Second Guessing Carl Alberg

Now, this may be controversial, but my position is that Carl Alberg was a genius. His designs were subject to improvement over time. Alberg responded to market pressure and made improvements over time. Thus the Pearson Ariel is a whole lot better looking than the Pearson Triton, and the Whitby built Alberg 30 beats them both in looks and other design aspects. The much later Alberg 29 finally had a decent interior layout from a human factors engineering standpoint.

Forty years, technological advances, and the end of the CCA rules mean that Ariel owners have a chance to rethink design issues, and also mean that restoration may not be as wise as renovation. At least renovation is in order for some components and systems on our boats (ice box to chart table conversion, removal of lead pigs in OB Models, lifting davit and other well thought out and well designed improvements in the Auxiliary Manual), but it appears to me that the predominant theme among owners of Ariels on this forum (and not so much of owners of Commanders) is that we have to gut and redesign our boats to make them into splendid little pocket cruisers, which is what they were designed by Mr. Alberg to be, and effectively built by Pearson to be.

If we are going to seriously take our boats offshore, (like UHURU in Australia) then perhaps issues like the lack of hull to deck fasteners, or the hull deck seam in general, or chain plate location are worthy of consideration.

If we are racing these little boats seriously, or again if we are going offshore then strong back reinforcement beneath the mast is in order. I have tackled the strong back issue on my Ariel, with some expert assistance. Previous owners of my boat removed the icebox and built a spiffy little chart table. I added a Garhauer lifting davit following Gene Robert’s fine and well-documented example.

But give me a break. My Ariel looks great and sails great, notwithstanding appearance of the original Formica. I have a great appreciation for Seven Airing’s improvements on Sirocco. Taking the time and effort and expense to replace the Formica with an appropriate real wood interior can make quite an improvement.

You probably shouldn’t refer to either the modest upgrades on my boat or the more spectacular improvements or on Steven Airing’s boat Sirocco as restoration, but neither do these upgrades represent butcher shop approaches to redesign. Do we really need to hack up these boats to make them sail better, or to improve how they meet our needs? Are we so disappointed in Carl Alberg’s genius that we think that we can do better with chainsaws and a few cans of resin?

Let’s face it: These boats can be bought and sold for somewhere between $1,000 and $15,000, but the replacement cost for a new modified full keel boat of similar design and caliber would be somewhere between $30,000 and $60,000. Does redesigning a 1960s vintage make that Ariel sail any better? Does second guessing Carl Alberg make any sense?

Any thoughts?

Micheal Goodwin found my Commander (#105) for me after I expressed my admiration for his Ariel. Something about the design and the fact that the Ariel and Commander were the dreams of us boys who grew up on the Delaware. After all it seems that glass sailboats were over produced in the 1970's and most of them can still be found in fixer-up shape all over the country.But its about the sailing, these Pearsons are not only asthetic but very seaworthy. I didn't feel the least bad about replacing the old damaged portlights with non production ones, or any other thing. My Commander is a wonderful daysailer and a great boat to learn to sail on. The compliments I get from other sailboat owners (some with big expensive new ones) is icing on the cake. I am just going to relax, learn to sail, fix or replace anything that needs it (at my age a lot of things need it) have fun. If the time comes that I want to blue water sail, I'll rob a bank, commit some crime,sell everything I own and buy a Friendship 40.

Scott,
Whatever blows yer skirt up.
Truth lies not in limitation but in extremes.

Given some serious thought to this conundrum. The obvious admonition is that if you feel the need for so much 'improvement' then go design and build your own boat.

The other view is that so much innovation CAN be done in such a beautiful boat. I would balk at adding a monterey bow or extending the transome - but along will come somebody someday who will violate the master's intent and makes it look ok.

Near all of the radical changes evidenced on this forum have been to the interior. The Ariel was a product of its day, aimed at a certain likely market, and represented a common denominater and a bunch of compromises.

As I've discovered and said befor: There is/was absolutely nothing special about the carpentry in my Ariel 338. In fact, AS A CARPENTER, I won't live with it.
I've spent countless hours repairing downright shoddy factory practice that is hidden behind the paint.

Moving the furniture around inside the Ariel is not a big deal. It's done all the time in our society as tastes and gear and people change.
If you are doing the work, it's a big deal in effort and money.

Some of the 'improvements' to 338 would not be evident to anybody who has not gone deep into their own rennovation. Such as sagging hatch openings,
encapsulated keel voids, shoddy hull lams at the rudder shoe, ugly misfit bulkheads, and chunks of keel dropping off. Not to mention serious chainplate issues.

So far as I can tell, the only SIN is in not sailing. Don't know that strengthening and fairing the hull, fairing the lumpy topsides, opening up the interior, renovating the OB motorwell to take the modern 4stroke, or trying to find some space inside to lay down a 6'4 frame is something that Alberg would give a damn about.

I think Carl would be real happy so much energy and activity, either pro or con, is directed at his fine little design. And glad this forum exists to celebrate the Commander and Ariel. :D

Its like renovating an old house. The house is fine, just might need a little maintenance. But, that doesn't stop people from doing an extreme makeover--knocking down walls, changing the floorplan, sprucing it up inside and out. Nobody questions the wisdom, although even the best renovation only returns maybe 70% of the investment.

People do it for other reasons--to make the house more usable, comfortable, pride in ownership (and the spouse wants it). What sane man would spend thousands on "window treatments"?

Of course, you won't get anything back on your investment in boat renovation. But, its a hobby, which is almost always a losing proposition.

Still, there should be some logic to fixing up a boat. As far as I'm concerned, the most important structural items are:

1) The rig (standing rigging, chainplates and attachments);

2) Thru-hulls;

3) The rudder

Failure of these can get you or the boat into grief. Problem is, there is no glory in fixing these items. Largely invisible improvements. Also, it can be hard to tell when they are about to fail. Few people are going to fix a rudder until it breaks.

You also want a reliable engine.

Modifications that improve the safety of the boat and crew are the most important. They also improve your confidence in the boat. The Sea is always looking for your weak point.

After that, it largely depends on how you plan to use your boat. Do you want it to sail better, or look better, or be more comfortable inside? You don't need much for occasional daysailing in protected waters.

No, the boat doesn't need anything. I sailed for years on a run-down boat. It had no radio, no depthsounder, no electric bilge pump. I had nothing. I had a blast.

There's no need to have the nicest house on the block. You do what makes you happy.

Sailors just like to tinker.

My intent in starting this thread was not to argue that Pearson Ariels should not be tinkered with, or to argue in favor of restoration and condemn renovation. Indeed, I admire renovations like those completed in Sirocco, and almost all of those portrayed in the Ariel Association Manual.

My argument is that we should encourage any renovations that make our forty-year old Ariels (and Commanders) a continuing recognizable, sustainable, and marketable class.

I spent a full year performing restorations and renovations on my Ariel before I first sailed her, and I have continued the renovation process since. I improved the tabernacle system. A professional rigger installed a completely new rig from the deck up. I strengthened chainplate attachment areas of bulkheads and installed new chainplates. I replaced the backstay chainplate consistent with the recommendations in the manual. I have installed a Garhauer Lifting Davit. The previous owner removed the old leaking icebox and a chart table was installed (see the manual). A new mast step deck plate was installed to facilitate the tabernacle, and lines have been run back to the cockpit. The electrical system has been upgraded, including completely new mast wiring and new coax for the VHF antenna. A very experienced boat builder and glass expert substantially reinforced the strongback and the deck beneath the mast last autumn.

The boat has been repainted inside, the cabin sole was sanded and refinished, surface cracks were filled, and new gelcoat was applied over large sections of the smooth surfaces. New cushions and a V berth leeboard were installed. LPU was applied on the non-skid. A new four-inch stainless steel bow cowl vent was added. Teak boarding steps were added on deck just aft of the cabin, a stanchion-less line system was added using existent pad eyes, new eye bolts, pin rails and the existent bow pulpit and stern rail. Lazarette modifications by the previous owner accommodate a larger 4 stroke OB, and a secure raised platform to lash the portable gas tank, but I find that a Nissan 6 hp four stroke motor works well for this boat, and does not require well modifications. I redesigned and replaced the handrails and teak trim on the companionway hatch. I modified the previous owner’s modifications to the jib and Genoa tracks. I partially removed the rudder and made repairs to it. I replaced all of the thru hulls and plumbing. I removed and replaced the rub rails and used epoxy and 3M 5200 to reseal the hull to deck seam. I replaced most of the electronics. My boat does not look like it did when it came of the production line by any means. The improvements are a mix of repair, restoration, and renovation.

But when I took a look at some of the modifications on Ariel 331 made by prior owner as recently photographed by Bill and posted on the Gallery forum, I thought that perhaps it was time to offer a counter point to the enthusiasm sometimes expressed on this forum for modification for modifications sake.

It can be argued that these boats can be acquired inexpensively, and many are at the end of their marketability, so why not just have fun customizing them. But something should be said for retaining the Ariel as a recognizable class, and for advocating proven modifications that make sense as the Association has done in the past by featuring such modifications in the Association manual. This forum, and the Ariel Association as a whole do a great job in marketing these boats and in supporting owners, whether those owners are members of the Association or not.

So, I thought that a lively discussion about these issues might offer a counterpoint or two to some of the more bizarre modifications pictured on the forum pages. A new owner tackling a boat like hull #331 will find a wide range of ideas on these pages, but which modifications actually make sense at sea (or lake) and under what condition.

A few years back I posted some pictures of my home-designed and home-built emergency boarding ladders, about which I was most enthused at the time, but I can’t say that I’ve tried them under emergency conditions. Frankly, I haven’t yet figured how to keep the darn things from washing overboard when I am sailing with the rail down.

Does the humongous hard dodger on Uhuru really make any sense if the wind blows? In rough conditions? With boarding seas?

What happens to hull #338 on all points of sail when the ocean crawls up into Ebb’s transom cutout? Or does it?

Just how do those hull #338 cockpit drains that exit above water line but facing aft work in a following sea?

Why would anyone want to place an icebox or a battery in the forepeak as pictured on hull 331?

“How large an outboard motor can you drop into the OB well before the tail starts wagging the dog?…And I could go on.

If as Ebb says, the only sin is in not sailing these boats, then perhaps its time for a critical review under sea conditions. Anyone have any sea trials on some of the more radical innovations?

I don't see the point in trying to preserve the purity of the bloodline. Its just a boat.

If I see a good idea, I'll steal it. Otherwise, I don't care what anybody else does.

That said, it is possible to go too far

http://pearsonariel.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=146

Clink. Clink. (There, that's my tu'pence, I'll dive in... :D)

I think that Carl's genius is demonstrated on the *outside* of the boat.

The inside was probably, as mentioned before, mostly a concession to what was marketable/popular at the time the boat was being made (Thank Deity that the sugar-scoop transom wasn't invented yet! :p ).

I wouldn't change a thing about Katie's lines - but I will do what I can to make sure that when I have her mods/renov's/restores done *for me*, she'll sit as close to on Carl's lines as possible.

The battery in the forepeak - well, that's actually just forward of the bulkhead, so it's just forward of the CLR (or on top of it), right? I plan also to move water tankage down lower and in closer to her middle as well. Already I've noticed that Katie is very pitch sensitive fore and aft, so my aim is to take those large, heavy, nearly-permanent fixtures and put them where their weight will have the least amount of effect possible on her trim. Stuff that I need to move around regularly (like gear, tools, provisions, etc...) I can then use as "moveable ballast" to keep her where she needs to be for Carl's lines to work best. I plan to have a battery (and perhaps a water tank) to each side of the sole, in order to balance port to starboard as much as possible also.

This is the guiding philosophy of any modification I will do which will affect the performance of the boat; "keep her where she needs to be for Carl's lines to work best". Anything else, the guiding philosophy will most likely be what seems to me to be the best possible solution for a given problem. KISS principle is generally how I like it.

Moving Katie's chainplates outboard reflects this. By using a bar along the top of the chainplates which the shroud ends will connect to (as mentioned in an earlier discussion with Ebb), I'll be able to locate the shrouds exactly where they were designed to be while at the same time improving the boat in several ways. I'll eliminate the possibly of water getting into the cored decks. I'll be improving the strength of the anchor points for the shrouds. It'll make maintenance and monitoring of that essential system much easier.

IMO - Safety should definitely be a consideration in any mod, such as - I won't be cutting any holes in the aft bulkhead which would allow a flooded cockpit to flood the interior of the boat. In fact, I don't plan to do anything which will make her less seaworthy - that would be plain idiocy, to me, for what I plan to do.

That's a big ol' list of mods, Scott - I bet she's beautiful in person. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commanderpete

That said, it is possible to go too far
http://pearsonariel.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=146

---

Ah, the S/V Burton Shaffer. I'd forgotten about her :rolleyes:

I agreee with Scott, I think...I wouldn't encourage anyone to renovate one of these lovely little boats at the risk of turning out another 'turd-like' object floating around in the water. Or, from the obtuse, as Ebb opined, one not to be sailed at all. Tisk-tisk.

Yet, the work I've seen in the gallery forum on this site and the questions posted in other forums here have demonstrated that we owners do care. We care about the esthetics of the work performed and that the quality of these boats be maintained or, perhaps, preserved.

When I bought #113 I thought she was in sail away condition...well, I fell flat on my face in front of my family and friends with that one. I could either 'fix' her or pawn her off on someone else.

So began the story of Dream Weaver.(sounds almost Biblical)

What I've done to this boat may be pointless to others. After all, I've done it all for me. Not for the Mrs., not for the dog. There will be so many changes made to Dream Weaver before she is launched that I may be the biggest offender of all Ariel owners. To that I appologize.

Luckily there are still plenty of originals out there sailing around. They will be the standard that Ariels and commanders will be judged by, not the few of us that have 'modified' our boats to fit our needs, however we perceived them at the time. In five years I have yet to read any posts that urge anyone make changes to their boat for reasons other than safety.

And finally, if I lived in the Kaufman's 'summer cottage', known to most of us as Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water, I wouldn't remodel the kitchen even though that kitchen truley ****s. But there have been several of Mr. Wright's houses that have been 'added to' that are smooth and flawless. They look as though the master himself drew the changes. Now I'm never going to compare myself to Mr. Wright or Mr. Alberg, but I hope when I'm done my little boat she floats peacefully and naturally blends into her surroundings as though she was meant to be there.

Scott, Critque 331. What's the matter with the changes the former owner(s) made? Wanna be specific here, ok?

Pretty sure it's a temporary case of garbage chute envy.

What is the line crossed when the renovator has gone too far? Straight thru drains, aft exit drains on 338? Could be a problem. But there is 12 square inches of drainage as long as the cockpit stays above water. As for genius in marketing, don't forget original Pearson cockpit drains had no proper seacocks. Assume Alberg concurred.

Maybe the line IS "outside". To Geoff's eye on Uhuru his hard dodger is dynamite. If that comber sweeps it away, it'll probably go clean. Next one you make more comber friendly. But does it violate the designer's aesthetic? Well, the answer would have to be 'No' on that level. It does mess with the original design, agreed. Detrimental to safety or performance, open to discussion.
I go along with others here, that it is a matter of personal choice. Or, if you prefer, your personal relationship with Carl Alberg.

But you can't legislate what is good taste, even by commitee, tho it 's done over and over and over again. And it's always arbitrary: It's ok to post double ugly boats and nautical bow ornaments on these pages but not fat girls in leather.

On the personal level, I would like to hear what you object to of 331's changes? By and large they're cool. Is it just that they went beyond factory?? :confused:

{If Pearson had thought about creating more marketability, they might have offered more interior options. You can't fault them for quick and dirty boat building, but one stock interior shows lack of imagination even in a boat the size of the Ariel where there's precious little room.]

Ebb,

With all due respect for the new owner of the boat pictured in Bill’s photos on the #331 thread: What is to like about those modifications?

I assume that the new owner did what I did and bought a boat at a “distressed” price and got what he paid for, which is a basically sound hull and perhaps a basically sound deck and a lot of work in between. So I am pleased that another Ariel in less than tip top shape will soon be shining again. I hope that the new owner or Bill will post photos of the rehabilitation effort in progress regardless of what the new owner decides to do to the boat.

Before I continue, let me say that I am not advocating that anyone legislate what we can or cannot do with our boats, nor am I trying to censure anyone’s posts. In fact, I find the Hull #338 thread in the Gallery Forum and the Uhuru thread to be continuing sources of interesting ideas, and both are presented well with excellent photos. But I do have my opinion, and that opinion stated through analogy is that there are two ways to approach owning an Ariel. I will use the analogy of owning a 1960s vintage Ford Thunderbird. You can either do whatever it is that you need to do to make that Thunderbird work for you while maintaining it as Thunderbird, or you can convert it to a hot rod. Hot rods aren’t bad; they are just different.

I started this thread because I felt that the “Maintain it as a Thunderbird” school of thought needed to be promoted on these forums. I was beginning to feel that we were collectively advocating the chainsaw approach to Ariel ownership. I am concerned that the overall message that we seem to be giving out to new owners is that they have to tear their boats apart or they will not be able to cruise them, race them or even enjoy them on a day sail. The arguments have been made that our boats were poorly designed and poorly built by less than sober workers, that four stroke motors don’t fit into the well, and that other rather customary features found in Ariels and other 1960s vintage boats are somehow aberrant and abhorrent.

Now there may be some great reasons for the modifications portrayed in Bill’s photos on the #331 thread. Perhaps both the previous owner (PO) and Previous Significant Other (PSO) were seven feet, two inches tall and needed longer settee berths, and maybe both the PO and PSO produced a whole mess of garbage and liked to stuff it inside hidden compartments. Perhaps they were both squirrels and liked to hide their food beneath ground (or in this case) beneath a V berth cushion. And finally, perhaps an off center battery beneath a V berth had some merit that I cannot fathom, but why else hack up a perfectly decent boat like that?

I also felt that most of the pictured “improvements” reflect poor workmanship. Just try cleaning that raw foam lined ice box for one example,... and when I am in the mood for a cold drink, I sure don't want to crawl below and root beneath the V beth cushions to find one.

Does that mean that the photos should not be posted, or that the PO shouldn’t have made the modifications? Of course it doesn’t. It was his boat and his decisions are really none of my business. In any case, he will have Neptune to reckon with. I am not going to second guess Neptune anymore than I am going to second guess Carl Alberg, but in my humble opinion there is probably a special place of torment in Davey Jones’s Locker for people who hack up their boats.

Now that is just an aesthetic point of view. I am merely an advocate of owning, sailing, and enjoying these boats as they were designed and built with selected modifications where appropriate. That can be done on the cheap as my surveyor advocated, or the way that I chose to do it. My way is drier (upgrading hull deck seam and deck fittings), safer (new chain plates and rig) and prettier (cosmetic upgrades), but my way was also not on the cheap.

My four stroke 6 hp Nissan OB motor fits in my well just fine. The PO of my boat enlarged the aft top lip of that well modestly to accommodate an older Honda 7 hp four stroke, and it also fits the currently manufactured Honda 8 hp “classic”, which lacks the long cavitation plate. My strong back and deck beneath the mast are now one fully integrated unit thanks to the miracles of new fiberglass products, and the result is stronger than “as built” and prettier than “as built”, but does not represent a radical departure from the interior appearance of the boat. Of the Ariels that I have seen, the ones that I admire the most are Steven Airings’ Sirocco, and Joe Anton’s Lickety Split. Joe did a great job on that boat. I was priviledged to see it personally.

And finally, lest we kid ourselves about a 70% return on our upgrade investments, the final sales prices on Ariels sold these days support my contention that we are actually making non tax-deductible contributions to the floating Carl Alberg Maritime History Museum.

Regarding your own boat, #338, it is apparent from the photos that you are quite a craftsman. I am sure that you boat will be lookin’ good when you splash down. I am hopeful that when you get around to sea trails of some of your modifications, that you will share the results with us. I am particularly interested in the how the transom cutout and cockpit drains perform under all sea conditions and all points of sail. You may have invented the wheel.

And regarding your criticism that Pearson built quick and dirty boats, I would challenge you to find any production automobile built in 1965 that is still on the road and still running after all these years; restored Thunderbirds and hot rods excluded.

I am only 5' 9", but I have plenty of room below in my Ariel, albeit the galley sucks. (Jerking the ice box is a good idea if it is well done -see the chart table in the manual). Find me any other CCA era boat with an 18 foot waterline, and I'll show you a smaller interior.

Once again, my intent is not to censure or regulate, but merely to offer a different somewhat conservative point of view to contrast what I read on some of these pages. I like my Ariel, and I have no desire to go look for another one, but if I were ever in that position, I would pretty much rule out any boat that had extreme modifications. That is just my taste, but I do hope that these boats will still be around to see another forty years or more afloat, and that they will still be recognizable as Carl Alberg's Ariels.

We have the photos of the "Burton Shaffer" to tell us what might happen otherwise.

They are classics. Why build hot rods?

A 60's Corvette would be a better anology , since they are fiberglass , more classic than a "Bird" and still being built .
Why would anyone want to restore a 1965 T-bird? The only good T-birds were '55,'56 & '57 .
I'm deeply insulted that you would compare my Ariel to a T-bird from the 60's !

Lots of 1965 Vette's around , also MG's ,Porches, Healy's, Morgan's, TR-4's, Jag's, etc., now those are classics !

In every case you can fault the nut for how his head is screwed on.
But an eccentric should be given all the latitude you give yourself. There is a wonderful feeling of rightness in a well appointed classic. The paint is creamy smooth, the varnish is bright, the rigging sparkling, the beer cold - an aromatic latakia in your favorite mereshom.

Why anyone would use an Ariel to make a pirate ship is beyond me. Thank the gods the perp is using all that weird energy on an object rather than a subject. Yet, I personally never saw the thing in person. Suppose it was done by stagehands to make a prop for a film. Would that be OK? Ayedono, there's no excuse for some travesties - make 'im walk the plank. Weird boats are particularly sad when neglected and have lost the human energy they need to survive their strangeness.

Sometimes it's fate. I fell for an Alberg 35, by the time I'd found the courage, because that is what I lacked, the boat was gone and 338 had found me. I'm 6'4. Need at least a 7' bunk. more for the toes and a pillow.
Metaphorically, if I can't scoot the seat back in the '50 MBZ 120 SE, then I shouldn't be driving the car. (client's car)

So using the keep the classic a classic rule, I shouldn't own an Ariel. Ariel's are better suited to five foot niners. You are correct, you guys keep a beautiful boat, enhance the vision of a respected designer, keep history alive, and get real pleasure doing it. I respect you for keeping the faith.
If we all altered our Ariel's then Ariel's would cease to exist - just as surely if they all went to the crusher.

The line is purely subjective. Maybe if 331 hadn't been so sad and tawdry looking in Bill's record the alterations wouldn't have been so objectionable to you. Carl Alberg designed so many boats using the same furniture plan that I don't believe he ever went below an Ariel and stretched out. No I don't.
On the auto analogy, No body in their right mind would rearrange the interior of a 55 T-bird.

Am reminded that Travis McGee's Miss Agnes was a Rolls that had been converted into a pickup truck. (befor he got it)

I agree with the quorum: that as long as you keep to the integrity of the A/C you can do what the hell you want down below. Carl would merely raise his eyebrows and smile. Maybe even raise his glass to ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Lots of 1965 Vette's around , also MG's ,Porches, Healy's, Morgan's, TR-4's, Jag's, etc., now those are classics !

---

I'm a TR3 guy. Raced one at Laguna Seca . . . long time ago :rolleyes:

Ancient car buffs, I didn't expect. I agree with you all that my auto analogy breaks down when you take it literally.

I cut my teeth on a 65 Austin Healy, and almost broke a few of the front ones lying on the pavement under an XKE, so I agree with you that there are a mess of classic cars on the road. In my original post where I raised the car analogy, I was going to add the word "unrestored” to the words "production automobile" and perhaps that would have been wise in retrospect. Since I owned two English cars, I am entitled to say that they weren't built to run forever without lots of mechanical work, and in my Austin, the non-mechanical components went away early on as well: Although the hull and deck of them ol' cars might have stood the time without restoration.

But taking this car analogy to the extreme: yes there are a plethora of 1965 Vette's around, also MG's, Porches, Healy's, Morgan's, TR-4's, Jag's, but what would any of them be with the aft end cut off and a pick-up bed substituted therefore? The shop where my car is being serviced today has a pile of old sport's cars waiting for maintenance on their lot.

And one more point regarding Ebb’s Alberg 35. I always wanted an Alberg 30 built by Whitby of Canada, and there is much in the Ariel that reminds me of that boat. I made an offer on an Alberg 30 with a Yanmar 3GM in it in supremely fine condition many years ago. In short, that offer was not accepted, and I walked away. I now have about as much invested in my OB model Ariel as the seller’s counter offer on that Alberg 30. Renovation, and restoration of old sailboats are not inexpensive avocations.

Enough of this stuff about purity, I seem to be a lone voice out here, so I will shut up after one more parting shot, and that is that I did want to raise the issue that I raised:

New owners don't have to make radical changes to the design of an Ariel to make to make it look and sail likethe sweet little boat that it is...and perhaps if they restore (liberally) rather than redesign (completely) an Ariel, they might have a real classic on their hands someday. Attached are three images as a case in point. I don't know whose boat this was or is, (Hull #193), but I obtained these photos and some others of this boat from a web advertisement when it was ofered for sale in Berkeley, CA a few years back. Now this is what I call a fine approach to spiffing up an Ariel. She looks good topsides too. Notice that that infernal icebox is still there. You can't call it a pure restoration, but I think that Carl would get a good night's sleep in the V Berth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Galloway

I don't know whose boat this was or is, (Hull #193), but I obtained these photos and some others of this boat from a web advertisement when it was ofered for sale in Berkeley, CA a few years back. Now this is what I call a fine approach to spiffing up an Ariel. She looks good topsides too. Notice that that infernal icebox is still there. You can't call it a pure restoration, but I think that Carl would get a good night's sleep in the V Berth.

---

That's the way I like to see 'em. Not like 331.

The boat belongs to Daniel Swineheart, a talented boat worker. He usually is engaged by mega yacht owners for repairs and upgrades.

Daniel's Ariel, NACIDO, was hauled out next to MAIKA'I at the Berkeley Marina in 1998. Daniel was just beginning his upgrades. One just then completed was to put nylon runners on the main hatch to smooth out its operation. He also had added teak to the underside of the hatch. With all Daniel's customization, I'm pretty sure that NACIDO's displacement is a couple of thousand pounds more than a "stock" Ariel. :D

This has to be the definitive high end example of how far you can take Carl Alberg's vintage 1950s to 60s designs. Anyone have $249K lying around for this beauty?

But is she still a Pearson Triton? More photos through the link below:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...wo=yachtworks&

Tim Lackey did the same thing: gutted a Triton to the bare hull and then built a beautiful day sailor. And you can pick it up for the remarkably low price of only $90K. Check it out: http://www.tritondaysailor.com/

I just couldn't let this forum sulk off into relative obscurity without posting these two photos. They show a Columba 24 that has been extensively modified. I think the photos speak for themselves: A professional looking execution of a radical modification of an early 1960s design. Apparently it's quite well equipped below. :D

Aye, Scott - I bet she goes to windward like a square rigger! ;)

Besides that, when she gets knocked down or rolled over (and that's a surety), if she doesn't leak, she won't remain inverted for long! :D

It does seem odd that, with that much "addition" above decks, she has no lifelines, stanchions, or pulpit. Perhaps the refit is not quite finished, or maybe the owner is waiting to put those on the second story, once it gets built...

PS - Am actively wondering what C'pete's pictorial rejoinder to these photos is going to look like! :D

I wonder if the boat 'knows'........?

Well.....that's thinking "inside the box."

The proper way to achieve this effect is through a full cockpit enclosure

oops, forgot the smiley face :D :D :D :D :D :D

I don't know what Carl would think about all this, but I know what gave him the grins

This is what its all about