West Coast Tritons Built Like Battle Ships?

[Triton106]

Hi All,

I have always heard the folk lore of how Tritons are built like battle ships. Tim produced strong evidence to back it up (see picture below) on his well known website.



NTA website proclaims:

West Coast Tritons - An owner of a 1963 West Coast Triton in Seattle says, "The Triton was built by both Pearson in Rhode Island and Aeromarine Plastics in Sausalito, California. Very early Pearsons had some problems with balsa core an other minor items. 'West Coast Tritons' were built like battleships."

"In the early '60's Aeromarine built some 125 boats. They're easily distinguished from their East Coast cousins. East Coast boats have wooden coamings and wooden trim. The California built boats are all plastic. Ralph Beauregard, long time owner and racer of #150, Rascal II flat out claims, 'West coast boats are built better than East Coast. The Sausalito bunch were much better boat builders than Pearson ever was. West Coast boats have no balsa in the decks. None. They're pure glass.' "

Well, I have always taken this information for granted. So three years ago when I put in the through hull in the original hanging locker to convert it to a washing sink I was quite surprised that the skin of the hull is only about 1/4" so thick. I thought it must be this location that is unusual for whatever reason and that other area skins will be thicker.

Well yesterday, I cut out the original head through hulls (two of them). And imagine my surprise when I found that the hull in those locations is also only 1/4" thick. But that is not all. I had to replace knot meter transducer (the free rotating wheel that sends speed data to the display) yesterday. The through hull is located in the bilge about a foot or so below sole level on starboard side). Guess what, the skin is also about 1/4" thick! Now I am not sure any more about my Triton 106 being built like a battle ship. I always heard on this forum that no two Tritons are identical. I would not think that this applies to the laminating schedule too. Does the thin skin on Triton 106 reflect the difference between east and west coast Triton or is it just Triton106? I guess the more critical question is whether 1/4" is really safe outside protected water? Will it survive a collision with a submerged log?

Thanks and best regards,

[Tim]

Reality trumps lore every day. Having never seen a WC Triton in person, I can't comment much on how their realities stack up against the bold claims online, but if it's anything like how the EC boats stack up against their own claims, then I have some ideas. I'd not call any of the EC boats "battleships" either. They are what they are, and what they are is pretty good, all things considered. But not perfect, not bulletproof, and not necessarily as overbuilt as people would like to believe in their hearts. That doesn't stop most of us from loving the boats.

One thing that seems to continually re-prove itself is that the more information there is available, the more likely it is that a good portion of it is wrong or at least misleading. It's the nature of percentages.

Sorry to hear that 106 hasn't lived up to the much-loved lore about that Triton hull strength and thickness.

It's perhaps important to note that I haven't found glass nearly as thick as in those plugs above in any of the other Tritons I've had opportunity to drill through. In general, 5/8" seems to be a common maximum hull thickness for EC Tritons, give or take a bit depending on location. At the garboard area on #381, I have about 1/2" of material.

1/4" solid fiberglass skins are commonplace today. There's plenty of strength in that thickness, though over unsupported spans 1/4" is not thick enough to resist oilcanning. Fortunately, there aren't very wide, unsupported spans in a Triton hull--all those bulkheads and other glassed-in members on the interior limit the unsupported spans available, and the hull's shape lends to the overall strength of the laminate.

The point is: don't let thinness alone--however disappointing it may be in light of the legend you'd been led to believe--be the judge of your hull's strength or durability. There is a lot more to it than that.

Tritons are good boats. But unfortunately, the "legend" that precedes them is often just that: legend. Don't let failure to live up to impossible legends sour you on the good qualities of the boat, however.

[bcooke]

Welcome to the world of Triton mythology :-)

I have heard the 'my boat is better than your boat' rant too many times to take seriously. Realistically, it was the early days of mass fiberglass costruction and no one really had quality control down to a science. Is east coast better than west coast? I don't think so. They have their differences and for every plus I can show you a minus. Overall they are all good boats.

As for core thicknesses... everyone wants to brag about how thick their core is. Some are quite heavy. I think Tim probably comes close to taking the Triton record but now that I have said it I will probably find someone with a thicker core.

Note, however, the quality of the core samples. See all that white fluffy non-saturated fiber? The cores are often heavier just because they were not able to produce a level of quality then they could today.

Here is a sample from my later model boat down near the bottom of the keel. It is about 3/8 inch thick.



I have a rant that many of you have heard before.

There is a taped interview with Everett Pearson or Tom Potter, I can't remember, when the question of 'overbuilding because they didn't know how strong fiberglass was' myth was asked about.

The response was, "We knew exactly how strong these boats were being built. We built to a higher standard. Parts were constantly being pulled out of the production line and sent to an independent lab for destructive testing. Every part of the boat was tested in this manner."

I think the reality is that quality in the early days quality was not that good. I think this is understandable since large scale fiberglass boat construction had never really been done before. In addition, keeping costs down was a major priority and often relatively unskilled labor was employed (myth, not fact on my part). For these reasons, the fiberglass layups were generally heavier than modern layups simply because of the poor quality control and the inability to get strong consistent layups every time.

Okay, I won't rant about this any more...

There is a ton of mis-information out there about Tritons. My other fact finding missions have been an attempt to cut through these myths with some reality.

One true thing about Tritons from either facility: They varied widely in construction and no two are the same.

[bcooke]

I guess the more critical question is whether 1/4" is really safe outside protected water? Will it survive a collision with a submerged log?

Your boat has survived 40+ years of use. I would say that indicated a level of safety.

Don't worry about the logs. It is the floating shipping containers that will keep you up at night. Which you really shouldn't worry about since you can't see them until you are right on top of them and it is too late to turn anway.

And sorry to make you lose any sleep but they don't build a small sailboat that can withstand all possible collision opportunities. That's why deep water sailing is not considered a 100% safe thing to do. It is pretty safe with the right precautions but it will never be 100%.

[Tim]

Attempts to plan for--and equip for--every possible contingency tend to overburden both boat and owner with unnecessary gear, cost, time, and worry. While I certainly advocate a conservative approach to sailing in general, and offshore sailing in particular, since that's how I happen to approach sailing and boats personally, there's only so much anyone can do to prepare, and even then there are no guarantees.

There are limits to the structural abilities of any boat, and far too many possible things that could happen to even begin to worry about them. Ensure your boat is sound, be aware of her limitations, and do your best...but in the end, most boats can handle far more than their crews can. This is important, I think.

For example: instead of worrying about whether your boat can withstand a collision with a large underwater object (none can withstand everything, and most can withstand precious little, frankly), think about how you'd handle it if this did happen. Know how--and be prepared--to react to a wide variety of situations rather than worrying about how to prevent possibly unpreventable things. If a container collision is in your future, there's probably nothing you can do to prevent it. But that doesn't mean you can't survive it either.

I think it's far to easy for people to psych themselves out about the possibilities, which tends to lead to unnecessary reinforcement, wasteful equipment, and, most sadly, never actually leaving on any trip of note. Sure, be prepared for the worst, but don't pretend there's a chance that you could ever prevent everything. You can't. Stuff happens, and one has to deal with it as it happens.

Just remember that the point is to have fun with these boats.

[David]

I can't speak to Pearson's yard in the 1960's but I can share that Bristol Yachts regularly employed Portuguese workers from a nearby Portuguese fishing community to work on Bristols in the yard during the 1060's.
My guess is that same pool of labor was used at Pearson as well on occasion. The labor was cheap and available in the off season but not especially skilled boatbuilders, nor specifically knowledgeable about new fangled fiberglassing processes.

[Robert The Gray]

When regarding the capacities of old boats for offshore work I feel that often there is a confusion between the "design" and the specific "boat". When I was selling my triton there were a number of people looking for a world rounding pocket cruiser for under $10,000. I think that is like taking a $1000 dollar car and heading across the country, when it would be much less of a trial in a $5000 car. Somewhere in the past the Tritons got legendary for their bullet-proof-ness. I feel that Alberg's design with it's low free board, the sail plan, and all it's Scandinavian salty history is a fantastic design for cold water ocean sailing in a under 30 foot boat. Triton = very good basic design. The difference is that my boat is 47 years old. There has been 41 years of history that I have no knowledge of. If I was to set up an old boat for the ocean it would take more than just buying a good design, the boat itself must be ready. I am not sure how the long term flexing of the laminates will hold up as the years go along but if any fiberglass boats were to fall apart it would be the cheap ones and the old ones. Tritons are some of the oldest boats.

I am, as well, a cautious sailor. I have always owned the boats I sail so I care about them. Knowing the limitations of your equipment is a critical component to success in high risk physical endeavors. I feel that the limitations of the Triton are rarely the design nor the initial construction, it is their age, the quality of maintenance, the quality of the upgrades, and the preparation of the boats critical systems and crew that will determine the highest level of safety.

these opinions were brought to you by peet's coffee.

r

[Rachel]

Pardon my nosing into the thread with a tangent, but did you sell Whisper in the end or do you still have her? I get a happy feeling every time I look at her - I really like the look of the round ports, and the interior is so cool.

R.

[Triton106]

Thanks everyone for setting some of the facts straight for me. I am fine with 1/4" laminate as long as they are structurally sound. And if Tim is right (and he usually is) Triton 106 can withstand the structural demand even with its 1/4" skin. The evidence is that after 48 years there are no signs of stress crack in the hull or leaks through the hull/deck joint. It's funny I always thought west coast Tritons (or at least Triton 106) do not have the supporting "rib" (no the right terminology - see picture I stole from Tim's website below) because the laminating schedule is stronger (here is another difference between east and west coast Tritons). Now I am thinking that the next time I redo the forepeak I will add those "ribs".


Fair winds,

[Noah]

Heck, I would be happy with a thinner hull - it's survived just fine till now, and it means you have a lighter boat - which is a good thing - for cruising you can carry more gear, or for just sailing you will be that much faster in all conditions - good stuff.

Each time I pull apart my boat and see how overbuilt certain areas are I cringe. When I drilled for a through hull my hull was over 1" thick of solid glass with a good glass/resin mix.

[Triton106]

That's more of racer's point view. But I am not looking to race my Triton. I am more in the planning for future cruising mode. But to each his/her own. You say tomato, I say tomato (I guess this saying does not work in writing). Maybe we can trade Noah :-)