I’m looking for a fast 29ft cruiser for mainly day sailing, some racing, some cruising. I’m looking at a 1983 C&C 29 MKII and 1978 S2 9.2a that are both available. Winds are typically on the lighter side near me. The C&C is so light with a keel stepped mast which I like. The S2 has an encapsulated keel and overall build looks better, but it’s much heavier. Any thoughts on how I can make a decision between the two based on sail-ability?
C&C 29 MKII vs S2 9.2a
- Thread starter 4lane
- Start date
For a relative comparison look at the PHRF handicaps. The lower handicap will generally be faster. Bear in mind that a small differences in handicaps, say 15 or under are pretty meaningless and can be function of a variety of factors other than boat speed.
If I recall correctly the C&C rates in the 170s. Which is fast for its design, i.e., a late 70's early 80s racer/cruiser.
If I recall correctly the C&C rates in the 170s. Which is fast for its design, i.e., a late 70's early 80s racer/cruiser.
Yes, thank you. I’ve seen that the C&C has a slower hull speed (6.33) but 171 PHRF, whereas the S2 has a faster hull speed (6.7) but higher 189 PHRF. The S2 is a full 2100 pounds more, which is my concern in an area with lighter winds.
Hull speed is not a particularly good measure of sailing performance. First the formula was designed to estimate the hull speed of commercial sailing vessels back in the 1700s, when hulls were blunt nose, beamy, and heavy. Waterline length does make a difference but hull form makes a big difference. Some hull shapes are slipperier than others (to use a highly untechnical term). Also, as the the boat heels the waterline can change and affect hull speed. It is not unusual for many boats to theoretical hull speed under the right conditions.
Weight is also a tricky measure. All things being equal a lighter boat will accelerate quicker than a heavier boat, but it will also slow down quicker when the wind drops or it hits a wave. Heavier boats will have more momentum for any given speed than a lighter boat which will allow them to carry on further during lulls with less speed loss and punch through waves with less speed loss. The lighter boat will be "quicker in the corners" because it will accelerate faster out of a tack. Competitive sailors prefer lighter boats because they will tack more often to take advantage of wind shifts.
Trying to decide which boat is faster based on paper characteristics is complicated. In addition to weight, sail area, sail area to displacement ratio, beam, waterline length and other factors contribute to boat performance. Hull shape also matters and can affect boat speed on different points of sail.
On the race course and assuming a fair handicapping system (what maybe a rash assumption) there are many more factors that are important, boat prep, sail design and age, skipper's skill, local conditions, crew skill quick come to mind. Skipper skill is probably one of the most important. A highly skilled skipper sailing a less optimized boat will almost always do better than an unskilled skipper sailing a highly optimized boat.
If speed alone is the main decision point, then looking at the PHRF ratings is probably the best indicator of relative speed. It is simple, allegedly based on actual performance, and commonly used. Search for PHRF ratings for each boat.
Weight is also a tricky measure. All things being equal a lighter boat will accelerate quicker than a heavier boat, but it will also slow down quicker when the wind drops or it hits a wave. Heavier boats will have more momentum for any given speed than a lighter boat which will allow them to carry on further during lulls with less speed loss and punch through waves with less speed loss. The lighter boat will be "quicker in the corners" because it will accelerate faster out of a tack. Competitive sailors prefer lighter boats because they will tack more often to take advantage of wind shifts.
Trying to decide which boat is faster based on paper characteristics is complicated. In addition to weight, sail area, sail area to displacement ratio, beam, waterline length and other factors contribute to boat performance. Hull shape also matters and can affect boat speed on different points of sail.
On the race course and assuming a fair handicapping system (what maybe a rash assumption) there are many more factors that are important, boat prep, sail design and age, skipper's skill, local conditions, crew skill quick come to mind. Skipper skill is probably one of the most important. A highly skilled skipper sailing a less optimized boat will almost always do better than an unskilled skipper sailing a highly optimized boat.
If speed alone is the main decision point, then looking at the PHRF ratings is probably the best indicator of relative speed. It is simple, allegedly based on actual performance, and commonly used. Search for PHRF ratings for each boat.
Thank you! I’m confident the C&C is quicker based on the PHRF indications I posted, but thank you for the additional context to understand the positives of a heavier S2.
I was very much leaning into the C&C with its keel stepped mast and slipperiness. But the S2’s encapsulated keel, overall build quality (no crazing) and layout is impressive too. Tough decision…
I was very much leaning into the C&C with its keel stepped mast and slipperiness. But the S2’s encapsulated keel, overall build quality (no crazing) and layout is impressive too. Tough decision…
18 seconds a mile is not a lot. On the race course, a couple of bad tacks and that advantage is lost. The S2 with good new sails can sail boat to boat with the C&C with older sails. I would not base the decision solely on the PHRF ratings.
As long as the mast didn't leak I think I would prefer the boat without the crazing because most of the time it would look faster and I could always explain why I wasn't always racing.
Crazing is almost always cosmetic. It occurs because gelcoat is brittle and cracks easily under any kind of stress. The crazing by the stanchions is proabably caused by compression from the mounting bolts and people grabbing the stanchion to control the boat at the dock.
On a 40 year old boat, it would be unusual to not find some gelcoat crazing.
Both of the boats you are looking at have a good pedigree. The boat you want to buy is the one that you look back at as you walk away. It's the one that reminds of the feeling you got when you looked at your HS girlfriend. The boat will speak to you.
On a 40 year old boat, it would be unusual to not find some gelcoat crazing.
Both of the boats you are looking at have a good pedigree. The boat you want to buy is the one that you look back at as you walk away. It's the one that reminds of the feeling you got when you looked at your HS girlfriend. The boat will speak to you.
One of the reasons the S2 is heavier may be the fiberglass layup - which is why there is less crazing on the S2. Another aspect to consider is the Sail Area to Displacement ratio. This essentially is an indication of "horsepower" . Boats with higher ratios will do better in light-air situations because they simply have more sail area in relation to their weight than boats with lower ratios. Besides rating 18 seconds a mile faster than the S2, (which is considerable, actually), the C&C's SA/disp ratio is 17.88 compared to the S2's SA/disp ratio of 16.41. This means that the lighter C&C has more capacity to get it moving than the S2 does in both light and heavy air. For daysailing in a light-air venue the choice is obvious.
Great feedback everyone. I want the C&C for its sailing capabilities. I want the S2 for its condition and layout. I’m at a fork in the road…
@PaulK is correct, an 18 sec/mile rating difference is a lot if the boats are racing level, i.e., with no handicap adjustment. However, this is what ratings are designed to do, even the playing field between different kinds of boats.
From a cruising perspective and in theory, an 18 sec/mile difference amounts to about 180 seconds over a 10 mile sail. All other things being equal the C&C would arrive about 3 minutes before the S2.
From a cruising perspective and in theory, an 18 sec/mile difference amounts to about 180 seconds over a 10 mile sail. All other things being equal the C&C would arrive about 3 minutes before the S2.
jssailem
SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,768
Layout, build condition, and the one your partner likes will influence your boat's joy over the years by much more than 0.37knts in boat hull speed.
The observed gel coat cracks may be associated with a thinner gel coating in that area and the way previous owners tried to stop the boat while docking (grabbing and pushing on the stanchions).
The observed gel coat cracks may be associated with a thinner gel coating in that area and the way previous owners tried to stop the boat while docking (grabbing and pushing on the stanchions).
Condition and layout is far more important than an imperceptible difference in sail capabilities. I don't know why you think a keel-stepped mast is a plus. In my mind it's a minus. The weight difference will work against you in the Hudson. You may have light winds, but the Hudson is also in a designated high-wind zone as referenced by building codes and the waves you find there will knock down the speed of the lighter boat in a heartbeat. You won't be moving through waves, while the heavier boat will carry more momentum and have more power to get you thru. I think the S2 is not considered to be a heavy boat anyway.
I think that you will not find any perceptible benefit performance-wise with the C&C. The crazing will forever bother you and possibly affect a re-sale. By far, use condition and aesthetic appeal as your guidance. Maybe you just like the C&C better - nothing wrong with that. Condition makes a huge difference when you consider the cost of boat maintenance. If you are new to sailing or boating in general, you probably have no idea how much it costs to maintain an aged boat. Let's just say that just about all of us significantly under-estimate this cost. If we went into boating with real knowledge, we would probably run away at the start.
The cheapest boat is always the most expensive as time goes on.
And, I'll say it again ... I think on the Hudson, light weight will not be your friend.
I think that you will not find any perceptible benefit performance-wise with the C&C. The crazing will forever bother you and possibly affect a re-sale. By far, use condition and aesthetic appeal as your guidance. Maybe you just like the C&C better - nothing wrong with that. Condition makes a huge difference when you consider the cost of boat maintenance. If you are new to sailing or boating in general, you probably have no idea how much it costs to maintain an aged boat. Let's just say that just about all of us significantly under-estimate this cost. If we went into boating with real knowledge, we would probably run away at the start.
The cheapest boat is always the most expensive as time goes on.And, I'll say it again ... I think on the Hudson, light weight will not be your friend.
Hello,
Have you been aboard the S2? Back in 2004 I was looking for a bigger boat and I really liked the S2 9.2a. I probably looked at 5-6 of them. Every one had bad leaks around the ports, with rotten interiors, mold, and other problems. i ended up buying a Newport 28 but that's another story. Personally I think the C&C 29 is a better boat for performance. The S2 is bigger and would be more comfortable.
Good luck,
Barry
Have you been aboard the S2? Back in 2004 I was looking for a bigger boat and I really liked the S2 9.2a. I probably looked at 5-6 of them. Every one had bad leaks around the ports, with rotten interiors, mold, and other problems. i ended up buying a Newport 28 but that's another story. Personally I think the C&C 29 is a better boat for performance. The S2 is bigger and would be more comfortable.
Good luck,
Barry
I have looked at the S2 and did not find any recurring leaks in the ports or with mold issues. I actually found it to be very solid throughout with no mold issues I could see, but it does have that wall covering which can hide things. It is bigger, has more storage, and a treat to work on with the entire engine/transmission exposed.