Hey Sprite,
I'd charge $60 an hour to breathe in Boston too.
Not sure about your chain plates, mine are stainless on #45.
As for the bulkhead , give it the pocket knife test, if solid then soak with epoxy and paint it.
Hey Sprite,
I'd charge $60 an hour to breathe in Boston too.
Not sure about your chain plates, mine are stainless on #45.
As for the bulkhead , give it the pocket knife test, if solid then soak with epoxy and paint it.
Ebb,
You can also take a 1/16" drill bit and hole the waterline, run a string through and measure.
Just 'member to fill the holes with epoxy before launch time .
Mike
Mike
Whoa! You just stoppped preachin' and started meddlin' , as they told the old preacher.
I am allowed to put on airs anytime I go to Boston, and I don't get paid extra fur it neither. As clean as Boston air is, it is not quite up to North Shore standards, which is why we are here.
John
Valhalla
Commander No 284
I have my OEM chain plates for shrouds. They are chromed bronze.
Kent
Original shroud chainplates were bronze. Backstay chainplate was ss.
Sounds like Mike had a stiff one!
If you cut the skins off most places on a Triton unsupported, she drops out of camber...I found this out from hearing the frustrating experience of others.
FWIW, the bad areas of 397's deck, foredeck especially, had NO semblance of the appropriate or remotely uniform camber left, so a-bracin' we will go.
Only used a jack to help get the centerline of the curve filled out, with 2x4 run inside underneath 1/4" ply. Ran sheetrock screws in from outside to suck it tight, then trimmed misc. 2x2 and 2x4 pieces to length to jam in there underneath. Then removed sheetrock screws. Same drill at two other points on each side of center, for 5 in all on the coachroof (remember, we're wider. Ariel would do with 3...or maybe even just the middle.)
We worked coacroof 1st, head/ forward cabin ovehead 2nd, then start bracing the foredeck and work aft down each side.
Dave
I want to thank Hull 375. I pulled my chain plates up and they
look bronze. My guess is they are original. The chrome probably
came off. The chrome came off my bronze pulpit. The backstay
is stainless and just had a new one made with ss doubled
the thickness and added to more holes like the manual.
I want to replace the bronze ones with stainless. and ss screws
The ones there look bronze.
The air in Boston is fine however boat is closer to Cape Cod
(Mattapoisett). I want to thank John in Manchester by the
Sea for making his point on the difference of actually being
in Boston and on being in the vicinity. I wouldn't want the
expense of being in Boston Harbor proper.
John
Sorry I meant Hull 376 just caught the mistake
John
Could be that the 1st 50 or so boats were very overbuilt, even for the 60's. The guys at the Columbia factory didn't trust the spec's from the 'office' and always added extra glass in the early 60's , I bet the guys at Pearson had the same attitude until the bean counters caught them.
Just went down and threw on some extra docklines on old #45, Isabel is headed our way :>[
Capt. Dave back at the bottom of page two describes a chinese fire drill in making corrections to a boat in middle of a deck recore. What he describes is a good thing to know.
IMHO: If you took the two main bulkheads out, the deck structure, coach and dog house and cockpit would likely sag, because of the weight. Because of the natural shrinkage of the wood, it is my opinion that some sag is already present in all Ariels. It may be observable in the side decks.
Therefor, if you are going to replace the compression beam, you haveto, IMCO, do it with the bulkhead in place. Then, remove the bulkhead - but not befor you support the new beam with struts from below. IMCO it is very important to continue (at all times) to support the deck mold structure.
I feel the same thing is true of the companionway bulkhead. In fact, I have installed a laminated beam under the bridge deck at the bulkhead, which is tied into the hull, braced by the stringers and backed with tabbing. I believe the companionway had sagged on 338. But now it is locked into its final position! No kidding, sit on a settee and look at the bulkhead there....338 had the icebox hole, the engine hole, and was an inch or two short of the top....try to imagine what exactly is holding up the rear of the cockpit, the bridge deck AND the end of the cabin!!!
It's natural for the deck mold to want to relax in time. I would, if I was going to recore, support the front of the coach roof with a temporary beam, hull side to hull side, supported on the stringers. Like I said earlier, it's no big deal to make temporary beams that you support carefully with a bottle screw or two and some two-by when you are about to cut into the deck. Or you could scribe and cut plywood and construct cross braced temporary bulkheading.
When I started on the side decks, I would support the coach roof under the sidedecks inside from the bilge and the settees. I would support the whole length from nose to companionway. Nothing moves!
You don't want to distort the rather delicate inner layer with some macho shimming. This is why and it is still a good idea to consider doing the recore from inside, because you can put some extra force UP against the much thicker deck. Except for the final mat layers (to create the all important composit) it might even be easier all round. And there, by golly, is the deck looking like it always did!!!
A healthy composite deck is extremely important to the integrity of the boat. The Ariel is essentially nothing but skin and a couple of bulkheads.
I would (and have) support the boat hullside to hullside and top to bottom befor I tackled the deck, or cut a large hole. Just like you would on a wood boat. One that you were restoring.
You guys scare me, sometimes
Last edited by ebb; 09-14-2003 at 09:16 PM.
Mike
I was reading that the boat builders at the time were scared.
It was written into a few magazines around when the Pearsons
were making the ariels that fiberglass was only a fad and that
wood would be back in a couple of years. So a ton of laminates were added to the fiberglass to make it stronger. They had no
idea that these boats would last 41 years. Not a bad track record.
The thing that I like about the boat is that it is over built in some ways. What I find interesting is Carl Alberg's designs you can
go model to model and find some of the same defects in the design. I found a similar problem with decks and the strong back
with the Alberg 30. I am also glad ebb mentioned the supports gotta get some 2x6 etc.
Captain John
Everett Pearson (yes, that Pearson) debunks this silliness about the hull laminates (i.e. "just add extra glass because we don't know anything and we're scared of this material") in a taped discussion with the New England Triton Association from March 2, 1977.
During this talk, Pearson discusses how the Triton was specifically engineered to certain strength requirements. Specifically, the hull laminate was engineered to be able to support the entire weight of the boat on any single square inch of the hull, with only a certain minimal, specified deflection (I forget exactly, but it's in the recording) and no structural failure. I imagine the same sort of engineering was used for subsequent models as well. Granted, their engineering specifications were high, and the boats' hulls may well be overbuilt, but they were engineered as such--it wasn't an accident.
This is not to condone the myriad other construction flaws that can be found in the older Pearsons. They were a budget boat and were undeniably imperfect, but look how well they've withstood the trials of time regardless. The need for certain repairs and structural enhancements after 30 or 40 years can hardly be faulted.
The recording I mentioned above, along with another very interesting talk by Tom Potter (the person who brought the idea for the Triton to the Pearson cousins in 1958), are available on CD to anyone who is interested from the New England Triton Association. A nominal fee to cover production and shipping costs is all that is required. You may contact me for details. Email me at tlackey@pearsontriton.com
To anyone interested in these recordings: Please note that these recordings are not perfect--they are duplicates of amateur recordings from 1977--but they are audible and provide an interesting history lesson.
I took my beam out and the bulkhead out...I broke my boat
Last edited by Tony G; 09-15-2003 at 06:51 AM.
During the fifties and sixties they were adding more laminates on the whole. I felt personally they were better built because they
made the molds using the thicknesses of wood boats. It was an
industry in transition.
glissando, along time ago I looked at your site. I found there
were similarities how we found the boats. Sprite was in horrible
condition when I found her. Now she is starting to shape up.
Now it's the decks and recoring project.
Tony G How did it happen
Capt John
Capt John
Purely tongue in cheek. This boat is solid enough to work on without worry. Not to say I don't pay attention to what's going on or I don't care but I have a ton of confidence that she will not split apart on her trailer while I work on her. Might I add that I fully intend to put the main bulkhead back in before turning my attention to the next phase of the project but that is because it makes the most sense not because I fear catastrophy. These boats are supposed to be fun! Not worrisome. Tony G
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote