BB 10 vs C&C 33
How do the BB 10 and C&C 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
BB 10 
C&C 33 | BB 10 | C&C 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.8 ft10.00 m | 32.9 ft10.02 m |
| Waterline length | 23.9 ft7.29 m | 26.4 ft8.05 m |
| Beam | 7.5 ft2.30 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 4.8 ft1.46 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 4,956 lb2,248 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Ballast | 2,700 lb1,225 kg | 4,075 lb1,848 kg |
| Sail area | 358 ft²33.3 m² | 501 ft²46.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.71 | 17.50 |
| Displacement / Length | 162 | 237 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.5 | 23.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.77 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.9 |
BB 10 vs C&C 33: the short version
- The BB 10 and C&C 33 are close in length (32.8 ft10.00 m vs 32.9 ft10.02 m ).
- The C&C 33 is heavier, displacing about 98% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the BB 10 carries the more powerful rig (19.7 vs 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the BB 10 rates better for offshore work (1.77 vs 1.96).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.