Pooling Water on Deck

Here is a weird question: When it rains, or when I wash the deck, water pools around the aft-most mooring cleats on both sides at the very stern of my Ariel (hull #330). I have a hefty Honda 7.5 hp motor in my lazarette weighing about 80 lbs and a fuel can, but still the water pools. Even if I stand on the stern and lean over the transom with the motor in place, the water does not flow through the gap (scupper) in the toe rail provided on both starboard and post sides of the transom. The water does not flow forward to the through-deck drains beside the cockpit either, even when my motor has been removed from the boat. So I wonder whether some OB model Ariels might not have had extra ballast installed in the bilge to compensate for the absence of the Atomic 4 inboard. I do have a plow anchor, a small amount of chain, and some braded line in the anchor locker, but I presume that an appropriate anchor would be factored into the original plan.

There does appear to be a slight upwards curvature of the deck as it flows backwards to the aforementioned gaps (scuppers), so this could be the problem, Unless this upward curvature resulted from a very well executed repair by a previous owner, it must have been as built by the manufacturer. I cannot imagine why the manufacturer would build the boat that way. Is my boat unique in this regard? Maybe I just got lucky.

This is not a major problem, but is a bit irritating, since algae do grow where water stands unless the water is sponged away after each cleaning or rain. Anyone have any relevant thoughts?

The boat's originally did not have the opening in the toe rail at the stern. Peaerson added it later. The sucppers were, at one time, the low point and thus would collect and drain the water.

Pearson added 200 lbs of lead in the form of two pigs placed loosely in the bilge -- "internal ballast" I believe it's called(?) -- The added weight in the ob models was to meet racing rules and handicap the boats so the ob and ib models were the same weight. The pigs can be removed with no ill effects, except that the boat becomes a little more "lively."

There are several causes for the Ariel and Commander becoming heavy in the stern. The weight causes performance problems unrelated to the drainage of water from the scuppers. For example, heavy ob engines, gasoling tanks and assorted stuff stowed in the lazarette. Heavy gear in the cockpit lockers and more gear stored behind/under the galley sink and companionway steps.

To help, at least a half a tank of water should be carried in the forward water tank to help balance the boat's lines.

Finally, water in the voids at the rear end of the keel add to the heavy stern effect. The manual has a fix for this.

Scott,

I too have the algea puddles you mentioned you have on your boat. The deck does curve up a little bit at the transom where it goes through the opening in the toerail. It traps a little bit of water. I think its a design issue, not the balance of the boat.

Bill,

For the purpose of my inquiry, I was attempting to define "scupper" as that gap in the toe rail at the transom through which water would drain from the deck over the transom. I included a photo to document the gap or "scupper" to which I referred.

Webster defines "scupper" as "an opening cut through the waterway and bulwarks of a ship so that water falling on deck may flow overboard", so I believe that my usage of the word "scupper" is appropriate.

Although you might also refer to that little drain hole adjacent to the cockpit as a scupper, I would prefer not to do so, because to use the word scupper to describe two different parts of the boat just makes this issue hard to talk about. So I will continue to use the word "scupper" to refer to those two gaps in the toe rail at the transom, and I will use the phrase, "through-deck drains" to refer to those little drain holes adjacent to the cockpit.

I don't know what you intend to convey when you state that Ariels "originally did not have the opening in the toe rail at the stern". My Ariel is hull #330. It was "originally" manufactured by Pearson in 1965. Perhaps earlier models did not have such scuppers, but my Ariel does, and presumably all later Ariels also do. Observation of the design of the toe rail and scuppers tells me that the scuppers were originally installed by Pearson and not modifications made by an owner, so I must presume that Pearson intended those scuppers to effectively drain water from the area on the deck adjacent to them.

Perhaps that is not the case. I infer from your comments that you believe that the decks on all Ariels were intended to exclusively drain to the "through-deck drains". If that were the case, however, I must wonder why Pearson would redesign their boats at some time prior to mine to include the scuppers in the transom toe rail if not to funnel water off the deck. Certainly it is possible that Pearson intended the scuppers in the transom toe rail only to drain excess water from the deck when under sail so that that water did not pool excessively in the area of the lazarette hatch, but frankly that would seem to me to be overkill, since water efficiently drains over the transom and side toe rail when under sail, and would do so without the scuppers, since the toe rail is quite low, and the boat is heeled when under sail.

Now I argue that my boat is light in the stern, and not heavy in the stern as you imply. Removal of the motor and gas can does not cause the pooled water to drain forward to the "through-deck drains". As I said earlier adding the weight of a 170-pound man onto the stern still does not cause all of the pooled water to drain over the stern either. Now I would be able to see your point if water on the deck immediately aft of the "through-deck drains" ran aft-wards away from the drains, but this is not the case. Water on the deck immediately aft of the "through-deck drains" runs forward to and down the "through-deck drains. The area of pooling water is a small area surrounding the aft most mooring cleats at the very stern end of the boat. Water forward of those mooring cleats drains forward to the "through-deck drains" and that is why this issue is such a mystery to me. It seems on my boat as if the sheer line slopes upward from the through deck drains toward the stern, but then flattens out near the mooring cleats, but then rises again in the final two or three inches to the scuppers. Now I haven't measured all of this, and I am recounting anecdotal evidence, so perhaps I should run down to the boat and conduct some scientific experiments, however I was hoping to find someone who had experienced this. So if anyone out there has experienced this problem first hand I remain interested in theories and approaches.

Finally, my keel is filled with glassed-over internal lead ballast. I see no evidence of loose iron pigs, however it is possible that additional ballast was added and glassed in such that the surface of the fiberglass over the ballast is smooth and continuous in appearance.

My original thought when addressing this forum on this issue was that perhaps if my boat is missing the additional ballast and that ballast was intended to be added more or less where the Atomic 4 would be located, and that would mean that my stern is necessarily lighter than it was designed to be. If this were true I would have an answer to my question about drainage.

Certainly it is possible as you suggest that I am looking at this incorrectly and that my boat is heavy in the stern. I have stated above why I do not believe that this is the case.

Kent,

Thanks for the reply. It is interesting to note that your Ariel is a later issue than mine. Perhaps everyone between #330 and #376 might very well have this same problem. Perhaps we will hear from a few more, and perhaps from some who don't.

I assume that you are using the sponge method of dealing with algae growth.

I redefined the issue a bit in my last post, since like you, I believe that there may be something more is at hand here than merely balance. It is rather odd that the deck slopes up noticeably right before it reaches the scupper. I do want to further explore the issue of additional ballast or lack of same. Still, my full weight on the transom will not drain the entire algae pond. So I am not sure what good 200 lbs of lead pigs would do beneath the bridge deck. It is at least good to know that there are fellow sufferers out there.

Still I hate to whine about minor issues. This is such a sweet sailing boat. There are, however, a few of these nagging little issues to arouse our curiosity.

Scott,

If you had been reading this board more religously, you would have seen the photos of early numbered Ariels that lacked the cut through the toe rail that makes the "scuppers." The "drains" were added to alleviate the standing water problem. The drains on most boats, however, are not at the "low" point and therefore fail to drain all of the standing water. Whether this is due to poor original placement or the boats no longer resting on their lines is open to debate. IMHO, the drains were likely correctly located for the time, but with age, things have shifted. What changed is another open question, but after hauling and drying the hull on #76, the water puddles are much closer to the drains than before. Once the water tank is again usable, maybe the drains will be correctly placed.

As far as draining from the "scuppers" is concerned, that appears to primarily occure while sailing healed over or when washing down the deck with a hose.
As for the loose lead, if you don't see it, someone has likely removed it.

I have Ariel #104 from 1963
It has the cuts on the toe rail.
There are two lead pigs in the bilge, just sitting in there.
Water also stands on the stern, both sides and algae grows.
I have a scrub brush, lysol and a couple of extra beers.

I don't know if my two cents will add anything but maybe it will. My hull is #82 and has an outboard. The scupper drains are at the stern, and do roll up and trap water. I just take a sponge and slosh it back and over. It is something I have to live with, although, being in the land of snow and ice, I don't have to worry about growing lunch in the scupper. I do not have a drain through the toe rail.

On to another point, the weights have nothing to do with the balance, if they are located in the forward part of the bilge under the floorboards (which is where, I understand, Pierson put them). The center of gravity of the Ariel is about where the aft side of the locker/drawers are. 200# located a couple inches aft of that would not significantly affect the forward aft balance. It would affect the stability (stiffness), and draft, and as Bill points out, would affect its race characteristics.

Scott
The scupper issue resurfaces! The reason the deck takes a slight raise just before the taffrail(I believe it's called)breaks open for a scupper is probably the exact same reason the galley counter is at knee height. That is, just to aggravate the owner ever so slightly and yet give one some strong emotion to remember should you ever, heaven forbid, part ways. A while back someone on this site with far greater wisdom and experience than I postulated that the slight up-turn could help keep the ugly and annoying water stains off of the topsides of the hull. I don't know if this is real reason for the shape in that area but if it is I'm all behind it. It seems that everyone's deck (that has these aft cut-outs) has the same curvature. Design or oversight, who knows, but one look at the waterstains on 113's hull and I'm sure you'd agree with me. Apparently the algae on the decks is just something we've learned to live with. Augustine is beautiful and one thing she doesn't need is a couple of grey stains running down the transom.
Theis! No side-deck drains?! Would you like some?:D

2 cents from 338. Which from any evidence I could make out WAS completely unaltered by former owners. She has two incised 'waterlines' that I assume are original and the space between must have been the boot top. When I sailed her, she floated parallel to the bottom line but higher out of the water. She was raced befor I bought her. Therefor, the algae ponds or the stained gel coat this late in the production run was a special design feature. The yachtsey waterway drains are obviously placed too far forward. Like you say: personality is everything!

338 also has a break between the toerails and the taffrail. But the slots have an added wedge of what looks like thickened gel coat, effectively insuring that the algae ponds will always be there. They must have been added to stop stains from happening on the transom in the marina. I think it is a mere cosmetic removal. But from consensus here it may be just as well to leave the wedges in place.

The RX, IMCO, is to drill a small hole in the bottom of each pond into the lazarette. OB models, no big deal. The other way would be to lead a tube down from the mini drain to a point above the waterline under the transom, or T it into the bilge pump hose. 338 used to have thruhulls in the transom for the bilge pumps.

The ponds in the aft end of the cockpit seats could be drained the same way. By tube into the cockpit would be the easiest. Don't think the tubes should be any larger than 3/8".

Too bad we can't ask Carl. His Lines Drawing for a 26.5' Cruising Sloop (see appendix in Manual) appears to show the deck sweeping down and back from the bow to a point near the cockpit, and then turning up to the stern.

Thanks Bill,

And thanks to everyone else for the replies. Knowing that my boat is not unique in this regard is helpful. I do see the advantage of a clean stern unmarked by water stains.

Taking another look at the old threads related to drains and scuppers revealed some interesting photos and comments. I believe that I now better understand the issues involved. It sounds like the rise in the deck or "wedge" as some have referred to it is as manufactured, and is intentional. So apparently, pooling of water at the aft mooring cleat is part of the plan. It is refreshing to know that I am not dealing with a stern that is too heavy or too light, but merely one intended to produce algae. Perhaps there is a survival advantage in that on long voyages.

As regards the placement of the "through-deck drains" on hull #330, they are precisely where they ought to be, since no water pools on the inside of the toe rail, with the exception of the small pools at the very stern of the boat which do not drain forward under any circumstances while at the dock.

As regards the lead pigs. I never have understood the reason for placing loose large objects in one's bilge. Adding lead pigs too ones bilge is apparently also practiced by some Bristol 27 owners. Loose lead in a bilge would not make me rest easily in rough seas. My boat handles well, doesn't seem excessively lively, and rests nicely on her water line, so I'll stick with what I have. Were I to add lead, I would want to glass it in place. Then again, I have no way of knowing whether my boat at some point underwent more formal augmentation of its ballast.:)

I don't know about the waters you sail in, but cruising Lake Michigan, those pigs make a significant difference. Two years ago I traveled without them, and felt uncomfortable. The difference was that noticeable (not that I was in danger, but that the boat was so much more sensitive and less solid).

I have been concerned that if the boat ever rolled, those pigs would be a dangerous liability, but then what is the likelihood of rolling, unless you plan to cross the ocean. I do know that the boat can lay on its side without the pigs causing any problem.

But then, if you had the lead, you might prefer to sell it and with the proceeds get two new nameplates . Lead brings good money today.

Theis,

I sail in the Pacific Ocean off of Santa Cruz, California, both in Monterey Bay and in open ocean waters. The boat feels very stable to me, particularly in comparison to the fin keel model Catalina 22 that I last owned, or to a Cal 25 with internal lead ballast in a long trapezoidal fin keel on which I crewed for a few years. I also put in a lot of miles on my Father's 22,000 lb 35 foot full keel cutter. Certainly the Ariel is tenderer than the cutter, but much less so than the Catalina 22 or Cal 25. I realize, however, that experience in these matters is subjective.

I was out sailing in the ocean earlier this month. With a full main and working jib, in about 25 knots of wind and with some sloppy swells, I was heeled steadily for periods of time at 35 to 40 degrees when close hauled. The boat never felt over powered, or squirrelly in the least, although I recognized that a single reef would have made for a drier and more vertical sail. Frankly, my Father's 35-foot cutter would not have registered the swell, but neither my friend, the Cal 25 skipper, nor I would have been out in either of those two boats under similar conditions without seriously shortened sails.

I think if I had loose iron pigs in my keel, I would remove them in order to compare the sailing characteristics the boat with and without them. I probably would also move them around a bit to see what happened to the waterline etc. Once I was happy with the placement, I would find some way to bolt and glass them in, or arrange to have a single flat piece of lead of an appropriate weight bolted to the fixed ballast, and then I would glass over that piece. I am perhaps beeing silly, since it is evident that many sail with the loose iron pigs in their bilge and seem to have no problems with them.

Lacking the iron pigs, perhaps my best bet is to hitch a ride on another Ariel in the SF Bay area, that has the iron pigs and experience the difference. Since I belong to the Association, I just need to get up there I suppose for one of the race days.

I would hope that none of us find our boats inverted out there, but still I suppose once must at least consider the possibility.

I was once knocked down in my Catalina 22, after my rudder sheered off on a windy day in the open ocean when we were experiencing six foot swells with breaking tops (also the day that I decided to sell my Catalina). Things normally vertical quickly became horizontal, and lots of unplanned stuff was happening, like the transom tearing off the stern, and the main sail shredding into pieces.

I don't now why exactly, since I don't plan on doing barrel rolls in my boat, but loose lead in the bilge gives me about the same level of comfort that the unreinforced brick chimney on my house did before I removed it a few years back.