C-Dory Competition?
- Thread starter Stuberg
- Start date
As I see it, both boats look damn near the same and the CC design seem to have corrected some of what I feel are design flaws in the C-Dory. There's two separate things wrapped up in this discussion - boats and people. So if it was just about the boats, I'd certainly give the CC a good look. But for me, it's not just about the boats.
The C-Dory guys have ALWAYS taken very good care of me and I'll back them because of that. I'm not gonna trash the CC or the people associated with the company - don't know them but probably won't get to know them either. I DO know the C-Dory factory and guys and to me that matters a lot. I'll recommend C-Dory to anyone.
Roger on the SeaDNA
The C-Dory guys have ALWAYS taken very good care of me and I'll back them because of that. I'm not gonna trash the CC or the people associated with the company - don't know them but probably won't get to know them either. I DO know the C-Dory factory and guys and to me that matters a lot. I'll recommend C-Dory to anyone.
Roger on the SeaDNA
I think the problem with "liking" the CC comes from - why did they make a boat that LOOKS like a C-Dory! Go ahead and make your boat. A little longer. Wider. Deeper V. But when this "new" boat comes out looking like a CD, that is just too suspicious! Trying to ride the C-Dory name? I think that is why "we" have trouble with this boat. That said, I'm sure it is a well built boat, but....[/i]
Pat Anderson
New member
Well, about the people - we do know Gene and Buck fairly well, they built our 2003 CD22 Daydream (now Boat-y-Sattva), and they took great care of us for a couple of years, and I would not expect less from them at Cape Cruiser. (Buck literally saved our lives, he woke up in the middle of the night shortly after we had taken delivery fretting that he had not connected the Wallas exhaust to the through-hull fitting, and called us the next day, a Sunday - sure enough, it was not connected, and we were able to connect it up without killing ourselves). I suspect they were not happy with the "new" C-Dory, where they had to build 25 boats a month instead of six. They were not indentured servants, and they took their skills elsewhere when C-Dory took a turn that seemed like a wrong turn to them. (WARNING! This is pure speculation on my part!) The rumor that Gene was building the prototype Cape Cruiser while still employed by C-Dory troubles me, if it is true, not so much as a lawyer but as a person with a sense of loyalty and fair play, but I do believe every person has to do what seems best for themselves. I have no idea about the Tolands' legal position regarding the molds versus the appearance or design. But Gene and Buck are THE people who took care of US, and if what kind of people are building the Cape Cruiser is your issue, you don't have to worry about that. That said, the "new" C-Dory folks - Jeff Messmer, Scott Mathews, Andrew, Rick - have taken EXCELLENT care of us, and I don't see anything that would change our warm and fuzzy feelings for C-Dory or induce us to look elsewhere, at least until we cash the house in for a Nordic Tug!
rogerbum":x00745ue said:
rogerbum wrote:
I'm trying to just be nice!
1. Let's start with the cabin design - Next time you're in a harbor where there are a scattering of commercial fishing boats - take a close look at the basic cabins. Whether they are made out of wood or fiberglass, you will see some similarity to the cabin of the CC and the CD. It's a very basic design for protection from the elements.
2. The hull designs are very different and will perform totally different. One is a slightly modified dory design, while the other is a softer version of a deep "V" design.
3. The difference between the CC and the C-Dory has nothing at all to do with supposed design flaws on either boat.
The design flaw philosophy in this example would be similar to me alleging the C-Dory was built to correct design flaws of the canoe. Totally different.
As far as people go - The Tolands designed the C-Dory which became very popular because of it's unique appearance and then sold the company to the present owners. Now a Toland has come forward again with another design which is similar in appearance to many small commercial fishing boats and their former C-Dory. AND, to carry this discussion a step further, I believe the father of the Toland clan may have copied, in appearance only, the very popular Italian designed Monterey fishing boat when he designed the C-Dory. How can this surprise anyone. Take a close look at the next commercial Monterey fishing boat you see.
I'm trying to just be nice!
1. Let's start with the cabin design - Next time you're in a harbor where there are a scattering of commercial fishing boats - take a close look at the basic cabins. Whether they are made out of wood or fiberglass, you will see some similarity to the cabin of the CC and the CD. It's a very basic design for protection from the elements.
2. The hull designs are very different and will perform totally different. One is a slightly modified dory design, while the other is a softer version of a deep "V" design.
3. The difference between the CC and the C-Dory has nothing at all to do with supposed design flaws on either boat.
The design flaw philosophy in this example would be similar to me alleging the C-Dory was built to correct design flaws of the canoe. Totally different.
As far as people go - The Tolands designed the C-Dory which became very popular because of it's unique appearance and then sold the company to the present owners. Now a Toland has come forward again with another design which is similar in appearance to many small commercial fishing boats and their former C-Dory. AND, to carry this discussion a step further, I believe the father of the Toland clan may have copied, in appearance only, the very popular Italian designed Monterey fishing boat when he designed the C-Dory. How can this surprise anyone. Take a close look at the next commercial Monterey fishing boat you see.
C-Bill":2f4izpm9 said:
Not quite. I agree that the hull designs are apples and oranges and I'd even be willing to admit that there are some benefits to the lower splashwell on the CD (although I prefer the higher splashwell which is why I added the transom board). However, I'm guessing that almost everyone can agree that a cockpit floor which tends to gather water where the bulkhead meets the hull is a flawed design especially on the models older than a year or two ago where the bilge was installed off center. To me that has "design flaw" written all over it! The CC design with a cockpit floor that is raised at the bulkhead and tilted towards the back with a centered bilge in the rear is a clear improvement. I also like the larger steps as I feel the smaller design in the CD is flawed. Still love my CD but sure wish the cockpit floor was designed differently.
Roger
A
Anonymous
Guest
With a little more time to think this through... I would rather have the transom left as-is for reasons of it being customizable. If your one to want to sit down on the ledge of the inner wall, to clean you engines, or just clean the splash well -- its easy with the lower entry. If you have a single engine, its better for climbing back onto the boat after a swim :star
The compromise I see in the raised-floor is, its going to raise the center of gravity :| ---and--- if or when you puncture your hull, and waterlog the core.... its probably more core to become waterlogged... :!:
my 2¢
OK... one more thought (on the "CC") : I wonder if the floor-level will actually stay "slanted downward" when you pile everyone into the berth at night? meaning: you might be in for a surprise, when you get out to pee over the gunnel at night (when its been rainin) and step into water that pools-up there, when you pile a few hundred pounds of bodies into the berth.... huh... think about it
The compromise I see in the raised-floor is, its going to raise the center of gravity :| ---and--- if or when you puncture your hull, and waterlog the core.... its probably more core to become waterlogged... :!:
my 2¢
OK... one more thought (on the "CC") : I wonder if the floor-level will actually stay "slanted downward" when you pile everyone into the berth at night? meaning: you might be in for a surprise, when you get out to pee over the gunnel at night (when its been rainin) and step into water that pools-up there, when you pile a few hundred pounds of bodies into the berth.... huh... think about it
Well last night I got a phone call from a friend that I ran in to fishing in Port McNeill Vancouver Island. He was drooling all over my C-Dory, I knew I was sold!... Gest what he went over the border and order him self a beautiful new (you did not gest that one) Cape Cruiser men was he ever happy, remember of me when I bought my C-Dory . He is going to have the factory install dual streering so he can install dual control on is twin . He did not decided yet what can of outboards he is going to buy, but he talk about twin 50s hp E-Tech , that would be very interesting if he does. I can hardly wait to see is boat I am very excited for him. I believe he mention that the boat should be here in about 2 months or so.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Looks like C-D/CC (both the same to me :shock: ) have got the "OEM" (if that's the correct term) engine choice right this time ---- YAMAHA!
You know what is the ULTIMATE "internal combustion-engine don't you: ROTARY! Now, I don't have time to follow all the latest great developments and al, but what I heard was: there is this old genius fella, that finally solved the rotary-engines "achilles heal" --- a successfully developed rotor-tip :idea That has plaged this far-superior engine design all along.... the longevity issue of the rotor tip. From what I hear "the tips are now: roller" you know; as in---a sealed roller-bearing design.
Funny; as a kid I was wondering why they could not find a way of doing that from the start---stupid that it took so long :roll:
RedFox want's to see some rotary outboards for the "future engine". Then again, I have to agree with some that say "were going to run out of oil soon".
Alright, I'll get attah here now... poof** :bat leave you old timers alone ... :xlol
You know what is the ULTIMATE "internal combustion-engine don't you: ROTARY! Now, I don't have time to follow all the latest great developments and al, but what I heard was: there is this old genius fella, that finally solved the rotary-engines "achilles heal" --- a successfully developed rotor-tip :idea That has plaged this far-superior engine design all along.... the longevity issue of the rotor tip. From what I hear "the tips are now: roller" you know; as in---a sealed roller-bearing design.
Funny; as a kid I was wondering why they could not find a way of doing that from the start---stupid that it took so long :roll:
RedFox want's to see some rotary outboards for the "future engine". Then again, I have to agree with some that say "were going to run out of oil soon".
Alright, I'll get attah here now... poof** :bat leave you old timers alone ... :xlol