"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:18:40 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Structurally, generally of course, they're fine.

====================================

I agree but that is only one consideration. As I said originally it
is not the boat that I'd pick, and I stated my reasons.

Have you ever sailed offshore on an unsuited boat? It does not have
to fall apart to be unsuitable, a squirrelly motion in a seaway will
do it, so will flat shallow bilges that flood the cabin sole, so will
inadequate tankage that requires carrying fuel and water on deck,
likewise inadequate storage space, or inadequate battery and charging
capacity.

Most coastal racer/cruisers will fail on the majority of these points
and the C&C 33 is no exception. That doesn't make it a bad boat, just
one that's not particularly well suited for crossing oceans.

No. I wouldn't do that. If I thought the boat was unsuitable, I wouldn't go.

In my experience, the C&Cs are not "squirrelly in a seaway. They are, in
fact, seakindly. They're generally stiff, fast, and well-built... sounds
like my ex... anyway... I wouldn't hesitate to take one offshore, assuming
maintenance was kept up.

I took a CT 48 down the coast from SF to Cabo non-stop. Even it did not have
sufficient tankage to drive the whole way without gerry cans on deck. I took
a Sparkmans and Stephens steel 61 foot long distance in the Med and it
didn't have sufficient water storage.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com