1960 pearson for 1700 looks decent to ebay

shorecats · Post by **shorecats** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:31 pm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... gory=63731

O lordy here we go again

george · Post by **george** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:30 pm

what is the story on the earlier tritons? i thought there was something sketchy with the keel?

shorecats · Post by **shorecats** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:30 pm

wouldnt know really just busy enough sailing my lindenberg er trying too at least

Post by **Tim** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:17 pm

george wrote:what is the story on the earlier tritons? i thought there was something sketchy with the keel?

It's not sketchy, necessarily, but there are differences in the keel construction between the earlier boats and the later boats.

The first few years of production, up to and including hull #381, featured the original keel design, which was so narrow at the trailing edge that it was not possible to laminate the after section in the mold. Therefore, an area of the keel aft of the ballast was molded separately of fiberglass over a foam core and was attached to the hull afterwards, using epoxy adhesive and traditional polyester/fiberglass tabbing. This is commonly called the "false keel" by Triton aficionados.

The problem with this construction arises only when, or if, the boats have been blocked or lifted inappropriately. If too much of the boat's weight is placed on this after, foam-filled keel section, problems can arise with cracking, crushing, and other issues. Generally, it's a pretty straightforward fix, and is not a big deal to worry about. It is, however, one more item to add to the list of things to check when purchasing a Triton.

What often happens is that this keel section splits at the bottom, which allows water into the foam core. This happened to mine, sometime long before I owned the boat. Click here to read more about how I fixed my keel.

Maybe it wasn't the best way to construct the keel--and indeed Pearson changed the hull mold to allow for a wider keel section starting with hull #382 (reportedly), and eliminated this separate "false keel" thereafter. But it is a well-defined issue, and one for which there are easy fixes. So don't discount an earlier Triton for this reason--just be sure to check the keel, particularly if the hull number is lower than 381.

Dave, 397 · Post by **Dave, 397** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:41 am

The aftmost portion of the later (internal ballast) boats is tagged on as a seperate part, too...look inside, then outside--you will get an idea for where. This is the same way the Ariel/Commander keels were done as well. It's a vertical section from bottom to top, about 6" or so of the trailing edge. Fellow I know has an ariel that had either dry laminate or water intrusion, not sure which really...in any case, Bill he went a-gindin' in search of solid material, and that's the truth he exposed!

FWIW, the keel structure in what was the "false Keel" section of the external ballast tritons...is plenty tough but pretty thin. I'd still not bear much of the boat's weigh back there if I had my choice. Mine has no blocking under it aft of the end of the ballast cavity and she sits up just fine.

Dave