C&C 101 vs C&C 110
How do the C&C 101 and C&C 110 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 101 | C&C 101 | C&C 110 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.8 ft10.00 m | 36.3 ft11.07 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 31.5 ft9.60 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.34 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 8,100 lb3,674 kg | 10,900 lb4,944 kg |
| Ballast | 3,351 lb1,520 kg | 4,200 lb1,905 kg |
| Sail area | 613 ft²56.9 m² | 706 ft²65.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.32 | 22.98 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 156 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 18.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 2.16 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.5 |
C&C 101 vs C&C 110: the short version
- The C&C 110 is the larger boat at 36.3 ft11.07 m LOA versus 32.8 ft10.00 m for the C&C 101.
- The C&C 110 is heavier, displacing about 35% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 101 carries the more powerful rig (24.3 vs 23.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 110 rates better for offshore work (2.16 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.