Early Triton rigging failures

[bcooke]

I was just having a conversation with someone about the early (tapered mast) Triton rigs and the problems they had. I know they had at least one and probably several failures resulting in a dismasting.

Does anyone know what the root cause of these failures were? Were the tapered masts really a "weak" point or was it something else.

While I was planning a set of forward lowers for my Triton today I got looking again at the upper shroud attachment points on the bulkhead. They don't make me feel too comfortable but to my knowledge there has never been a problem with them other than water seepage resulting in the bulkhead rotting out. On my boat there is only 0.5-1 inch of material between the outer edge of the bulkhead and the chainplate attachment bolts. I would love to see more material around those bolts but they have been there for 40 years without a problem and I have never heard of any other Triton having a problem there. I think we have discussed this before but please feel free to placate my concerns.

-Britton

[Figment]

Crossing oceans, are we?

;)

[bcooke]

Crossing oceans, are we?

Well,... no.

I am just putting in forward lowers because my entire V-berth area is completely cleaned out and adding knees for the forward chainplates is an easy job. So while I am messing around up there anyway I just thought I would keep going.

Okay. The real reason is that I think the extra lower shrouds look cool.

There I admit it.

I can't remember what they are called but having the forward shrouds would also allow me to hang those boards up where on old boats the navigation lanterns would ride. I thought it might be a nice place for electrified nav lights and maybe the boat's name. Plus I might add ratlines to get partway up the mast. I am not too sure how much of this "traditional" stuff you can hang on a Triton but I figured I would add a bit as I go and see if anyone sneers at me.

And who knows, my boat is only forty years old so perhaps an ocean crossing is still in her future.

-Britton

[Rachel]

Britton,

You've probably seen this photo from James Baldwin's website (www.atomvoyages.com) -- he put in forward lowers (granted it was part of converting to a masthead rig, but I digress) and incorporated the knees into the shelves.



I kind of like the "balanced" look of a pair of lowers, too, even if it isn't necessary.

As for those boards, I did a fair bit of sailing on a boat that had pinrails rigged across the lowers, and, although I didn't really find that I liked all the lines there, the boards themselves were a great thing to grab when working at the mast and having one of those sudden lurches that threatens to send you off the cabintop. Nice to have something solid to grab there at that height (even if you are wearing a harness).

--- Rachel

[bcooke]

Thanks for the pic Rachel. Sometime before you started posting on this forum I posted the exact same picture on another thread about forward lowers :-)

I am sure they work fine coming from a boat and owner with that much experience but I decided to mimic the aft lower chainplate knees just as an aesthetic thing. I have an inch of insulation going in there and then probably some sort of headliner material such as Glissando has (I can totally appreciate having something soft and fuzzy to back up into while snoozing) and maybe some netting holding loose clothing against the sides so I don't expect them to intrude too much into the area. If they do become a problem I can hack the lower/offending portions out pretty quick.

I guess when I decide to scrap my current rig in favor of a masthead with extra inner forestay and running backstay I will have the hull structure already in place.

Pinrails. I hadn't thought of that. Now I know how I will attach my spreader flag halyard!

You know, I hadn't realized it before but I bet James has a tough time removing his chainplates for inpection or what not. Maybe it is the mechanic in me but I like everything to be removeable and accessable (within reason).

-Britton

[Tim]

Frankly, I think those supposed "early rig failures" has become one of those urban legends that is based on truth, but has been blown far out of proportion. All we have to go by here is some unspecific quotes in a single source about these failures.

Whether it was one mast or a dozen masts that failed early on, we don't know the reason. I think we do know that the original boat did not have forward lowers because eliminating them meant that the large genoas could be more easily tacked. For that matter, forward lowers never became an "original" feature. Some boats seem to have a factory installation, I guess, but it must have been an option, as boats as late as the 660s (like Britton's and Nathan's) don't have forward lowers either.

It was these supposed early rig failures that caused Pearson to offer their "forward lower kit" to existing owners. Frankly, from what I've seen of the earliest Triton spars, I'm not surprised that failure might have been possible: the whole things were Mickey-Mouse, in my opinion. Spreaders and jumpers and their bases, and rigging attachment points were not of particularly high quality, nor of particularly seamanlike conception.

My own thought on those early rig failures--and also why many early Tritons are still out there sailing with their tapered rigs today--is that perhaps the original alloy used in the spar was too soft for the application, and that perhaps this was changed early on as a result. Again: I don't think we'll ever know. But it's not an inherent tapered mast problem, since whatever problems supposedly existed seem to have ceased despite the continued use of original tapered Triton spars--and not all of them with retrofitted forward lowers, either.

At some point, the entire spar section was changed to the more common untapered telephone-pole section that many of us have.

I have also heard (again, with no specific confirmation) that the original spar design called for inline single lower shrouds, but that Pearson, in a job-floor production decision, decided to move them aft for whatever reason. There are plenty of modern boats out there with single lowers, but all are in an inline configuration. The decision to move a single lower aft may not have been an inspired one.

Now, with the lore and legend out of the way, let's focus on the actual forward lowers. I think that adding them makes good sense, as there's no question that the mast pumps a bit in certain conditions without them. For coastal sailing, I don't think that this poses any problem, but I personally would add them were I considering any sort of offshore passage.

A true knee for a forward lower chainplate is the strongest configuration. However, on boats like this that strength is probably not strictly necessary, and a strong deck fitting can be adequate for the lowers, since lower shrouds are pretty much designed to be tensioned only enough to hold the mast steady, and don't hold as much of the ultimate mast loads. But the full knee is clearly the strongest option, and is worth installing in a situation where the space is completley open and ready for work.

[Tim]

On my boat there is only 0.5-1 inch of material between the outer edge of the bulkhead and the chainplate attachment bolts.

Well, this is actually the strongest part of the bulkhead since the bolts are also passing through the fiberglass tabbing in this area, adding significant strength.

Also, the loading on the chainplates is straight up, not outward--if anything, it's inward more than outward, so what's more important is how the material above and around the boltholes is.

[bcooke]

I agree with the "urban legend" thing. I know that one rig failed because I was listening to a recording of an early NETA meeting with Everett or Tom discussing some of the early days of production. The rig failed while on an initial sale with the new owner. Apparently, it was quite embarrassing :-)

As for the others... I can only guess that Pearson would not have offered the forward lower kit unless there was a wider problem. Of course the problem could have been in the public's heads and the retrofit was just to make owners and potential owners feel better.

I never knew about the inline thing. Typical, and what makes Tritons so unique in this world today I suppose. If I hadn't replaced the aft knees then I might have spent some time thinking about retrofitting with an inline lower shroud but there is no going back for me now.

I do wonder about getting the jib across with forward lowers but at the moment I am figuring if it is too much of a pain I will just take them back off.

Frankly, from what I've seen of the earliest Triton spars, I'm not surprised that failure might have been possible: the whole things were Mickey-Mouse, in my opinion. Spreaders and jumpers and their bases, and rigging attachment points were not of particularly high quality, nor of particularly seamanlike conception.

Another pearl I gleamed off of the taped interview was that Pearson really revolutionized boat building in a way I had never thought. It was the volume of identical boats coming off the assembly line that caused big supply chain problems. According to the interviewee, a person just couldn't order parts to rig fifty or a hundred boats at a time because there were no suppliers that could handle the volume. What happened is that Pearson had to shop around, causing lots of headaches and delays, resulting in every boat having a slightly different hardware configuration. This means every boat had different rigging specs that had to be accounted for on an individual basis and undoubtedly led to the "low quality and unseamanlike" rigging quoted above. It was because of companies like Pearson that large scale supply chains for the boat building industry were created. They simply didn't exist before then.

Now, I am wondering if it was one of those shop-level decisions that led to some improper rig hardware being used. Maybe it was not a problem with the mast at all but simply cheap hardware or someone not knowing how to use it. Once the suspect hardware failed and was replaced then there were no more problems. That is sounding more likely although a poor alloy certainly could have been a problem. If it was an alloy problem though I would have thought all the early boats would have earned more of a reputation for consistent rig failures. If the alloy failed on one boat why didn't it fail on so many others? And why didn't Pearson offer to replace the masts with something stronger? My money is on the hardware...

I actually thought about a pad eye for the forward lowers. If my interior was more or less finished I probably would have gone that route considering the lower stress they should be under. As it is, I fit and cut out the knees in a couple of hours and now I just have to wait for some warmer weather to glass them in. I will get around to cutting the hole through the deck later. Heck, maybe I won't even worry about those forward lower chainplates for a couple of sailing seasons.

-Britton

[JetStream]

Tim, you may remember the bit I found from Dorwin Teague back in 2002 about his work with the Triton. The following is an excerpt from his book:

"One of our design accounts was a new boat for the Pearson Corporation that came about as a result of my purchase of the Triton. After our Bermuda trip, which received some publicity, we began to race Ole' in the Eastern Long Island Sound series and a few distance races. I became annoyed at the extreme weather helm and finally took the drastic step of cutting the main boom down from fourteen to twelve feet and had the mainsail re-cut accordingly We began to beat other Tritons consistently Our friend Tom Harrison and some of our other competitors followed our example. Finally the Pearson Corporation made this a production modification although, as I remember, a bit more conservatively by cutting back the fool of the sail by only 1-1/2 feet. A more serious inherent fault began to show up as several Tritons had mast failures during hard blows. Ole' was leading a race off Larchmont by a good margin, when our mast suddenly went over the side. By this time the insurance companies were getting a bit fretful and the Pearsons (Everett and Clint, who are cousins) decided something had to be done so they hired me as a consultant to try to find out what was going on.

I inspected five or six failed masts in the Long Island Sound and New England areas and discovered all the failures were identical. The mast, stepped on deck in the Tritons, had all failed by bending aft at the spreader line. This brought to mind the knock-down on our Bermuda trip, after which both spreaders were angled forward. I couldn't figure this out for a while but finally the answer came to me. Carl Alberg had designed the Triton with a single lower shroud, a legitimate system if done right. But there was a bulkhead in the Triton a foot aft of the mast line; the Pearsons assumed the chainplates for the lower shrouds would be much more secure if attached to this bulkhead rather in line with the mast, as called for in Alberg's design. What this did, however, was to produce a strong after-force component on the mast right at the spreaders, a weak point anyway because of the hole for attaching the spreaders. We were lucky that our mast hadn't failed on the way to Bermuda. We designed a "recall" kit for the existing Tritons, while the Pearsons corrected the problem in later ones. "

[dasein668]

designed a "recall" kit for the existing Tritons, while the Pearsons corrected the problem in later ones.

Well, unless the "correction" was the switch to an untapered section, Pearson didn't correct all the boats. I have no forward lowers on 668.

[Tim]

Tim, you may remember the bit I found from Dorwin Teague back in 2002 about his work with the Triton.

Thanks for that tidbit (again), Bruce. That quote seems tso help understand the mast issues, and I appreciate your jogging my memory.

I believe the permanent fix that Pearson came up with was indeed to change the spar section to one with a longer longitudinal dimension--the one seen on most Tritons after the early 100s or so--which would resist that aft-bending moment more effectively than the slimmer early masts. Certainly they never added the forward lowers as a standard feature.

[bcooke]

That is great information! I am a bit confused though.

Carl Alberg had designed the Triton with a single lower shroud, a legitimate system if done right. But there was a bulkhead in the Triton a foot aft of the mast line

A foot aft? I thought all Tritons had this bulkhead in the same location which on mine is almost directly under the mast.

the Pearsons assumed the chainplates for the lower shrouds would be much more secure if attached to this bulkhead rather in line with the mast, as called for in Alberg's design.

It seems that Alberg wanted the shrouds inline, the Pearsons wanted to attach to the bulkhead, the bulkhead is inline.... so what is the problem here? Now I am beginning to suspect this explanation...

We designed a "recall" kit for the existing Tritons, while the Pearsons corrected the problem in later ones. "

The recall kit would have been those silly pieces of iron under the deck attached to forward lower shrouds (crude but I suppose effective). So how again did Pearson correct the problem in later boats?

...

I just broke away and did some quick research. As best as I can tell all the Tritons have the main bulkhead under the mast. Something is fishy here.

More evidence that dis-mastings did indeed happen though. Maybe they just over tightened the low quality rigging and then pushed the boats too hard?

Still an interesting quote which makes the mystery all the more mysterious.

-Britton

[bcooke]

Tim, we must have hit the post button at the same time :-)

[bcooke]

Mike, being as you replaced your early (relatively) model Triton bulkheads, do you remember exactly how they were positioned relative to the mast?

Do you still have the tapered mast?

-Britton

[Tim]

A foot aft? I thought all Tritons had this bulkhead in the same location which on mine is almost directly under the mast.

Yes, the "main" bulkhead, to which the cap shroud chainplates are attached, is directly beneath the mast (for all intents and purposes). But that's not what this author is referring to.

What I think this quotation is referring to (remember, we're talking only about "early" boats here) is the fact that the after lower shoud, at least on the starboard side, was connected to the second bulkhead, the one aft of the "main" bulkhead.

I know, I know: in most of our boats, both aft lower chainplates are secured to heavy wooden knees, not to bulkheads. But, for example, in hull #100, the starboard aft lower was secured to the second bulkhead, as seen (sort of) in this photo (you can just see the bolts at the top corner of the partially cut-away bulkhead on the righthand side of the photo):



So, while I don't truly know the validity of the quotation, there is definitely truth to the notion that the aft lowers were secured to a bulkhead in the early boats (and only the early boats). Note that even hull #100 had a solid wood (oak) knee on the port side, to which the aft lower was secured on that side.

It helps to remember that that second bulkhead (the one forming the forward end of the saloon) is not symmetrical: the starboard side, with its little nook, is about a foot further forward than the port.

So how again did Pearson correct the problem in later boats?

It would seem that the main correction was to change the spar section, as I mentioned in my earlier response. But at some point, Pearson also began using a second solid wood knee, like its counterpart to port, to secure the starboard aft lower. It would seem that perhaps both attachment points for the aft lowers might have also been moved slightly forward (as they would have to be if the starboard one were moved) in later versions of the boat. This would be an interesting measurement to compare from boat to boat: distance from the center of the main chainplate to the center of the aft lower chainplate.

I just broke away and did some quick research. As best as I can tell all the Tritons have the main bulkhead under the mast

Indeed they do. That was never in dispute. The bulkhead is critical to maintain the hull shape there, to support the mast beam (and deck), and, of course, to secure the cap shroud chainplates. What Pearson should have done (but didn't do) was to have secured the single lower shroud to this main bulkhead, not to the one a bit aft on the starboard side.

[Figment]

Britton, as I read Jetstream's post, they're referring to the bulkhead that anchors the starboard lower chainplate..... the forward end of the saloon. On portside, it's a knee.

Yeah, the primary bulkhead (the one that defines the aft end of the vberth), was basically in line with the mast. I moved my mast forward a few inches.

No, my mast was replaced by a previous owner. Big chunky untapered stick.

[Tim]

I was just reviewing more photos from the demolition of #100, and it seems pretty clear to me that the location of the knee on the port side is further aft on this boat than it is on #381. This knee looks to be almost at the saloon bulkhead, while #381's is centered in the compartment above the head--or roughly equidistant between the two bulkheads there.

If the original location, as seen in these earliest boats, was too far aft, part of the fix, as I mentioned above, might have been to relocate the knee a bit further forward, closer to the main chianplate, which would in theory help reduce that after pull on the mast at the spreaders.



And, for reference, here's Glissando's starboard side (seen during the project), showing the saloon bulkhead (to which the aft lower chainplate on the daysailor #100 was secured, as original) and the solid knee forward of that. If indeed Pearson moved the lower shrouds forward in this manner, it would help eliminate the unwanted force on the mast.

[Tim]

I was just reviewing more photos from the demolition of #100, and it seems pretty clear to me that the location of the knee on the port side is further aft on this boat than it is on #381. This knee looks to be almost at the saloon bulkhead, while #381's is centered in the compartment above the head--or roughly equidistant between the two bulkheads there.

If the original location, as seen in these earliest boats, was too far aft, part of the fix, as I mentioned above, might have been to relocate the knee a bit further forward, closer to the main chianplate, which would in theory help reduce that after pull on the mast at the spreaders.



And, for reference, here's Glissando's starboard side (seen during the project), showing the saloon bulkhead (to which the aft lower chainplate on the daysailor #100 was secured, as original) and the solid knee forward of that. If indeed Pearson moved the lower shrouds forward in this manner, it would help eliminate the unwanted force on the mast.

[Figment]

... the after lower shoud, at least on the starboard side, was connected to the second bulkhead, the one aft of the "main" bulkhead.... in most of our boats, both aft lower chainplates are secured to heavy wooden knees, not to bulkheads. But, for example, in hull #100, the starboard aft lower was secured to the second bulkhead

This would be an interesting measurement to compare from boat to boat: distance from the center of the main chainplate to the center of the aft lower chainplate.

What Pearson should have done (but didn't do) was to have secured the single lower shroud to this main bulkhead, not to the one a bit aft on the starboard side.

Well that first bit is an interesting chunk of TritonTrivia!
Nathan, I remember thinking at the time that the pics of your head renovation looked a bit strange. The knees are farther forward. That'll do it.

My cplate to cplate distance is 17" Early model, knee only on the portside.

Hey, let's all re-rig our lowers to the main chainplates and eliminate two leaky chainplate penetrations!

[Figment]

As my mast foot and head (truck?) castings do not really fit the spar, I assume them to be re-used original pieces.





I post these pics in case anyone cares to see the difference between a stock section and one version of a replacement section. In each pic you can see how the trailing edge of the mast stands proud of the profile of the cast end piece.

[Tim]

Wow, Mike. Someone did a cheesy job there (by using those old castings...).

My cplate to cplate distance is 17" Early model, knee only on the portside.

I can tell you from memory that the distance between mine is far less than that--perhaps 12". I have knees on both sides.

[bcooke]

Oh I get it. The other bulkhead. So Carl drew the plans with the upper and lower shrouds all going to the same point which sounds pretty good and easy to manufacture but Pearson decides to move the lower shrouds aft causing all kinds of problems including dis-mastings... I get it :-)

If this information had come to me a few years ago before I rebuilt my knees I might have pursued the "let's go back to Mr. Albergs original idea" plan. I am too vested in the current setup to start experimenting now.

Now the dimension aft of the lower shroud knees... #78 is way aft. #381 appears to have the knees equidistant between the bulkheads on the port side. My port knee (#680) is clearly closer to the "main" bulkhead. I probably can't get under my tarp for a few days to measure but I am thinking it is about.... wait, I have a picture.



Is it me or are my knees further forward than #381's? Maybe if Pearson had made it to serial # 1000 the shrouds would have gone to where Carl drew them in the first place :-)

Mike, that is some job on your mast. I think I would get a mast boot to cover it up! Maybe when you paint your mast this spring you could do something about those fittings. You are a racer right? Shouldn't you have an extra halyard on the front side of the mast at the peak so you can have your spinnaker rigged and ready? That means the cap needs to be replaced before you start painting... Need any other suggestions?!

Tim, I take it back, I don't have the ugliest Triton out there. Those pictures make me feel like I just need to do a little more polishing before I am done. Totally unrecognizable.

-Britton

[Tim]

Yes, it looks as if Britton's CP knees are further forward than mine, though perhaps if you account for the difference in thickness between his and mine the overall measurement distance seems less disparate.

More Pearson quality control at work!

[Figment]

Can't you just hear one of the Pearson's on the phone with the lumberyard over on Tupelo St.?

Whaddayamean you don't have any ten-quarter oak this week?!!! aaahright, just send me whatever you have then.

:)

[Figment]

Can't you just hear one of the Pearsons on the phone with the lumberyard over on Tupelo St.?

Whaddayamean you don't have any ten-quarter oak this week?!!! aaahright, just send me whatever you have then.

:)

[bcooke]

Mike, I see you are shamelessly pushing your post count up. Why can't you be happy with being in first place?

I just noticed from Tim's photos that the mast beam was supported by two oak vertical beams on the starboard side. Can I assume the port side had the same redundency? How long did Pearson continue doing that?

You know, I am getting an idea. I am thinking NETA should be organizing meetings around slide shows of Tritons in various stages of demolitions. I, for one, find all these trivialities of construction quite interesting. I could ponder over them all day... Considering my post count today on this thread alone I have probably achieved that too!

-Britton

[bcooke]

I suppose most of you that really care probably already picked this up on the Yahoo! Triton list but I thought I would stick the info onto this thread for a more complete discussion.

Apparently, the placement of the mast step is not that precise and in the early Tritons it sounds like the mast was up to a foot aft of the "main" bulkhead. I am not sure if that was standard, a manufacturer's variance or something a PO is responsible for but the sense I got was that Pearson was behind the variety of mast step positions. That would have a significant impact on the placement of the knees for the lower shrouds. That would also explain why the main bulkhead was not used for the lower shroud attachment points.

I am getting an overall sense that those knees were just eyeballed into position rather than having an actual dimension for the workers to use. As a matter of fact I am getting the sense that the whole boat was built this way. It seems to work.

When I recored under my mast step I accidently erased the markings I had left in order to reposition the mast step in the exact same location. I wound up running a line between the upper shroud chainplates and another along the centerline of the boat and centered the mast step where the lines crossed. I am pretty sure my step is within an inch of the original but now I wonder.

Now that I think about it, I am slowly erasing all my original elements on the boat as I "restore" this boat. At some point I may find that the hull and a few parts of the deck are the only original things left. I wasn't supposed to build a boat, just fix it up a little...

At least it is fun!

-Britton

[Tim]

I've often said that Tritons were solidly, but sloppily, constructed, and these myriad production differences certainly highlight that. Production boatbuilding was in its infancy at the time, and I don't think the workforce was highly trained. The boats were built quickly for a low-end market, and never intended to be "forever" boats.

Obviously a foot off of the mast beam would be a serious problem for mast support. While I've never seen one this far off, and question whether it's truly off as far as the Yahoo list author contends, most of them tend to be not perfectly centered on the beams, and there are variances between the boats.

[Zach]

Thread dredge... but I've been curious about this stuff as I'm plotting my bulkhead replacement/mast plucking/chain plate relocation.

Here are some pictures of the interior of Pylasteki. Hull #101, production # 234...

Port side is on a real wide wooden knee wrapped in glass. Starboard side is on the bulkhead. On deck measuring the chain plates, center to center they are 17 and 3/8ths inches aft, +/- 1/8th. (Better than I expected... grin!)

The port and starboard shroud chain plates bolt to the aft side of the main bulkhead. The lowers bolt to the forward side of their respective knee and bulkhead.

Port side knee


Starboard side on the bulkhead.