1980 C&C 40 as a blue water boat?

[Juho]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Wow a Westsail polar opposite to the C&C

I must note again that I don't know the North American boat models well. But should we formulate the question, steady, heavy, strong and safe vs. light and fast?

[wolfesmy]

I Agree with Juho. Strong heavy and steady and safe for Bluewater. Light and fast is OK for coastal cruising. That's why I sail a Morgan 383 on Blue water and a C&C 34 for coastal and racing.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by wolfesmy

Light and fast is OK for coastal cruising.

I'm a dead woman

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Juho

I must note again that I don't know the North American boat models well. But should we formulate the question, steady, heavy, strong and safe vs. light and fast?

The C&C 40 is an older IOR design without any of the extremeS often associated with these design rules. It's not a light weight compared to many newer designs, more of a middle weight. The 40 is a well built boat and is quite capable of offshore sailing assuming it is a well maintained boat. The interior layout while dated still makes for a good offshore design. The Westsail is a very old design that was updated back in the 1970'S and some folks give this boat credit for starting the whole cruising thingy. It's a very high displacement design with a short waterline however it is also very roomy for a 32 footer and has very good storage. Sailing performance between these 2 boats is polar opposite with the C&C being in a different league however for those that love the older salty designs the Westsail seems to please.

[Training Wheels]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

I'm a dead woman

If your dead, I must already be cremated and my ashes scattered.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[frozenhawaiian]

I really have to laugh at some of the comments about this boat not being fit for offshore sailing because it's light. or the comments that its spade rudder isn't safe or strong. take a look at racing sailboats folks, they are both A: very lightweight and B have spade rudders. and the abuse we put on offshore racing sailboats is incredible. take a trip over to youtube and watch some of the footage of races like the sydney to hobart, or the fastnet or the volvo ocean race of the vendee globe, just to name a few. if the logic that you need to be heavy and have a skeg or keel hung rudder to be safe offshore I guess it's a wonder ANYONE survives these offshore races!

anyhow, I digres.

speaking of the C&C 40 specifically I've sailed on them before inshore and offshore so I can offer a few firsthand tidbits about them.
1. as the practical sailor article mentions the foretriangle on these boats is quite large as was commonplace on IOR boats of that era. so you really can't get away with having just one jib, 2 at a minimum is my recommendation.

2. the boat LOVES sailing to weather so long as it's not overcanvased, again this was common with IOR designs the shapes that made them have favorable ratings also as a side effect made a lot of them pretty quick upwind.

3. again, IOR design, nothing to extreme mind you but an IOR design none the less so it can be a bit squirrelly downwind. reef early and you'll be fine.

4. with it's deep fin keel and deep (GASP!) spade rudder it tracks very well, combine that with the fact that the rudder is fairly high aspect, partically balanced the boat has a very large wheel you have a boat that so long as the steering system is well maintained is fingertip light to steer.

5, the interior is brilliant, the galley i very secure to cook in at sea while also not being cramped, having a dedicated nav station at least to me in a huge plus, futhermore the salon just feels cozy, doesn't feel cramped at all. the V-berth is a little tight, again IOR design so the bow is pretty pinched and has considerable flare.

something to be aware of about C&C'sin general: yes, these are balsa cored boats (both hull and deck) but don't let that scare you off, C&C was known for VERY high build quality, that being said you'll still want to have a survey done with extra attention on looking for any wet coring.

from looking at that ad Id be very suspect of the rod rigging and while it's hard to say just by looking at a few picture I'd suspect that roller furler is shot and at least in my experience taking off an old roller furler and installing a new one as mast out type operation. the good news is that the interior looks to be in pretty good shape and the hull while a bit dull with a wetsand and a polish/wax should shine up beautifully.

[Don C L]

It's a matter of preference, and worth it's own thread probably. Are fin keels and spade rudders a good choice for cruising? Believe me, I LOVE sailing them, I love going fast, so I am willing to ignore the extra work they sometimes entail (like downwind.) But other concerns weigh in for me. Where I am cruising kelp beds and lobster/crab pots are common and especially at night you can end up dragging some kind of mass occasionally. Also, had I not been crewing on a nice Frers 65 that lost her spade rudder, I might think differently, for my own preferences. But if others have confidence in their rudders I can understand that, I'd still ride on their boat! That particular, custom Frers also had some other unsettling quirks that ensured its speed but I'd prefer not have on a cruising boat of my own. The flat bottom Kevlar hull flexed quite bit to the point that stringers banged up against steel sole supports. The stringers ended getting cut through, but the boat seemed to be ok. So anyway, I think the happy medium of longish fin keel and skeg-hung rudder, makes the most sense in general for ME.

[robert sailor]

There is no debating that a spade rudder is the most effective way to steer a sailboat. There is also no debate that a deep Fin keel is the most effective keel for a sailboat. So with those thoughts in mind why would you not choose to have a boat with both?
Well for one many spade rudders are not built as strong as they could be because of costs so the history of spade rudder failures is not because it's a spade, it's because it was built on the light side. Deep Fin keels, well I guess depending where you sail you may want less draft or the ability to dry out in high tidal areas or whatever. Personally we have a partial skeg rudder and a long shallow Fin. If I was building a new boat I would have a spade rudder but it would be built properly and would be stronger than almost any skeg rudder. Still prefer the Fin keel but not one mounted directly to the bottom of the boat giving you a shallow bilge, mounted on a heavily built stub which allows a proper deep bilge.

[neilpride]

This particular C&C as well others are still floating and sailing despite 20 plus years of service, wonder why spade rudders and fin keels are related to this topic, C&C know really well how to built good fin keels spade rudders boats.....

[neilpride]

As a side note, I rebuilt a Landfall 42 few years ago for a Norway guy and their friends , and despite I never believe that boat is able to sail RTW without big expenses and pain,, they reach Thailand in a fuss,, they send me few emails with pics and lots of thanks for the work done , they are planning to sail the med and run back to the Caribbean again, not bad for a 20 plus years old C&C landfall...

[cards26]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Our list: no split rigs, keel steppepd mast, skeg rudder, no Volvo engines, no saildrives. Our present boat has swept back spreaders and a fractional rig (7/8) with a solent rig. For cruising, I think in-line spreaders and a cutter rig is probably better, because when you are sailing downwind, you can wing the main out further without chafe, and the inner forestay, with a smaller sail, moves the center of effort aft, and the boat's easier to handle in heavy weather.


Ann

Ann, I'm not sure if you're saying you want a skeg rudder, or you don't want one. If no, could you please tell me why? I've always thought it was a great safety option.

[Lizzy Belle]

Seems like a pretty clear YES on the rudder ... (and the keel stepped mast)

[lifeofreilly57]

If you have a subscription to Practical Sailor or know someone who does you can get archive articles, or if not you can purchase the archive article online, they had a write up on the C&C 40 which was pretty accurate. It's relatively free of personal bias and points out strengths and weaknesses, you can decide from there.
I believe it was written last year, so it's relatively current.
Depends on where you want to cruise, they did not have a lot of fuel capacity and about 100 gallons or just under in water capacity so extra fuel would be recommended if your looking to do long transits or very remote areas.
Otherwise nice sailing, fun boats.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I have surveyed eight 41' C&C's. They were all balsa cored to within 18" of the keel and all suffered from serious core decay below the water line. Four had serious grid issues around the keel. Three had serious bulkhead separations.

I know it's not popular to be a naysayer, but, please, Nick, reread this post, somehow it has the smell of being a true representation of experience, and issues of which you should be aware.

Ann

[saralane]

I've been cruising/living aboard my 1979 C&C 40 for the past 6 years in the Caribbean. We came down form RI and are living aboard in the Eastern Caribbean - putting about 1000 miles o per year. The boat is great - perfect for a couple, but gets small quickly with guests.

Before leaving we did repower, had the rod replaced and reheaded where needed. Also added refrigeration, an additional 27 gallons fuel, reduced the winch farm at the mast, new autopilot, reglazed all of the hatches & windows, added 6 opening ports, and removed the bridgedeck to make the companionway more friendly. We got the boat for a song, so even with the improvements, I don't think we are upside down in value.

I don't think I would take her across to the Med, but reasonable offshore trips are fine.

Cheers, Skip