+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: New Ariel Speed Record !!!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    118
    Cape Dory 33? Good advice - I just checked a few of them on Yachtworld. They do look nice, you are right! Unmistakable Alberg designs. Not exactly cheap, but maybe worth it if they are strong and livable.

    The traveller in the companionway sucks, indeed. Maybe it can be moved back into the center of the cockpit?

    Anybody else here who has experience sailing on those, especially cruising?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Narragansett Bay, R.I.
    Posts
    597
    The early CD 33's had the traveler on the bridge deck (I liked that location, it was the traveler hardware that was sub-standard). later models moved the traveler to the coach roof. My gripe with the coach roof placement is the traveler then needs a winch and the curved shape made sheeting to windward really tough, but there i go again, forgetting it is a cruising boat.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Orinda, California
    Posts
    2,258
    I believe it's been said that "gentlemen don't sail to weather . . "

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    453
    If you look at the performance indicators for Peason built boats, the Ariel has a whopping 43% ballast to displacement ratio. This compares favorably to the Triton with 45% but somewhat higher than the 37% for the 30foot Shaw designed full keel Pearson Coaster. I don't have the ballast to weight for the Alberg 30.

    Similarly the Displacement to Length ratios are:

    Ariel: 409
    Triton: 415
    Coaster: 334
    The Alberg 30 clocks in at: 395
    The Coaster has a longer LWL than the Alberg 30. (23.53 ft. compared to 21.67 ft.)The Coaster has a greater displacement than the Alberg 30 (9776 lb. to 9,000 lb)

    Also interesting - the Capsize Screening Formulas results are:

    Ariel: 178
    Triton: 165
    Coaster: 176
    The Alberg 30 clocks in at: 168

    It is very interesting to compare the performance indicators for the above designs to Pearson's later boats.

    And what's wrong with sailing around at 30+ degrees of heel with all the sails up in 20 knots of wind? The Ariel handles it well, goes to weather at greater that hull speed in such conditions, and doesn't seem to mind having the rail down, and will sail that way for hours with self steering gears, which leaves the single handed skipper free to make lunch. Now I am probably not going to cook a pot of beans at that angle of heel, but then again, we don't have much of a galley in the first place, do we?

    I am still looking for an old seaswing stove that will run on Sterno. Anybody have one for sale?
    Scott

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,549
    Scott,
    Nice proportions to the Coaster. You can see the forefoot is being radically carved away - toward the future. Could say the Ariel, which has the front cut away also, has it done in a much softer way. It is in the "S" curve that beauty lives! Looking at the more shallow draft Wanderer the cutaway seems not as radical, more like the A/C.

    What I call lines are hard to locate for these boats. Even an amatuer like me can compare boats with them. The differences are small, yet some boats have it and some don't. It would take a practiced eye to see the differences using only lines drawings. Certainly these gentleman designed very similar boats.

    I have wished at times that the Ariel was a 30 footer (we'd have a true galley AND a place for the head!) A 30' Ariel would probably have a slightly wider beam than the Alberg 30, or the Coaster/Wanderer. When I win the lottery I'll commission a full scale-up to 30/32' of the Ariel hull and deck. Same lines. And I'd put back the curvey sheer Alberg had in those lines!!! And she'd be rigged as a cutter.

    The Ariel, once called a "Midget Ocean Racer" doesn't have a category for company, so it always seems to find itself with longer and heavier boats. It doesn't fit in the 'pocket cruiser' group. How about Ariel as a POUCH CRUISER?

    The 'capsize screening' formula seems similar between the boats you mention.
    The numbers are three digit, so they relate somewhat, as the spread is small. If the capsize screen numbers were from 1 to 10, say, I would be more impressed with them.

    By the way, in examining the lines for Alberg's design #33, (Pg 144 in the Ariel/Commander Manual) Alberg, or perhaps a later draftsman, has notated under the bow:
    LOA 25'7"
    LWL 18'6"
    BEAM 8'0"
    DRAFT 3'8"
    D/L = 354 (Did we catch the Great Draughtsman with a little too much Aquavit?)
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
    Capsize Screening Formula
    According to Ted Brewer the CSF is "determined by dividing the maximum beam by the cube root of the displacement in cubic feet."
    "The boat is acceptable if the result is 2.0 or less, but of course, the lower the better. For example, a 12 meter yacht of 60,000 libs displacement and 12 foot beam will have a CSF number of 1.23, so would be considered very safe from capsize. A contempory light displacement yacht, such as a Beneteau 311 (7716lbs, 10'7" beam) has a CSF number of 2.14. Based on the formula, while a fine coastal cruiser, such a yacht may not be the best choice for ocean passages." Ted Brewer
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
    Let's put this into the formula.
    Let's agree that the displacement of the Ariel is 5200#.
    1 cubic foot of saltwater = 64#.
    5200# divided by 64# = 81.26 cubic feet.
    The cube root of 81.26 = 4.33137.(Thanks: google!)
    8 (the maximum beam of the Ariel in feet) divided by 4.33137 =

    1.85.

    Don't forget to bring a deck of playing cards!
    (by the way if we were grossly overloaded at 6000# our CSF would be even better at 1.76. When does 'vanishing stability' come into play?)
    Last edited by ebb; 10-02-2007 at 07:26 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    453
    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:
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by Scott Galloway; 09-26-2007 at 12:54 AM.
    Scott

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,549
    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.
    Last edited by ebb; 09-26-2007 at 11:26 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Scarborough, Maine
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by ebb View Post
    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.
    Mike
    Totoro (Sea Sprite 23 #626)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,549

    Rule of Expendiency

    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.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____
    Last edited by ebb; 10-05-2007 at 06:36 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    104
    Nice! I got the same results flying twin jibs dead down wind with 20 knot winds and following 10 foot seas from Pillar Point to Monterey, surfing on crests for minutes at a time. I wish I'd captured that on video. It's a thing of beauty when a crest approaches from astern, reaches the bow, and then just stops as the boat catches up and follows.

    I routinely do 6 knots with peaks over 7 on a close reach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdYXAuzh6ZQ

    I can't imagine sailing without the thrill of ocean swells.
    Last edited by pbryant; 01-15-2019 at 12:53 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts