New Ariel Speed Record !!!

[Scott Galloway]

Dear Ebb,

These performance indicators are tricky beasts, and the results that you get depend on the numbers that you plug into the formulas. For instance, the Pearson site:

http://pearsoninfo.net/innfo/pearsons-html.html

where I obtained the numbers in my post above says a number of interesting things. Some of them are:

1. For the D/L Score, the displacement for the Ariel is listed at 5800 lb. depending on where you look for Ariel displacement information you will find anything from 5100 on up. Anything over a D/L score of 300 is generally considered to be a heavy displacement boat, so at your 354 or at my 409 we are sailing heavy displacement boats.

2. For the displacement to length ratio, my source ( Same URL above) uses this formula: D/L = Displacement Length = (Displacment/2240/0.01*LWL)3 where the final three is superscript indicating "cubed". The reason for the 2240 is that the displacement is calculated in long tons by dividing the nominal displacement in pounds by 2240 to convert to long tons. (The * in the above formula is a multiplication sign.)

2. Regarding the capsize screening formula, my source (Same URL above) again is using 5800 as the displacement of the Ariel.

3. The Ariel and the Triton score very high for both of these indicators in relation to other Pearsons. This also goes for the ballast to displacement ratio This could be in part because the displacement figures are higher than they should be, or this could be totally because these very early boats were designed by Carl ALberg to be very, very heavy with short waterlines. In any case, it might help us see why some folks do successfully make ocean passages in Ariels and Tritons and occasionally make circumnavigations in Tritons. Then again a Catalina 27 made it all the way around, or so I read.
And finally you want an Ariel at 30 feet. I have always thought of my boat as an Alberg 30 reduced in length to 25.6 ft, but the performance indicators indicate that as similar as they seem to be, we have a much different boat in actuality.

Ignoring the 28.3 ft Triton, which is close to 30 feet, the 30 foot Pearson built boat that most closely resembles an Ariel would have to be the Shaw designed Coaster. The boats designed by Shaw for Pearson after the Coaster took Pearson in a whole new direction. To me, the Coaster still has a lot of Carl Alberg in it (with some extra beam and LWL an a barn door rudder.

And yet, at them same time, the Coaster is very similar in appearance above the waterline to the Shaw designed 27 foot Pearson Renegade. With a beam of 9.3 ft, the Coaster is a full foot beamier than the 8.3 ft wide Triton and with an LWL of 23.3 ft, the Coaster has an almost 3 foot longer LWL than the Triton. The Triton's LWL is 20.5ft. The 27 ft Renegade is wider (at 8.6 ft) than the longer Triton and has a longer LWL also (at 21.0 ft).

I do read in many sources that the Coaster an the Alberg 30 must be reefed at 15 knots, but then again, I suppose sane people reef their Ariels about that time also. I consider my boat to be very stable. I have sailed small IOR era boats in conditions where they were overpowered, hard to control and probably best described as squirrelly. I just don't feel that way in an Ariel.

As to what all of these comparisons really mean, I think you have to go out and sail a given boat in varying conditions to understand what you really have.

It is interesting to me that after the early Coaster and it's close friends, Bill Shaw went on to design the many fin keel boats in the later Pearson line-up, whereas Carl Alberg went on to design the Whitby Alberg 30, the early Bristol full keel boats, and the whole family of Cape Dory's after that. It was these boats, the Alberg 30, the Bristols, and the Cape Dories that really carried on the Alberg design concept that we all find so wonderful in the Triton and the Ariel/Commanders. And as for the Coaster, I don't know what to call it: Perhaps the missing link. I'd love to sail on one.

Here is a Coaster shot for you. I have collected prettier photos, but this one is a good profile shot:

[ebb]

I'm for speed when it's fun.
Much has been written about the 1979 Fasnet race that Frank clarified for us above.
I wonder if anybody has made a list of those 300 boats, indexed them as to body type and so forth in terms of how and what survived that storm? Obviously the committee of the Cruising Club of America looked deep into the boats racing that fateful day to come up with the CSF. But it would be cool to see a chart with the boat body types. And their CSF ratios.

Survival isn't fun at all. 60 knots with breaking waves is freak-out time. The Alberg 35 (CSF 1.68 - pearsoninfo.net) that lay a-hull playing cards - what was her name? An Ariel imho would have to have a shred of a storm trisail in place and be dragging a series drogue. Instead of playing cards, a Tarot deck be more appropriate. That storm had waves that easily would have tumbled an Ariel if she were a-hull. Maybe that's debatable.

What's the wave tumbling formula? The WTF? A wave whose height is half the length of the boat can roll it over! That is a 12.85 foot high wave! Puny.

[mbd]

What's the wave tumbling formula? The WTF?

Heh!

You can't ignore the captains' and crews' judgment in this case too. I can't help but think that because it was a race, some threw caution to the wind and pressed on when they should have played cards instead.

[ebb]

Yey Mike!
The Alberg 35' 'Prudence of Chutney' in the '79 Fastnet was skippered and crewed with well developed highspeed ESF's.
Ego Stability Factors.


Inexperience with big storms was probably the reality for many.
And plain luck, good and bad, had a big part in it.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____