Ranger v. Triton

[keelbolts]

How do they compare?

[Figment]

The ranger 28 you mean?

Kinda like apples and oranges.

70's aesthetics vs 50's aesthetics.
Masthead vs. fractional rig.
Fin keel vs. full keel.
PHRF 180something vs 260something.

I've never been on one personally, but I'm told that they're good sturdy boats.

[Tim]

I'm going to assume you mean the Rhodes Ranger.

They are similar in concept, size, ability, and looks. Whether you prefer the looks of Alberg's Triton to Rhodes's Ranger is a matter of personal taste. The Ranger has a stronger sheer, even larger deadlights than the Triton, and a masthead rig. I think it has fake molded "plank" lines in the hull, but I might be wrong.

Both boats are sound performers and would likely be similar in most conditions. Both are pretty small for their size, but we learn to love that aspect and call it "cozy".

I don't know that much about the construction specifics of the Ranger, so I won't comment on that. I assume that they are sound and acceptably built, given that they are still around today. Expect many of the typical old boat problems, of course.

[Rachel]

Like Tim said, the Seafarer (Rhodes) Ranger and the Triton are very similar in basic concept and size.

One thing to be aware of on the Ranger is that there were two keel/ballast configurations offered. The buyer could either choose iron (~1800 lbs) or lead (~2600 lbs). I think later models (Ranger II, but I've never been sure how to tell them apart from Ranger I - not sure what year they all became Ranger IIs) all had lead.

Also, the Ranger had the option of either an inboard engine, or an outboard in a well. Some have been converted from one to the other. On the inboard model, the prop doesn't come out in a propeller aperture like the Triton but instead comes out alongside, through the "deadwood."

They originally had wooden spars, but many have been changed to aluminum by now.

I believe most of them were built at G. deVries-Lentsch/Amsterdam Shipyard in Holland, but some were also built by Mechans (sp?) in Scotland.

--- Rachel

[keelbolts]

Right assumption Tim. I should have been clearer on that. Sounds like a toss up. I have heard that the Ranger has a balsa core in the hull, not just the deck. Do some plastic boats have balsa cored hulls? Thanks for the ballast and engine info Rachel. My current boat has a quarter mounted prop. Herreshoff thot they were faster, but I can tell you they are difficult to control at low speeds. I'm a wooden boater at present, but I think it's time to pass stewardship of Favona on along. If I ask questions that sound foolish, it's because I can replace a frame or a plank, but I've never fixed a soft deck. If I ask for a comparison of boats, it's not to stir up trouble. I've been looking a Tritons for friends and family for a couple of years and only more recently became aware of the other classic plastics. Turns out there are a number of boats built before fiberglass became synonymous with butt-ugly and unsafe. Who knew? Well, you guys, I guess...

[Rachel]

Keelbolts,

Welcome to the forum, and of course you should feel free to ask away :-) I've got the opposite "problem" as you do: I learned how to work on fiberglass but not wood. So although I love wooden boats, I feel compelled to stick with what I know how to fix. And of course there are some lovely Plastic Classics :-)

*************

The Rangers have cored decks as do the Tritons. Also like the Triton, the hulls are solid glass - they're not cored. While the Triton transitioned to encapsulated ballast midway through the production run, the Rangers were all made with external ballast pigs held on by keel bolts. With your username, you'd feel right at home, no? ;-)

This is probably more trivia than you want to know, but...

The Triton hulls were molded up in one piece, for the most part (except for a small bit of "false keel" behind the external ballast on early models), but the Ranger hulls were built as port and starboard halves and then joined with a glass seam.

Okay, I'll stop for now... (but no guarantees for future)

--- Rachel

P.S. What sort of boat is "Favona"? (Perhaps you've already said and I missed it - just got Internet back after a torturous couple of months without).

[keelbolts]

Rachel,
Thanks for the info. Sounds like the later model Triton wins. I'm not knocked out with a half & half hull & if I leave wood behind, I damned sure want to leave keelbolts behind too. Favona is a beautiful, 32'6" Robert Clark design. She won the Fastnet race in 1953 and is the best sailing boat I've ever been on. With a 6' full keel on a 24' water line, I've never been passed to windward. I was once hit broadside, with my big genny up, by a 70 knot white squall and, once the toe rail hit the water, she wouldn't go any further over. Wooden boats are, however, best seen as a hobby for prosperous and/or young people. I've never been prosperous and my last haulout demonstrated that I may be past my wooden boat prime.

[Tim]

I'm not knocked out with a half & half hull...

Everyone has their own things that they care to avoid for one reason or another, but I have to opine that there is simply nothing wrong with a fiberglass boat built in two halves. Many of the world's highest quality boats are built in this manner. Now, a poor quality boat of any construction is junk, but just because a boat is built in two halves shouldn't alone be reason for disqualification of consideration.

One of the benefits of fiberglass is that structures built like this can be just as strong or stronger than a single-piece unit. After all, every fiberglass structure is, at it's heart, an amalgamation of numerous separate pieces of material that are joined together at various stages.

... & if I leave wood behind, I damned sure want to leave keelbolts behind too.

Once again, everyone has certain things that they'd rather not deal with. That's fine. I have my own...logical or not, I'm not likely to change my mind either.

That said, keelbolts are rarely a problem in older fiberglass designs with a long, wide ballast pig. This is not to say that such problems don't exist--they do. But again, keel bolts are rarely an ongoing maintenance issue in fiberglass boats. If, for some reason, they required maintenance, a proper repair would just about eliminate the need to ever think about them again.

My only point here is to suggest that you evaluate any individual boat on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not based on single issues that might not even apply--and which could eliminate excellent candidates otherwise.

[keelbolts]

Tim,
If you say boats built in halves are OK, I believe it. Now for keelbolts? With a 40 year old wooden boat, you really should pull a keelbolt for inspection. What you can see will often look great, but when you pull one, you find that your 7/8" dia. keelbolt is now 1/8" where it exits the lead/iron. Is this, for some reason, not a problem with plastic boats? Also, with wood boats, you don't generally pull the bolts but rather attempt to shove 'em out with a jack without lifting the boat off its stands. Are keelbolts easier to replace in plastic boats?

[Tim]

Not being a wooden boat guru, it's hard for me to answer intelligently, but I suspect the greater movement of the wood as a whole allows the possibility of greater chance of bolt deterioration. There are other factors of wood that may affect fasteners as well. Even the high moisture content of timbers surrounding the keel area may create conditions that are more ripe for corrosion. Really, this is just guesswork on my part.

I'm not saying that keelbolts can or should be ignored on a fiberglass boat, and keel bolts in a fin keeled boat may be a whole separate issue. My point is that catastrophic failure in long-keeled fiberglass boats, which necessarily have a long, wide ballast pig, are rare enough that I don't consider it to be a large issue.

Fiberglass boats have their own issues--many of them, as you may have noticed by reading over the topics in this forum, but it's my perhaps incorrect opinion that on boats of the overall design that we usually talk about here, keel bolt failure will always be well preceeded by external visual signs, such as the beginnings of separation at the hull-keel joint.

Boats with external fin keels are more susceptible to bolt problems thanks to the greater stresses and minimal contact area. Even with these, true bolt problems are rare. Maybe the keels on all our boats are going to start falling off at an alarming rate any year now, but I doubt it.

[Case]

If it matters... I recall that the keel bolts on the external ballasted Tritons were Everdur. In my limited knowledge, that's about the best you can get.

Evedur are not that frequently used because of its cost as compared to Stainless Steel. I suspect that many worries out there are because of Stainless Steel's habit of breaking off suddenly because of lack of oxygen. Even with stainless steel bolts, you ought be worrying more about your thru hulls, they are far more likely to fail than a keel falling off!

If I am wrong about the Triton using Evedur bolts, please say so.

- Casey.

[bcooke]

If I am wrong about the Triton using Evedur bolts, please say so

I think you are right about Everdur bolts but with Tritons there are always exceptions, depends on the day, mood, and available supply of materials at the time. Being the early days of large scale (relatively) fiberglass boat construction I have heard that keeping materials in stock was one of the biggest headaches for Pearson. They often had to resort to compromises. Still, they are all carrying their ballasts as far as I know.

Are keelbolts easier to replace in plastic boats?

I think you will find there is a wide variety of installation techniques with fiberglass so I don't think you can answer that easily. My short answer would be 'No'.

Sounds like the later model Triton wins.

If you only knew how those late model Triton ballasts were installed you might not be so impressed. :-) And then we could discuss the different effects of a hard grounding on internal vs. external ballasted keel. And then maybe the effects of the wider profile of the internally ballasted keel. Basically, I don't believe there are winners, only differences.

-Britton

[Tim]

I don't believe there are winners, only differences.

Wow...that is so true, and a great way to phrase it when discussing the various older boats out there.

External ballast Tritons have Everdur (silicone bronze) keel bolts, at least in all documented cases. Since the Triton's keel bolt heads are glassed over in the bilge, most of the boats' bolts have never been inspected, including mine. I have no reason to believe that any of the bolts are anything but Everdur, but I suppose it's possible, given that we can't eliminate the possibility through irrefutable proof.

As I said earlier, long, wide ballast pigs have a sufficient number of bolts and bearing area to avoid the sorts of catastrophic failures that some people like to point to when discussing external ballast. I maintain that should any of the bolts in this sort of situation begin to fail, there will be abundant warning signs first. Lacking any external signs of looseness or problems, I am not going to worry about the bolts.

Note also that true bolt failure, even in the most cutting edge keels of razor thinness and minimal bolting area, is incredibly rare, and usually only occurs because of a lack of proper engineering, poor construction practice, or substandard material. Keel bolts do deteriorate, but there are virtually always warning signs first.

I don't think this is an Ostritch approach (head in the sand). Rather, I think it's a matter of keeping the various problems aboard any boat of any construction in the proper perspective. This is why I suggest evaluating any boat on its own individual pros and cons, rather than on generalities that might not even apply in that specific case.