than I would like for a cruising boat upwind and I've heard some complaints about the transom slapping in a wavy anchorage.
So...what your saying is you either can't or won't actually answer my question? OBTW, the owner of Tartan is Marine Manufacturing Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seattle Yachts International. They bought Tartan/Legacy in April of 2020. I believe prior to that the owner was Steve Malbasa who bought the company in 2010...
glass
Member
Apparently you still have not learned not to piss into the wind.
I doubt that your idol Tim Jackett ever made it into the Top Ten Sailboat Designers List.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hitchhiker
Super Anarchist
There is a Top Ten Sailboat Designers List?
To the OP. Caveat Emptor The following comments were made after surveying a 2003 C&C 99:
Upon hauling the vessel it was discovered that there was major keel stub/keel box damage. The keel stub an integral part of the hull structure was noted to be fractured at the root forward section and movement was visible when the keel portion of the ballast package was moved. Some hull panel flexure adjacent the keel stub was also noted.
Further discovery was effected by removal of the cabin sole. It was found that the keel floor reinforcement system had become detached from the hull panel and keel stud/sump.
The following comments were made after surveying a 2013 C&C 101:
Visual observation of the keel studs immediately revealed visible movement of the hull skin as the vessel heeled under dynamic loading. It was clearly evident that the hull skin/ was moving in concert with the keel studs as a direct result of the loads of the keel installation. The Grid structure was not being properly utilized to distribute the loads of the keel as was the design intention. All loading was clearly centralized to the hull skin. Fracturing of the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic laminates was also observed and clearly seen to be working under sailing loads. As the sailing sea trial continued water was observed weeping in via several of the keel studs. The sailing sea trial was concluded and the vessel returned to the slip.
Now that said, I am sure the above does not apply to all C&C yachts although the QC seems to have been hit and miss in my experience and I know of a C&C 115 that has been raced well in SoCal with good results. I don't know what condition the keel structure is in though.
Good luck.
To the OP. Caveat Emptor The following comments were made after surveying a 2003 C&C 99:
Upon hauling the vessel it was discovered that there was major keel stub/keel box damage. The keel stub an integral part of the hull structure was noted to be fractured at the root forward section and movement was visible when the keel portion of the ballast package was moved. Some hull panel flexure adjacent the keel stub was also noted.
Further discovery was effected by removal of the cabin sole. It was found that the keel floor reinforcement system had become detached from the hull panel and keel stud/sump.
The following comments were made after surveying a 2013 C&C 101:
Visual observation of the keel studs immediately revealed visible movement of the hull skin as the vessel heeled under dynamic loading. It was clearly evident that the hull skin/ was moving in concert with the keel studs as a direct result of the loads of the keel installation. The Grid structure was not being properly utilized to distribute the loads of the keel as was the design intention. All loading was clearly centralized to the hull skin. Fracturing of the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic laminates was also observed and clearly seen to be working under sailing loads. As the sailing sea trial continued water was observed weeping in via several of the keel studs. The sailing sea trial was concluded and the vessel returned to the slip.
Now that said, I am sure the above does not apply to all C&C yachts although the QC seems to have been hit and miss in my experience and I know of a C&C 115 that has been raced well in SoCal with good results. I don't know what condition the keel structure is in though.
Good luck.
I looked at a 115 but the "newness" and unknown longevity of epoxy type hulls scared me away. How, other than your example, have they generally held up? (if you know)
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
gspot
Anarchist
Can't speak to longevity or construction, but C&C 115 "Rags" was very successfully campaigned around the PNW for a number of years, sailed well to its rating etc.