C&C 110 vs C&C SR 33
How do the C&C 110 and C&C SR 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 110 | C&C 110 | C&C SR 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 33.1 ft10.08 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 27.8 ft8.46 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 11.4 ft3.48 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 7.0 ft2.13 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 5,372 lb2,437 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 541 ft²50.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 28.22 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 112 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 11.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 2.61 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.1 |
C&C 110 vs C&C SR 33: the short version
- The C&C 110 is the larger boat at 36.3 ft11.07 m LOA versus 33.1 ft10.08 m for the C&C SR 33.
- The C&C 110 is heavier, displacing about 103% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C SR 33 carries the more powerful rig (28.2 vs 23.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 110 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 110 rates better for offshore work (2.16 vs 2.61).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.