Adding more ballast to Triton

[Triton106]

I think the common feedback I hear about Triton and other similarly designed CCA era boats is that they are tender. While one can debate if that is true or not, or being tender is a virtue or not my preference is to make mine stiffer by adding additional ballast. From the National Triton website I learned that the standard (if there is such a thing) west coast Triton ballast is 3000 lbs and the total displacement is approximately 7400 lbs giving it a B/D ratio of 40.5%. I learned from another west coast Triton owner Rob Squire that three west coast Tritons received additional 1500 lbs of ballast giving them a B/D ratio of 50% and that they are considerablly stiffer.

I plan to add approximately 300 lbs of additional ballast in where the existing internal water tank is but I am not certain if adding it there will upset the balance of the boat. If I need to distribute the additional ballast elsewhere to maintain the balance how do I go about doing it? Additional considerations are: (1) I plan to convert the existing internal water tank into an storage area for a stainless steel water tank to improve the quality of drinking water, and (2) I plan to add a bow tank to supplement the water storage capacity. Obviously adding these two tanks will also change the balance of the boat and add to the total weight of the ballast.

The following is an conceptual drawing of what the plan looks like. Please note that there are some material differences between east and west coast Triton ballast locations and shapes. Where the east coast Tritons are ballasted just like the way Alberg drew it the west coast Tritons seem to have a slightly different design (not sure for what reason).

Any comments, prior experience, and ideas will be much appreciated.



Here is what a east coast Triton ballast look like (from Tim's log of the on-going work on Circe).



Here is what a west coast Triton ballast look like (from Ray Alsup's boat Pegasus).

[Case]

In the past, I thought about adding more ballast so to stiffen my sailboat...

Then I discovered something note-worthy... my sailboat went faster as soon I reefed earlier! Had less weather helm, too. Less water spray. Less heel. The boat even felt "happier", as weird that sounds.

In the end, at least for my Sea Sprite 23, adding more ballast would have just slowed it down in light airs. And would have had no real performance benefits at all for heavier winds. Although the Sea Sprite 23 is a smaller Alberg sailboat with a much higher SA/D, the design is similar enough that I do think my observations may apply to the Triton: Reef earlier.

I might be wrong but I do not think adding another 300 LBS of ballast will make a truly dramatic difference because the Triton is after all, a narrow sailboat with slack bilges and a tall stick. Best to just reef earlier and save your money on other more important things like new sails or more money for a longer trip out there. Its your call, of course...

EDIT: Just noted that you're in San Francisco. In that case, I can understand about adding more ballast. However, if a long distance cruise to other parts are planned, be aware that more ballast may slow you down in light airs...

- Case

[Henk]

I added about 700 lbs to our 1963 Islander 32. Just filled the old water tank in the keel with washed gravel... I can't say that I notice much of a difference. These designs will be tender initially no matter how much ballast you add. Only when you heel say past 25-30 degrees will the extra ballast come into play. But by then you should have reefed anyway. Having said that, I do feel more secure with the added ballast down low. Just a psychological thing I guess.

[Tim]

Don't add ballast. The "tenderness" comes from the hull form and extra weight will just be luggage: the boat will never be "stiff" (defining "stiff" as heeling less, not more, in all wind conditions). It's a small, narrow boat with a hull design that lacks significant initial form stability (though the same hull shape is also inherently stable at relatively minimal angles of heel--30°).

You'll easily add 1500lb or more in cruising gear and stores if you proceed with your trip anyway.

A water tank is a better use of your keel space--handy, out of the way, and has the added bonus of adding the extra weight of a critical stores item in a non-detrimental location.

Focus on those things you can to do truly improve the boat for your own use, and accept the myriad features of the boat's inherent design that you cannot change. They are what the boat is, for better or worse.

[galleywench]

Don't add ballast. .

I agree. A few years ago I experimented with additional ballast on my Alberg 35 (similar hull form). I messed around with about 600 pounds of lead (in 50 pound ingots) over one summer, moving it to various locations in the bilge and trying it on different points of sail. The only time I noticed it was when I stepped on board, it seemed to rock a little less. Otherwise, I don't believe it had any effect on the tenderness under sail, but it certainly had an effect on sailing performance. Not so much on top end speed, but I really noticed it when tacking in light air; it just felt sluggish when coming around. I still have about 200 pounds aboard, but that is located in the forward part of the bilge and is used strictly as trim ballast (Albergs tend to squat a bit).

[Robert The Gray]

The only reason to make a Triton any heavier would be to. .......well I really can't see a reason. If you have four or five adults in the cockpit then adding a counterbalancing trim ballast makes sense otherwise the boat is what it is. Winds of 25 + knots are always hectic on a small boat and, and water over the copings can be a part of sailing a boat of this style but, good sails of the right tension and size, good ongoing trim of the sheets., and good helmsmanship are what will make the boat perform it's best.

r

[Triton106]

Thanks everyone for your comments. It appears that the opinion is unanimous - adding ballast does not stiffen Tritons (or similar designs) noticablly and slows them down in light air.

I just want to explore this topic a bit more, not because I don't believe the comments. Look, since my boat is not in sailing condition and most you guys on the east coast already hauled your boats out what else can we do other than talk about sailing, right?

Ted Brewer wrote a very good article in Good Old Boat magazine on boat stability where he clearly explained why certain designs are naturally tender (speaking of form stability) and what can be done to stiffen the boats. He said, quote -

Obviously, the yachts with great form stability can perform well with a lower ballast ratio, at least until they get into extreme conditions. In any case, if you feel that your boat's stability needs to be enhanced there is only one way to do it. You cannot change her hull shape (unless you are very wealthy or very handy) so the solution is weight; add ballast as low as possible, reduce weight aloft in the rig and on deck, get rid of that library of ponderous yachting tomes, and move weights such as heavy batteries, machinery, tanks, anchor chain, and so forth lower in the hull. You'll be rewarded with added performance all around.

Here is the link to the GOB website for the full article (http://www.boatus.com/goodoldboat/stability.asp). In the same article he also indicated that for keel cruiser-racer type (which I believe Triton belongs to) the ballast ratio ranges from 38% to 45%. Using Triton's data of 3000 lb ballast and 7400 lb gross weight (without the gears) the ballast ratio is 40% which is at the lower end of the range. If we add 300 lb more ballast then the ratio is increased to 43% which is at the high end of the range. It would seem to me that it should make a difference but the experience from the feedback here is that it does not. Obviously experience always beats theory which is why I asked this question in the first place. I wonder if there are anyone who can explain why the theory does not work here.

[Tim]

...experience always beats theory...

No more really need be said: I'm not much on theory and number crunching.

I'll say a few more things anyway.

In using that article snippet (I didn't follow the link to read the whole thing) to help support your proposed changes, you're confusing "stability" with the boat's inclination to heel to a certain point. I believe Tritons are inherently very stable. Their ultimate stability happens to be reached at higher angles of heel than some boats, but overall they are extremely stable, whether they heel more than modern designs at normal wind speeds or not. This isn't a function of stability or weight: it's the nature of the hull form. All boats of this wineglass nature heel more easily than a frying pan-shaped boat would.

"Tenderness" is a negative term that I don't really feel properly describes a Triton or similar CCA boats. Tenderness connotes a boat that is underballasted, inherently less stable than it could be, and overcanvased given its weight or inherent stability. I don't believe any of these apply to a Triton.

Tritons and boats of similar form heel more than wider, flatter-sectioned boats, which is most noticeable under the conditions we normally sail in. But once they reach a certain angle of heel, they stiffen up considerably. It's the geometrics of the boat and it can't be explained with a few silly numbers and generalizations.

You can certainly add ballast if you want, and it probably won't have a horribly negative effect, but I don't think it's going to make much, if any, of a positive difference the way you hope. The boat is probably still going to heel to 20 degrees with ease, like they do, and will still stiffen up at that point. The boat will still require reefing by 15 knots or so. It's just how the boat is.

PPI (pounds per inch immersion) for a Triton is something around 700-800 lb, as I recall. So your proposed ballast, not including all the other weight that might end up on the boat someday, would lower the boat's waterline by roughly 1/2". That's a lot more wetted surface to push around all the time, and this is the sort of thing that is noticeable under real-world conditions that you're likely to experience. The boat doesn't need "help" to become heavier, it's more of a fight as time goes on to keep excess weight off the boat.

If you're not used to and accepting of the way the boat heels and sails in regular conditions, I'd suggest you become comfortable with it before considering this platform for your ultimate dreams, else you may be unhappy and disappointed later on.

[Duncan]

...Using Triton's data of 3000 lb ballast and 7400 lb gross weight (without the gears) the ballast ratio is 40% which is at the lower end of the range...

My (Alberg-designed) Cape Dory 27 has the same displacement and ballast figures as the Triton (actually, most of the specs are very similar). I've never heard the CD 27 described as "tender", and I certainly wouldn't. The Triton has 6" more draft, so it should have an even higher righting moment, based on the ballast being a bit deeper in the keel.

Alberg's designs are already heavy, and have conservative sail plans, so making a Triton heavier seems like second-guessing the design in the wrong direction.

The key to keeping the boat on its' feet as the wind picks up is to reduce power. Flattening the main, reefing it, and going to the working jib would be the way to stay balanced (and fast) as the wind picks up. If the rail is under, it's time to trim or reduce sail. The boat will thank you for it right away by speeding up and sailing more easily.

Another interesting point of comparison is the fact that the Cape Dory 28 is substantially heavier than the 27 (9000 lbs. vs 7500). Alberg designed the lighter 27 after the heavier 28, and many people would say that the 27 is faster and more fun to sail.

I guess one way to look at things is that once you've got a heavy boat, you can't lighten it, but you can always trim or reduce sail.

[galleywench]

In using that article snippet (I didn't follow the link to read the whole thing) to help support your proposed changes, you're confusing "stability" with the boat's inclination to heel to a certain point. I believe Tritons are inherently very stable. Their ultimate stability happens to be reached at higher angles of heel than some boats, but overall they are extremely stable, whether they heel more than modern designs at normal wind speeds or not. This isn't a function of stability or weight: it's the nature of the hull form. All boats of this wineglass nature heel more easily than a frying pan-shaped boat would.

Tritons and boats of similar form heel more than wider, flatter-sectioned boats, which is most noticeable under the conditions we normally sail in. But once they reach a certain angle of heel, they stiffen up considerably. It's the geometrics of the boat and it can't be explained with a few silly numbers and generalizations.

Very true. Before I bought my Alberg, I owned an Endeavour 33 which has a very different hull form than the classic CCA boats like the Triton and Alberg. It had a very flat hull, spade rudder, bolt on keel, high aspect rig, and was almost 2 feet wider than my current Alberg (11.5' vs. 9.7'). As a result, it was a rock initially and it took a fair amount of wind to get the boat over 15 degrees heel. After that however it did not feel balanced and performance began to suffer. At that point the boat would get very 'tender' and would go from 15 to 30 degrees of heel very quickly (almost frighteningly so). More than 15 degrees of heel on this boat was work to keep the boat happy.

Contrast that with my Alberg 35 which has a very linear rate of heel up to 20 - 25 degrees and then stiffens up considerably. At that point, the boat seems to be in the 'groove' and will balance extremely well. The long overhangs come into play and increase waterline length (and consequently speed). I think it is my boat's best angle of sail (I'm sure someone will produce numbers to the contrary, but it sure feels fast).

[Bluenose]

Of course anytime that you add weight to the hull, especially in the form of low additional ballast, you will increase the loads on the rigging. And up-sizing the rig is working on the other side of the stability teeter-toter.

Add my vote to the side of keep the boat light, the weight down low and reduce sail as needed. It is just the nature of skinny boats that they use heel angle to balance the sail loads.

Bill

(Who is spoiled by his 67% ballast ratio)

[Triton106]

Thanks everyone for your comments. It's very educational.
Here are some of my takeaways from this discussion, not in any particular order.

(Who is spoiled by his 67% ballast ratio - [referring to his Shields])

I did not know B/D ratio can go that high, and looking at some Shields sailing photos they still heel over. I think that proves the comments from many here that adding ballast does not add to form stability. As Ted Brewer said you cannot change form (unless you are very wealthy or very handy).

Very true. Before I bought my Alberg, I owned an Endeavour 33 which has a very different hull form than the classic CCA boats like the Triton and Alberg. It had a very flat hull, spade rudder, bolt on keel, high aspect rig, and was almost 2 feet wider than my current Alberg (11.5' vs. 9.7'). As a result, it was a rock initially and it took a fair amount of wind to get the boat over 15 degrees heel. After that however it did not feel balanced and performance began to suffer. At that point the boat would get very 'tender' and would go from 15 to 30 degrees of heel very quickly (almost frighteningly so). More than 15 degrees of heel on this boat was work to keep the boat happy.

Again, I did not know about the stability issue of flatter bottom boats when it heels over passed certain threshold. Glad to have my Triton that has a relative linear heeling angle depending on the wind strength.

PPI (pounds per inch immersion) for a Triton is something around 700-800 lb, as I recall. So your proposed ballast, not including all the other weight that might end up on the boat someday, would lower the boat's waterline by roughly 1/2". That's a lot more wetted surface to push around all the time, and this is the sort of thing that is noticeable under real-world conditions that you're likely to experience. The boat doesn't need "help" to become heavier, it's more of a fight as time goes on to keep excess weight off the boat.

Yikes, I did not know that. To think I will easily add another 1000lb of cruising gear (two water tanks totaling 50 gal, three batteries, outboard engine, 20 gal of fuel, three anchors, 200 feet of chain rode, and god knows what else) I can see the water line moving up a couple of inches.

If you're not used to and accepting of the way the boat heels and sails in regular conditions, I'd suggest you become comfortable with it before considering this platform for your ultimate dreams, else you may be unhappy and disappointed later on.

Love my Triton, but that does not preclude me from searching for ideas to improve her. All things considered (construction, price, looks, forgiveness, other Triton owners, etc...) it is hard to beat.

Thanks again for steering me in the right direction...

[Bluenose]

(Who is spoiled by his 67% ballast ratio - [referring to his Shields])

I did not know B/D ratio can go that high, and looking at some Shields sailing photos they still heel over.

The Shields have 3080 pounds of ballast on 4600 pounds of displacement and yes they still heel.



I say embrace the heel within. After all, you are in good company.

[Shoalcove]

Hi Ray, I agree with Tim and the others that you will not change the initial stability of your Triton by adding ballast. I do think that you can affect it's sailing performance and perhaps it's ultimate stability by judicious placement of the tanks, batteries and other assorted heavy gear. If you follow Tims advice to place gear low and out of the ends of the boat it will sail better and bring the boats center of gravity lower. That's a good thing. I've being trying to do this with my boat as well. Moving stuff to better locations can help performance without adding dead weight. IMO, there is enough stuff to buy and plenty to load it down without buying stuff just to load it down (grin)!
Best regards, David

[Triton106]

I appreciate everyone's input. One additoinal thought on the placement of batteries in the bilge - I have always thought that is a great location for them but another school of thought believes that if the cabin is flooded that is when you need the batteries to pump the water out. If the batteries are placed in the bilge the risk of them getting shorted out (in theory) is very high. Circe's battery placement is very interesting, Tim placed it slightly above the bottom of the bilge and separate from the bilge. This way even if the bilge is flooded the batteries most likely won't short out unless the water flood above the floor board level. What are your thoughts?

Tim wrote: Note that I left a gap at the forward end to promote natural drainage of the forward portion of the bilge beneath the platform.

[Tim]

If one is relying on batteries to emergency-pump any boat, then a mistake has been made in safety preparation: manual pumps should always be the crisis pump of choice. Electric pumps are for convenience only, not for crisis management.

What you don't see in the pictures above is that the bilge slopes down deeply beneath that platform, so it's not just slightly above and separate from the bottom of the bilge: the platform is actually about 2-3 feet above the bottom of the keel sump (which sump is also long and quite wide, so it's highly volumetric). The gap at the forward end of this platform, which nearly abuts the higher portion of the bilge above the molded-in ballast in this boat, is there to allow normal nuisance water to flow unimpeded into the deep sump at the aft end of the keel.

Catastrophic water in bilges occasionally happens on offshore boats in extreme conditions, though there are almost always (if not always) extenuating factors that contributed to the occurrence, factors which might have been avoided had a different decision been made somewhere along the line.

Any other time bilges fill to that sort of level is simply from neglect and/or ignorance, so I've never been one to worry about this particular scenario, especially in boats intended only for coastal use. What someone does in preparation for a known offshore passage is up to them, and certainly there are different considerations to address, none of which, to me, completely or necessarily precludes the use of bilge-mounted batteries.

I'd personally say that I wouldn't hesitate to put batteries in this sort of location on any boat of my own, if it were the best location for other reasons (which it often turns out to be), and that the actual risks involved are quite small if the installation and seamanship are smart. I'd rather direct my attention to keeping the water out of the boat in the first place, whatever the supposed scenario. There wasn't, and isn't, room in Glissando's bilges (the earlier-model Triton "shallow" bilge) for batteries, else I might have put them there myself.

I do believe that batteries should always be separate from normal nuisance water, so any bilge should be deep enough, and the battery storage designed, to allow passage of that water beneath or around as needed.

As with all varying schools of thought, each individual must decide which school they belong to and then make their own intelligent decisions from there, because there will never be enough evidence or fact to clearly point to the "right" decision otherwise. Understanding and believing in the reasons for choosing one route or the other is the key to becoming comfortable with your own decision and position.

[Triton106]

Tim, thank you for a very thoughtful response (as usual). Bilge is indeed a great place for the batteries. When I spoke with Ray Alsup about the built in water tank in the west coast Tritons he had actually already converted his into a battery storage locaiton. As you know I am also thinking of using the bilge as the storage for the water tank. I will probably not decide until I open up the sole and take more measure of my own before deciding what to do next.

[avd155]

I didn't notice anyone mentioning the nature of the ballast in question: water. Triton106's design benefits from the fact that ballast can be modified by simply pumping in or out water. I'm not sure about how Triton106 sails, but I plan to do a lot of weekend sailing and then when I'm ready for a longer trip, the water tank is there for that. In other words, this tank doesn't usually need to be full, especially if he decides that the boat suffers some performance loss when the bilge tank is full.

I also was interested in the discussion about the batteries in the bilge and after hearing Tim give his reasons, it seems like a very good idea to place them there instead of on platforms below the cockpit, but then where does the extra water storage go when you need it...in the sea lockers?

[Tim]

In any boat, but particularly a small boat, it's always a balancing act and series of compromises to fit in every necessity that exists in one's own particular case. It's all about setting priorities, and then making everything else work around whatever is the most important.

There's no single right answer. One must balance their own priorities and move forward in that direction while making the other installations fit in around whatever was deemed most important in the battle for the minimal spaces available on board.

[sail_fix]

I may have missed this point while cruising thru all the great replies... but since the thrust of the pro and con was on changing the B/D ratio by adding more ballast, it seems like some thought should go into the other "side" of the balance equation -- all that weight aloft.
Remember that the lead keel hat is 4 or 5 feet under the surface is firstly balancing out the weight of everything above the DWL (admittedly the tenderness you notice when stepping on the rail or the initial heel to about 15% is mostly going to stay the same due to hull form). The rest of the ballast is for wind pressure.

So, as to heeling as a function of wind pressure, there is another way to up that ratio...

If you have major $$$, cut out half the rig weight with a new carbon spar. Well, OK, too spendy for most (all?) of us.

Next, and way down the cost list, is to change out all those wire/rope halyards to more modern composite line. I did this on our boat when I found some meathooks in the old wires. The difference in weight between a coil of the old wire/rope and a coil of the new T900 was near-amazing. I did not do precise weights, but a conservative estimate is that I moved 30# off the rig, and that's an average height of 25' off the water. I figure that is equal to a serious lead "shoe" that was not added to bottom of our 6' keel. Not everyone will have four halyards like my boat, and the two runners I also replaced with line.... but still...

So, all I am saying is that the ratio can be viewed from what's a few feet under the surface or... what's tens of feet above.

New Years Greetings,
LB

ps: great advice about reefing, btw. I do try harder, as the years go by, to quit blaming my boat for my lack of proper sail trim! :)