Balancing Weight in Forepeak

[Theis]

I noticed on one of the other threads that Ivar put 60# of lead weight in the forepeak. Has anyone else mounted weights up forward to better balance the boat fore and aft?

In Ivar's case he put 60# of lead, unattached. Is there any reason why a loose weight is not OK. Can the smaller lead weight (80#) be put up forward? Where do you get 60# of lead? Is there a substance for that purpose that is more readily available (Tube sand perhaps)?

[Ed Ekers]

Theis, I too noticed the comment about lead in the bow and the first question that came to my mind was why.

[Bill]

I believe the reason was to get the boat to ride on its lines, rather than stern down.

The extra lead added to Maika'i is in the form of three or four long and narrow pigs glassed in under the sole in front of the raised head location under the V-berth. Sure no chance of it mooving around :)

The lead was added to the boat in the 1960's, and as I've been told, had something to do with a now obsolete (off shore?) measurement rule.

[Theis]

Here is the issue that I am posing.

1) The Ariel has a near constant weather helm. My mast is set a little forward of vertical, when there are no people in the cockpit (but the OB is installed)

2) The center of balance of the Ariel is at the forwardmost part of the keel, approximately under the chain plates/maststep.

3) When loaded with all the deadweights that sail my puppy, I believe the additional 3,000 lbs (a couple hundred of that is the people - the rest is the beer), causes the stern to go down, the bow to lift, causing an aft rake in the mast - causing the weather helm.

4) It is recognized that the motor well, which is normally high and dry, gets very wet, indicating that as the Ariel moves, the stern is pushing down, at least somewhat (enough to change the angle of the mast.

THEREFORE, would it not be a good idea to put an 80# bag of sand in the forepeak to at least help offset the weight of all that beer. Because it is so far forward, it should have pretty good leverage, perhaps offsetting 200-300 lbs in the cockpit.

Any thoughts?

[Ed Ekers]

Bill. I would be interested to hear more on the MORC rule that you speak of. My experience has been trying to keep the bow up off shore is more valuable than weighting it down. We have found that with a weighted bow we tend to dive into the waves before we go over them. Also with a heavy bow we created a larger bow wave that would come back and spank us on the quarter which would load up the helm. Anyone else experience this?

In terms of performance if racing other Ariels I have seen the negative results if one did add weight to the bow which tells me that the Ariel prefers to sail with her nose up.

And I guess my last point is that I have seen dozens of pictures of Ariels/Commanders under sail, including many in the forum, and most seem to be sailing on their lines. But then who knows they all could have weighted bows.

I am not closed mined on this but I do have an opinion based on my experience and looking at the design of the hull. I would be interested to hear other views. .....ed

[Dave]

I sail my Ariel with a friend who has a Bristol 27 - another Alberg design. We both complain about the stern squat in these boats. I am about to add weight into the upper bilge from the middle of the forepeak step to the forward end of the forward access hole in the sole. I'll test the results before I glass in about 100# of lead (tire weights, sand, and epoxy slurry).
My theory is that getting the nose down even a bit will not only reduce the irritating slosh in the outboard well, but help the boat be a tiny bit more close winded.
I may be completely wrong. I'll keep you posted on the results.

[Ed Ekers]

Theis, You are starting to sound more like a racer every time we talk. Be careful, you may get a reputation.

I see your point and to some level I agree. If the motor well is dragging there is a good chance you are carrying to much beer. I would offer a couple of points that might make a difference. I wrote earlier about what I have found with a heavy bow, But I agree the boats have to sail on their lines. If you are anything like me (and most other boat owners) there is likely years of stuff that have accumulated on the boat. I often have to ask myself do I really need to carry six sets of sheets and enough dock line to tie up a battle ship.

My point is before I start putting more weight in the little yacht I would think about getting some stuff off (but not the BEER!). You might find that the whole hull could be raised up out of the water.

If the well is taking on water that will most likely weight down the stern but making the boat sit lower in the water doesn't seem like the answer to me. I hear people speak/complain about weather helm often and must confess that I don't have the same complaint. But that is a whole other discussion.....ed

[commanderpete]

I've always understoood that you want to keep weight out of the ends of the boat for the reasons Ed stated, and also to prevent "hobby-horsing."

There is only so much you can do to get excess weight out of the stern.

You're stuck with the outboard engine you've got, even if its heavy.

I've drilled holes in the keel void at the stern looking for trapped water, but only found a few ounces.

I've also cut open the floor of the motor well and scraped out the wet styrofoam. The styrofoam, even wet, was very light. The area under the floor is not very big either.

If you're obsessed with this issue you could try these options first. (But only because water trapped in the boat is detrimental for other reasons).

At least on the Commander, the only place to put weight forward of the mast is in the forepeak or the water tank. I've opted to keep the water tank at least half full because I think the boat was designed to ride that way. She seems to sit on her lines.

Frankly, I don't think 60, 80 or 100 lbs up front is going to help or hurt matters too much one way or the other. Still, I would hesitate to put any more weight in the boat at the ends.

The problem of excess beer weight is easily solved.

[commanderpete]

Here is a picture of my friend's 1964 Rhodes.

Looks a little down towards the stern. The water tank was empty.

[Robert Lemasters]

I had thought about moving the two blocks of lead in the bilge on my Commander forward to raise the stern a little but have changed my mind. My boat does not have or ever did have a water tank. I plan on adding a water tank soon and maybe the boat was designed for the extra weight of the water forward. Question... are the two blocks of lead weight in the bilge placed there so as to be moved forward or aft to balance the boat?:confused:

[Bill]

Not really. They represent the weight of the missing Atomic 4.

[Robert Lemasters]

Bill, too bad, in our modern do everything design age it would make sense to be able to balance the boat fore and aft by simply moving these lead weights on rails in the bilge; however, as I recall these wieghts are fiberglassed to the hull. Mike Goodwin showed me that he had removed the ones in his boat. What good are these weights? Should I remove them altogether or would the boat too ride high?

[Bill]

The racing fleet here has removed the lead pigs. (Sold mine for $20.) Removal makes the boats a bit livelier -- surprising what a couple hundred pounds of lead down low will do. :)

[Ed Ekers]

Robert, My guess is you are asking something that would be the equivalent of what shade of blue is the water. We each have our own answer. But my two cents would be to remove them. As far as I know the only reason the lead pigs were added was to help equal the weight of the outboard models in relationship to the inboard. It was an ok concept but leave it to those racers to find "loop holes" when they found out they could move the lead around.

As far as "livelier" goes I have been sailing with out the lead for so long I could not make a comparison. The key point to me was that the boats were designed as they are and IMHO 2k+ of lead at the bottom of the keel is enough to drag around.....ed

[Theis]

My test as to the effect of the weights, placed in the forward of the bilge adjacent to the balance point, is that they do add SUBSTANTIAL stability. At that location, being the fulcrum, they have nothing to do with fore and aft balance.

Back to topic, I would not place the lead in the forepeak because I am concerned about the "point" contact of the corners or edges of a metal rectangle wearing through or cracking the hull should the boat drop off a wave. Perhaps with substantial padding it might work, but with a bag of sand, or tube sand that is packed in poly, I don't have the point contact of a rigid metalthat can rub/ pound a hole in the hull.

The picture of the Rhodes is very similiar to the way Solsken sets. As for getting rid of gear, the stuff in the stern I have is not that heavy, and is mandatory safety gear - needed to be readily accessible - safety is always first.

As for the stern lazarette, I have mine filled with two inner tubes under the floor, so that it doesn't hold much water.

Ed, how is your mast set, when the boat is sitting at dock with no one on board, and the OB in? Do you have the mast raked forward? Is it set so that when you are in the boat it is vertical, as opposed to being vertical when the boat is empty?

As for the bow plowing, that has only been a concern once, when the bow wave was lapping the gunwale. What a reach! WOW! I was worried the bow might hook and I could pitch pole.

You mentioned Ed that I sound like more and more like a racer. I am the racer that everyone wants to have join the fleet. I am the racing fleet's dream boat. When I race, no one else has to finish last. I am so proficient, I don't even have to know what the course is, unless I get so far behind that there are no other boats in sight.

But, back to racing and the boat balance, one of the possible speed benefits of having the stern in the water is that it increases the water line, hence the boat goes faster. I don't know.

From what I am hearing, this summer is going to be a case of trying a bag of sand and seeing if it works better. We can all report back.

[commanderpete]

Doesn't look like you Great Lakes boys will be doing much sailing for awhile.

Maybe you could use the lead forward of the bow to break up the ice.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030311/i/1047427153.3154559011.jpg

[Theis]

That is really spectacular. I had heard that this was the first year in a decade when that much of the lakes froze over.

So I guess I will have to plan for a few more weeks of sitting on my old sofa, dressed in my dago tee ( really had planned on washing it as soon as the weather wamed up), waching the tube and drinking beer. Perhaps this will give me some extra time to clean up the empty beer cans that have accumulated this past winter. on the floor.

On the other hand, this weekend is supposed to be in the sixties, the tarps will be coming off, and there will be a bit of revelry in the boatyard. Maybe I'll do that instead.

[Ed Ekers]

Theis, I doubt that you would be the guy at the back of the pack. I suspect you have to many years on the water and a few tricks up you sleeve that could teach us all a little something.

To speak to a couple of points that you make, I agree water line would make a difference but if you get a chance to watch Ariels sail at speed you would see the water line come into play. As the boats increase in speed they displace more and more water. The result is that they begin to "squat" in the water. If and when you get them up to hull speed the stern settles in and the water line becomes longer than the 18'. In my opinion in conditions less than these all you are doing is adding wetted surface which creates more drag.

As far as my mast goes I can tell you that I have had discussions with more people that I care to admit to about how I set up Pathfinder. I know what the book says about mast rake, but I do the opposite. On Pathfinder we keep her mast titled aft. I keep the uppers and stays as tight as allowed by spec and in a moderate to strong breeze the rig is adjusted aft. I do spend a lot of attention to the draft of the head sail and make sure we keep it in the 25% range. This helps balance the helm. I also pay attention the main leech and work on keeping it flat. My basic theory is that I try to look at the wind in a liquid state and the weather helm is created by the wind building up and not being able to escape. (hope that makes sense) As I have said before in other threads I am also a strong believer in the boats sailing on their lines. As such we do sail with more twist in the main than the book would tell you to. Again allowing the wind to spill out.

I hope this does not offend the traditionalist it is just the way we do it. I will also tell you that the only time that I have complained about weather helm on the race course is when I left the rig to far forward and by one design rules was not able to adjust it back to where we wanted it. Fire away...ed

[Dave]

Each of our boats have different amounts of ballast, and each of us have different amounts and placement of stuff in the boats from outboards to anchor chain -- significant variables. So there's probably not a one-size-fits-all answer to reballasting.
In my case, there's no mystery about the value of 100-150 pounds of weight placed in the general area of the maststep. At least in my boat's case, when I walk to the dock after it's rained, there is water puddled in the aft end of the cockpit -- even with the water tank full. My boat also sits a little high in the water (based on the drawn water line). Put about 125 pounds (my wife) at the vee berth bulkhead, and the boat levels, the water drains. With two in the cockpit and one person at the bulkhead, the boat squats again, but it's tolerable.
I've done the same experiments under sail...moving the crew around. There is not a dramatic increase in sail handling when I add weight forward, but I believe -- in my case -- that the boat "feels and sounds" better. Still, I won't know for sure until I live with the weight forward for awhile.

[commanderpete]

Dave's got a point.

Sometimes a bit of weight up forward can be good.

[Brendan Watson]

In 6 years of listening to my Commander I feel that she could
use a little weight in the bow. This is the result of loading up the
lazzarette with a 75lb motor, 2- 6 gallon tanks and a 20 gallon
water tank under the cockpit sole, as far forward as it will go.
This, maybe 350lb burden, aft of the center of effort is the result
of how I use the boat, daysailing, weekending, and a couple of 4-6 day
trips each summer. I think the wide range of demands that cruising
places on the boat stretches the parameters of the design to the limits
of its lines. I think that used for its intended purpose,daysailing/racing,
with a 4hp motor and 3 gallon tank without water I would not be feeling
that the boat squats when broad reaching and running. It's noticable
and quantifiable on my boat that while under sail and power that the GPS
will record higher speeds and feel more powerfully driven when I stand on
the bow.Pumping ones weight to drive the boat through chop can also increase
speed incrementally. I'm talking tenths of a knot.
I'm not going to give up my motor and will probably go to a heavier one
(4-stroke) in the near future. Maybe with the 4-stroke I could give up the
second, dedicated, 6-gallon tank without affecting my range that much. If this was possible
there would be almost 50 lbs less in the stern, minus, of course the additional
weight of the four stroke.
The other thing I intend to do this spring is to install a water tank in the bow and
take out the one I have aft. I found a Commander that was headed into a dumpster
that had a stainless tank that fits perfectly. It looks like it might hold 12-15 gallons.
With this weight forward I think the Commander is gonna fly, sailing on her lines with
another hundred pounds or so shifted forward.

I think loose ballast is an obvious no-no
Water in the lazarette is a sign of sailing fast (under load).
I have heard that most Alberg's can carry a load in the bow and like it, (chain, water, etc.
Cheers, B.
Commander# 215

[Theis]

This is an update on adding more weight in the bow pulpit.

I have placed two 70# bags of tube sand in the bow pulpit (total 140#). Tube sand can be purchased at your local hardware store and is used to weight the back end of your car - and as sand in you get stuck in ice and snow. It is well sealed and does not leak sand.

Before I get to the specifics, let me comment about how Solsken is loaded. Solsken has a 60# outboard, a full tank of water (20 gals or 160#). Figure the people loading is 200#-300#. The holding tank, under the cockpit, was largely empty. There is a 50# liferaft under the cabin steps. The battery is just aft of the aft cabin bulkhead.

When at dock, with no one on board, the forward part of the boot top is barely under water, and the stern end is a bit out of the water.

I am convinced the Ariel does go significantly faster with those weights - perhaps a half to one mile an hour faster. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the foredeck appears wetter and lower to the water. When the boat is on its side beating, 20 - 30 degrees, the freeboard appears noticeably less, but the boat seems to drive through waves much better than before. The big negative, is that the motor cavitates in seas, which it never did before. Yesterday I was pushing 6.8 mph nosing into the wind driving into three foot seas (short crest).

The next step is to reduce the weight to one bag (70#) and see if that is a happy medium.

[Dave]

I know there's a lot of debate on this issue, but I side with Theis. After a lot of experimentation, I've added about 175 pounds of lead in the forward end of the bilge under the maststep of my OB Ariel. Seems like a lot of weight, but it took that much to make much of a difference. The boat doesn't hobby horse -- on the contrary, the motion is more comfortable. If anything the boat is slightly faster and seems more closewinded. Sits nicely on her lines at the slip. I'm very pleased.

[marymandara]

after i removed the a-bomb and all the miscellaneous related junk from commander 280, the boat sat up on her lines all the way around, and especially at the stern...leading to a nose-down attitude at rest. looked funny, but when you sail hard on it the boat sits level. don't even have to get hard on it. much faster on all points. i have my own theories as to why and what the effect of the change is to the hull's function as a lifting body.

unless you are inhibited by a class rule for racing, try just taking out the extra "engine" ballast pigs and see how she sails!
dave

[Brent]

Somehow I think we've had this discussion before...

Ahh...here it is; page 52 in the Manual on removing the factory-installed water tank, "It may also be a good idea to keep at least 20 pounds of gear...to compensate for the missing tank and maintain proper balance." The specs for the Ariel indicated a 21-gallon water tank; at 8 lbs/gallon that would be 168lbs.

Of course, this is assuming that the water tank has been removed, which doesn't seem to be the case w/Solsken (Theis, correct me if I'm wrong).

What about you, Dave? Your 175 lbs seems to be right-on, but is that with or without a full water tank?

Brent

[Theis]

No, the water tank is still in, and generally full (see previous discussion about loading it with gin).

The pigs I keep more or less amidship, in the bilge to float the boat lower, which makes it significantly more rigid. Of course, I am no 100 lb wonder, although I should be if I could only cumulatively total all the weight I have lost, and ignore the intervening events.

Also, keep in mind that Lake Michigan cruising may be different than for day sailing or racing. I need the more stable boat. If I can get stability and speed, wow - the perfect combination. The added weight does increase the waterline.

[Dave]

Brent,
I've added the weight in addition to a full tank.
Like Theis, I sail in some potentially lumpy or heavy conditions -- Puget Sound, the San Juans, the Canadian Gulf Islands; and I don't race. My benchmark for the tinkering I did with weight distribution was how the boat rode ferry wakes (artificial swells) and power boat chop near the marina. The boat is more seakindly and it sails better.
But I would warn anyone against putting that kind of weight in their boat without a lot of experimentation. My Ariel may be an aberation.

[Theis]

Here's the latest update:

I removed one of the 70# bags of sand, leaving 70# in the peak. It seems that the proper weight is between 50# and 100#, depending on the load being carried in the cockpit.

With just the 70#, sailing alone, I hit 7.1 mph on a beat, in 10-15 mph winds, with just a full main and a 100% jib. The seas were perhaps 1 foot. The heel was about 15-20 degrees. Under motor power, I get about an extra .3 mph.

The problem with two bags (140#) is that I felt the bow was too low, and digging too much. In higher seas, or with a spinnaker, I wouldn't feel comfortable. And then when the engine cavitated, that settled it that 140# is too much. But 70# is great, and is what I will keep in the forepeak.