C&C 115

JPD

Anarchist
509
22
LIS
Two well sailed 115's in this area clean up under PHRF. One developed a  crack at the top of the carbon mast, discovered by chance. The extrusion had to be replaced.

 
As far as longevity and build quality, I really don't think these are bad boats. I have a '99 110, and have had 0 problems with the construction of it, other than the fact it (and all 110s) were delivered well over listed displacement. It would appear that the 115s are a lot more accurately listed, and that those extra 2 feet of length really help the boat sail to its rating.

If set up correctly, I cannot imagine one of these to be hard to sail short handed as I often sail my 110 with a sprit single handed with full A kites without a problem. I would not want to run a symmetric kite on one though if no crew available, as the extra long standard pole would make gybes a handful.

For a comfortable racer cruiser, you really can't go wrong with one, they are a nice yacht like boat inside, while still feeling relatively modern, and having all the amenities a cruiser could want, and they are fun to sail when the wind is up.

 

Ishmael

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
49,318
10,078
Fuctifino
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.
Like George Cuthbertson?

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.
Sounds like it discovered a rock. I realize no other boats would have sustained any damage, so this must be a bad build.

 

eerie sailor

Super Anarchist
1,451
28
DEEETROIT
I looked at three 115s in the last year. Ended up buying something else, but overall the boats seemed like a decent bang for the buck. One of the boats I looked at had a serious grounding incident. Not sure if I've ever seen so much carbon laid into a keel stub before.  I was looking for the sprit version. Wasn't to many available. 

 

Rain Man

Super Anarchist
7,004
1,925
Wet coast.
  Learjet for me.  
I think he was saying "if you hit a rock and damage the laminate, you can't blame it on the build" in a facetious way.  The survey report does not make it clear whether the boat did or did not hit a rock.  It may not have, which would then make the damage a build or design issue, but it wasn't explicitly stated.  

The fact that there was a fracture at the stub root at the front of the keel suggests a grounding more than a build issue.  Hope this explanation helps clear things up.

 

Hitchhiker

Super Anarchist
4,321
1,025
Saquo-Pilia Hensha
I think he was saying "if you hit a rock and damage the laminate, you can't blame it on the build" in a facetious way.  The survey report does not make it clear whether the boat did or did not hit a rock.  It may not have, which would then make the damage a build or design issue, but it wasn't explicitly stated.  

The fact that there was a fracture at the stub root at the front of the keel suggests a grounding more than a build issue.  Hope this explanation helps clear things up.
Again, reading comprehension is the current cause of loss in this thread. Nowhere was it written that a bulb or keel bottom section sustained a grounding impact, Primarily because they were not.

The text was deliberately edited.

 

Hitchhiker

Super Anarchist
4,321
1,025
Saquo-Pilia Hensha
Can the laminate be repaired by rebedding the keel or does it need to be retabbed?  Very interested in the discussion.
In the case of the C&C 99, the entire internal grid structure needed to be re-adhered or re-tabbed to the hull shell on the interior. 

In the case of the 101 the entire keel sump area had to be reinforced with new floors.

 
Top