Pearson Ariel Keel-bolts?

[SIZE=2]Hello list,
I have a 1966 Pearson Ariel (hull# 432) and am hoping someone on this list can answer a question I have regarding the construction of its keel.
I had assumed that my boat had a bolted-on keel, and wanted to examine the condition of the keel-bolts. Upon inspection of the bilge, however, I was unable to find anything that looked like keel-bolts. The only thing I found were a few eye-bolts, and that leads me to wonder whether or not my Pearson Ariel has a keel that is integral to the hull. Furthermore, while the boat was on the hard, I found no evidence of a joint between the hull and keel; it appears to be a single unit construction.
I did find an article in a back issue of Practical Sailor, which mentioned that the Pearson 30 had a keel which was integral to the hull, so is it possible that my Pearson Ariel is similarly constructed? Any light you folks can shed on this would be greatly appreciated.
Alan
[/SIZE]

Alan

No keel bolts here. The hull is a single part molding with the ballast dropped in after the hull and keel were fabricated. If you do a search on keel voids you will find some photos of the ballast in the keel void (http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...highlight=void).

another view of the ballast in the keel is shown below (from A-231's galley page). You can see the ballast and the thickness of the fiberglass that bears the weight of the 2500#'s of lead:


Cheers,
Bill :)

here's the one factory photo i've seen of a Pearson hull awaiting the addition of a lead keel. In this case an ensign:

One (of the many) things that make the Ariel / Commander SUPERIOR to more contemporary designs is the lack of keel bolts.... Much stronger, less prone to failure..... I can tell you from personal experience that these keels are TOUGH. :D

K R I M I N E E !
It looks like a coal mine disaster!

Or maybe the poor souls opened one of the doors to hell
and they just managed to prop it closed again.

My estimation of Pearson just rose another 100 points.
How could ANY pretty boat come outa THAT?

Thanks for these responses, guys. I sure am relieved to hear that Pearson Ariels don't have a bolt-on keel. I guess my uncertainty about whether or not my Pearson Ariel had an integral keel or not stems from the fact that the later Pearson 26 models had bolt-on keels. See the following Pearson web site to read about the ordeal of a P-26 owner's attempts to fix his keel.
http://dan.pfeiffer.net/p26/boatindex.htm
Alan

It's long after this thread was created, but... After owning Ariel #75 for three years now and sailing her in Pacific swells, one question always comes up in my mind when she's being kicked around a bit: what happens to all that lead if she gets rolled 180 degrees? (I don't plan on letting that happen - but who does?)

Is it only a little epoxy in the bilge that keeps the ballast in the keel? And if so, what keeps it from breaking loose -- turning it into a cannon ball that punches through the cabin top (with maybe me in the way)? She'll turtle and sink quick if that ever happens. Not that I'd care if I'm riding to the bottom under more than a ton of lead.

Can someone ease my anxiety on that point? Please tell me that there's something besides a thin layer of epoxy and and maybe a little urethane foam keeping the lead in the keel when the boat's inverted.

Not likely the boat would stay inverted long enough for that to happen. All that lead will be pulling the boat upright, assuming it was able to get upside down in the first place. Then too, the lead is encapsulated in the epoxy which would restrain any movement. The loose lead pigs in the bilge (outboard models) are another matter, but I don't believe there is enough room from the bottom of the bilge to the sole for them to reach escape velocity should the boat be inverted. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

Not likely the boat would stay inverted long enough for that to happen. All that lead will be pulling the boat upright, assuming it was able to get upside down in the first place. Then too, the lead is encapsulated in the epoxy which would restrain any movement. The loose lead pigs in the bilge (outboard models) are another matter, but I don't believe there is enough room from the bottom of the bilge to the sole for them to reach escape velocity should the boat be inverted. :o

---

Thanks for your reply Bill.

The boat only has to be inverted 1 millisecond for bad things to happen if they are going to, and only 600 milliseconds for the ballast to fall from the bilge to the cabin top. The boat only has to roll past 90 degrees for the ballast to be asserting its weight in the opposite direction.

I wouldn't trust the sole to restrain two 250 pound lead pigs (in outboard models). 3/4 inch plywood can only do so much, and that's assuming it's bonded really well.

The ton+ of lead isn't completely encapsulated by epoxy since there's an intentional gap between the keel and the lead to allow for thermal expansion (some Ariels have that gap filled with foam - no structural strength there). If the lead gets loose - it will no longer be pulling the boat right side up, instead it'll be resting on the top of the cabin (now the bottom of the boat) and my mast will be a really long keel.

Any boat can get rolled in a breaking wave, some easier than others, but any boat can be rolled when the wave height of a wave taken head on is more than 55% the length of the boat on deck - about 15 feet for the Ariel. A breaking wave taken beam on has a rotational component that can roll a yacht over. Particularly if the wave height is the same or greater than the vessel's beam (only 8 feet for the Ariel) when broadside to the waves. It was in 15 foot cross-seas swells with a period of 6 seconds south of Pigeon Point one day that the thought of ballast-turned-cannonball first occurred to me. I believe it was while I was floating weightless in the cabin waiting for the boat to make a big splash when it returned to the surface.

How thick is that epoxy? I'd need at least two feet to feel at all comfortable.

Has anyone ever rolled an Ariel and survived?

I'm planning a cruise offshore, and I still don't have a warm feeling here...

Ok, so now you need to speak with Carl, or Ted, or some other naval architect. :o There are no reports of an Ariel or Commander rolling.

Ariels and Commanders have cruised off shore to Hawaii, Greece, Mexico and Northern Europe. A Commander's sail from Los Angles to the Med - via the Pacific - documented in an book by Zoltan Gurhko(SP). The August or September 2001 Cruising World and the March 2002 Good Old Boat had brief accounts by Zoltan. Here are some threads that may be of interest:

http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...k&daysprune=-1

http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...ighlight=Uhuru

http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...om-of-our-keel

Thanks Bill. I'm considering entering the 2014 Transpac to Hawaii, and while I have great confidence in my Ariel, I need to know if she will continue to float if she ever does get rolled.

I'm commissioning my boat now, while following the old adage pertaining to seaworthiness: "Think simple, think strong, think upside down." I'm sure the Ariel satisfies two out of three, but the third point leaves me uncertain.

Boats with bolt-on keels are vulnerable to losing the keel - and instantly capsizing (which has happened several times). Boats with integral ballast can be vulnerable to having that ballast break loose in a capsize - destroying the boat and crushing anyone who is in the way - if the designers didn't build in sufficient strength to retain the ballast in an inverted attitude. Prudent seamanship dictates I know my vessel's vulnerabilities.

Maybe an Ariel has never been rolled, but two Space Shuttles had never had an "O" ring failure or ice punch a hole in a wing... until they did. "It hasn't happened, so it won't" logic can get a skipper in real trouble.

Murphy's Law says that I need to know if the lead falls out of the keel.

When i restored A-231 in the late 90's i removed and replaced a significant amount of glass above and below the ballast. I also found there is a significant amount of polyester resin poured over and around the lead ballast by Pearson during the original construction. it was clear there is significantly more holding the ballast in place than just the skin of the bilge.

as for testing to destruction... thankfully i haven't seen an ariel or commander broken up but i have seen a couple tritons and an ensign broken up after hurricane damage. in all these cases, the ballast was the last piece of the boat to separate from the hull.

cheers,
Bill@ariel231

I have a shallow bilge. I have been aboard something like a dozen Ariel's, and there are several I have seen that appear to have their lead ballast encapsulated in fiberglass just like Faith does. She did Also have the lead pigs (since disposed of) but they were screwed down with heavy cleats that would not have been likely to break in a rollover.

Search the forum, look at the pictures of the bilge on various boats. If yours is not encapsulated, do whatever you need to do to sleep better at night.

Read " Heavy Weather Sailing " by Coles if you're going out there. As I understand it, the encapsulated keel can be expensive if you run it into the rocks at speed - there goes the hull. Think about your boat as a ping pong ball in the water. You have the bridge deck, the hatch closed and a gallon of brandy. Thus, you can weather any storm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinbin

Read " Heavy Weather Sailing " by Coles if you're going out there. As I understand it, the encapsulated keel can be expensive if you run it into the rocks at speed - there goes the hull. Think about your boat as a ping pong ball in the water. You have the bridge deck, the hatch closed and a gallon of brandy. Thus, you can weather any storm.

---

Good suggestion! I've already read it cover-to-cover. I've found myself in nasty conditions only once: On Sunday, November 4, 2012, I planned a sail from Pillar Point Harbor at Half Moon Bay, CA to Santa Cruz. The Marine Weather Statement called for winds 10 to 20 knots, 3 to 5 foot windwaves, and 7 foot swells at 15 seconds. Certainly well within the Ariel's capabilities and my own comfort range.

On rounding the Pigeon Point Lighthouse southeast bound, the winds started to build. By 3:30 PM, I was measuring 30 knots gusting to 34 knots at the masthead and I'd taken in my last reef of mainsail. Sailing downwind, I was making a speed over ground of 6 to 8 knots -- in a boat with a hull speed of 5.8 knots. The windwaves began developing, the swell tightened to 8 seconds. The swells were out of the west, while the windwaves were out of the north. Cross seas, combining randomly to 12 to 15 feet. In the troughs, I was seeing crests close aboard as high as the spreaders. Because of the cross seas, no point of sail was completely effective at keeping the seas from striking the boat abeam. The seas would occasionally combine to produce towering surges with sharp sides that looked like small volcanoes. A few times, my Ariel was launched airborne atop one of these surges, and I'd float weightless until the vessel smashed back on the surface with a colossal splash. She was fortunately never tossed on her side, which I'm sure would have blasted out the 50 year-old port lights (I need to replace them and through-bolt the frames). I was soaking wet in the cockpit and felt like I was piloting a submarine with a sail.

There are no anchorages between Pillar Point and Santa Cruz, a distance of 40 miles. I was at the half way point. Motoring to windward with my 6 HP engine was impossible. The combination of speed produced from my downwind course and the following seas had completely flooded the engine compartment and water was pouring into the cockpit. The stern rail was submerged. The winds were up to 38 knots sustained. Only worse conditions lay ahead, and I was only 3 miles offshore with a lee shore looming ahead. So I turned northwestward on a close reach to put more seaway between me and the shore and to bring the predominate wavefronts, which were dead astern, to about 20 degrees off the bow. Sailing to windward was very difficult and wave strikes would bring her to a full stop. I was grateful for the modified full keel because I'm sure she would have spun beam-on to the waves when stopped had she had a fin keel. I knew the winds would die down after sunset, as they always do here when they aren't driven by a storm. Exhausted, making very little headway to windward, the certain risk of capsize on a either beam course, and a lee shore behind and downwind -- I'd sailed into a box. My only option was to deploy my 6 foot diameter sea anchor angled off the bow to hold my position and keep the predominate waves bow on.

You can see my vessel's track archived here: http://aprs.fi/#!ts=1351987200&te=13...all=a%2FN8QH-8. (Note: the timestamps are in GMT.) The nearly solid red track produced by my compressed position reports is my path with the sea anchor deployed. It kept the bow to windward and my speed over ground at nearly a full stop: I averaged 0.4 knots for over three hours - held safely away from the lee shore. Given the difficulty in actively sailing into cross seas that had no favorble heading, the nearby lee shore, and my own exhaustion; I'd say the sea anchor made the difference between a difficult experience... and something much worse.

I followed your suggestion: Once the sea anchor was deploed and I as relieved of the need to actively sail away from the lee shore, I bottled myself up in the cabin, put on a helmet - which I really needed - the kinetic experience below was like being in a traffic accident every 10 seconds, and waited it out with the stereo turned up at full volume to help drown out what sounded like the inside of a jet engine (I recommend Ride of the Valkyries and Riders On The Storm by the Doors). I would have very much appreciated a big bottle of rum!

My log is attached. I stopped keeping a log once I sailed into the gale (it was too rough to write). I'm a pilot, and I use some notations from aviation weather reports: CAVU = Clear Air - Visibility Unlimited. Winds are noted as: direction magnetic @ speed in knots. SOG = Speed Over Ground. COG = Course Over Ground (magnetic). Seastate is predominate wave heights in meters.

Damage to the Ariel: none whatsoever. My 1/2 inch diameter nylon bridle used as a pendant on my sea anchor was stiff enough to out hold it several feet horizontally unsupported. I threw that away. This was the experience where I first wondered: "if this vessel goes inverted, will the ballast stay put?"

Cool story. Personally, I've had the sailing habit since the 80's, and have never heard of internal ballast breaking loose from a rollover. Did see one loosened by rocks, though. I wonder if any Ariel has actually been rolled. There is a caution somewhere about the lead pig in the bilge of my engineless boat. Consequently I shimmed it up years ago.
I think we're all better off with internal ballast. People have lost their lives in the past when their bolted on keel just fell off and the boat turned turtle.
Your trip reminds me one I crewed on from Moss Landing to Catalina on a Yankee 28 ( internal ballast). The skipper had lots of Dutch Courage, I was scared sober, so together we made it through.
Thanks for the reminder. Time to read Coles again.

Well I share this with you, I destroyed a Pearson Ariel some time ago. The keel was cut off and hauled to a yard to remove the lead from the keel. It was picked up with a huge diesel frontend loader and raised to a height of about 10 feet and dropped on a solid concrete pad. It was drop about five times before the keel parted and then four or five more times to break the lead free of the keel. After seeing this I have no worries about the lead breaking loose in a roll or pitch pole.

That's impressive. It sounds like something Steve O would do. Have to admit to being grounded once. My bilges are still dry and the spiders like it too. I think if I had an old wooden boat with corroded fasteners, I'd be very worried about the keel staying in place. Come to think of it, if I was in pitch pole conditions, I'd be worried about a lot of things.

Great sea story about trying to get to Santa Cruz. I have made that trip dozens of times. My question is have you made it to Santa Cruz yet. There are a few Ariels calling Santa Cruz home port and would enjoy a visit with you dockside………ed

I asked the folks at Seaworthy what their opinion was, and I'll share their answer. I'm including my question for context. I am made more concerned about this issue because, sometimes when I heel my Ariel past about 30 degrees -- I hear a resounding "THUD!" that shakes the boat. I'm pretty sure that's the ballast flopping from one side to the other inside the keel. It shakes the boat sufficiently that, the first few times it happened, I thought I'd had a rigging failure. The sound comes distinctly from the bottom of the boat. After sailing her for three years, I can find no other explanation.

-----

Question:
Seaworthy:,

I own a 1963 Pearson Ariel that I sail in the Pacific out of Half Moon Bay, CA. The Ariel has an encapsulated ballast consisting of 2,300 pounds of lead. The lead ballast sits in a wedge-shaped cavity in the keel, and is covered in the bilge by a layer of epoxy. There is a gap between the inside of the surrounding fiberglass and the lead, left there for the purpose of allowing thermal expansion of the lead to prevent fracturing the fiberglass. On some models (I'm uncertain about my boat), the gap is filled with foam. My question is this: if the boat is ever rolled to an inverted attitude (heeled to 180 degrees), will the ballast fall out of the keel? The consequences would of course be catastrophic, resulting in loss of the vessel (immediate sinking from water entering through the ruptured cabin top) and likely loss-of-life if anyone were in the cabin (the most likely place I would be in conditions extreme enough to roll the boat). The Ariel has an angle of vanishing stability of 170 degrees and a modified full keel, so she is quite stable. Because of that stability, members of the Pearson Ariel Association know of no cases where an Ariel has been rolled (maybe the skippers never lived to tell the tale). I consider the survivability of a roll occurrence to be one of my personal criteria for seaworthiness.

Patrick

Answer:
Patrick,

These are solid little boats, and very stable, but also relatively small. In extreme conditions offshore it could be rolled. The lead did have a resin bond, originally with sufficient psi strength, but over time (with thermal expansion, salt water intrusion, flexing, etc.) that bond could well have broken. This boat will right itself quickly in any capsize, so the chances of the lead breaking free while inverted is unlikely, but there is some slight possibility. Any sailboat that goes offshore needs to be able to survive a roll. This boat likely would, but likely isn't good enough. There are two things you can do to eliminate the remote possibility of the lead breaking free in a capsize. #1 is to pump a thin, very slow curing, epoxy resin into the gap between the fiberglass cap and the lead, filling the gap and any crevices that might exist between the lead and the fiberglass. Do this on a warm day, and the risk of damage to the hull, via thermal expansion of the lead, is minimal. #2 is to put structural beams over the top of the lead by epoxying in 1-2 inch wide beams of a composite like G10. You would need to talk to a naval architect to get an exact calculation of beam size and placement, but a half dozen 1-2 inch wide beams with 4-6 inches epoxied to the hull on either side of the fiberglass cap would likely do the job. Either of those "fixes" alone would eliminate the small likelihood of the lead breaking free. The two together would be a complete belt and suspenders solution.

Seaworthy: Beth Leonard

Sounds like the last word. Thanks for the info.

Wow. Last word indeed. Thanks for sharing that Patrick.

So I drilled a few holes in the keel to make sure I didn't collect water in there over the last couple of seasons while I've been on the hard. I've been thinking of using those holes to inject polyester resin to fill the keel void. Patrick's note above said inject "epoxy resin into the gap between the fiberglass cap and the lead". Not exactly what that means, sure but it sounds like they're suggesting injecting from the top? I always figured I'd just be putting something solid in there so water wouldn't have anywhere to accumulate. Also, is there any reason NOT to use polyester resin, the cheap stuff? I'm guessing epoxy wouldn't really adhere to anything down there anyway.