C&C 101 vs C&C 33
How do the C&C 101 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.
C&C 101 
C&C 33 | C&C 101 | C&C 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.8 ft10.00 m | 32.9 ft10.02 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 26.4 ft8.05 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.34 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 8,100 lb3,674 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Ballast | 3,351 lb1,520 kg | 4,075 lb1,848 kg |
| Sail area | 613 ft²56.9 m² | 501 ft²46.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.32 | 17.50 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 237 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 23.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.9 |
C&C 101 vs C&C 33: the short version
- The C&C 101 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 21% 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 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 33 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.