External ballast Triton -- questions on one I looked at...

[PenokeeBlue]

Hi folks,

I just looked at my first externally ballasted Triton yesterday. There was a lot I liked about the boat, and the price is reasonable, but there were a couple of keel things that might be deal-breakers and I wanted question the group:

The bottom was smooth and fair, and was just repainted by the owner, so I couldn't read much "evidence." I don't think the guy was trying to cover anything up, per se, but is more the type who just used his boat for a back porch and has never sailed it (or his "new" Morgan 34). In fact it has been on stands for years.

I could see a tiny bit of moisture near where the line between the ballast and the hull would be - about a foot or so rearward of the cutaway at the front of the keel. Condensation? Leak? The bilge was clean (and shallow). The whole boat was pretty dry inside. Couldn't see any keelbolts - is this normal?

The scarier thing was a bulge on one side of the keel back in what I believe would be the "false keel" area. Also a 12" long or so, "smile" shaped crack right through the fiberlglass at the bottom by the ground on the same side. Like I could slip my fingernail in there right through. It was forward of the bulge, but must have been aft of the lead.

Now you're probably wondering why I didn't run away, but the decks seemed *not* to need recoring, the topsides were original gelcoat and not crazed. The deck had been painted and had some cracks but not the overall horrible crazing I've seen on some. Also a new mast (boat was dismasted) and probably running A-4.

Also quite clean and dry inside and 99% of bulkhead tabbing looked strong and well-done.

Oh yeah, two maybe-problems inside: the 2" bit of anchor-locker bulkhead at the top outside edge was de-tabbed on each side. Also, is it normal for the main chainplate knees to *not* be attached to the underside of the deck (wondering about dismasting damage).

Gee, I could go on forever here, and I feel like my post is wandering all over the place, but am most curious about the keel, the chainplate knees and the sails. Which brings me to my last question: I believe the sails were all pretty much shot. Any ballpark estimates for a new set of main, jib, genoa? I know that's super-variable, but would love an idea of cost if anyone has purchased recently.

The keel problem kind of bugs me because it's a repair that would have to be done on the hard, possibly necessitating a lift or slings or complicated jacking and blocking.

Okay, end of amorphic blob-style post :-)

--- Rachel

[Tim]

I could see a tiny bit of moisture near where the line between the ballast and the hull would be - about a foot or so rearward of the cutaway at the front of the keel. Condensation? Leak? The bilge was clean (and shallow). The whole boat was pretty dry inside. Couldn't see any keelbolts - is this normal?

This sort of thing is normal on any externally-ballasted boat. The joint between the ballast and the hull is rarely (i.e. never) perfect, and there's always the possibility that some moisture can get in there. Even when the boat is on the hard, regular amounts of condensation and rainwater running down the hull can seep into the tiny joint, only to slowly leak out later on over time.

Without seeing the boat firsthand, I'd say this is normal and not anything significant to worry about.

Triton keelbolts are glassed over on the inside. You should see some bumps in the bilge which indicate their position. How much glass is over the bolts seems to vary from boat to boat, but they're generally detectible. Unless you see a gaping crack between keel and hull, I would not worry.

The scarier thing was a bulge on one side of the keel back in what I believe would be the "false keel" area. Also a 12" long or so, "smile" shaped crack right through the fiberlglass at the bottom by the ground on the same side. Like I could slip my fingernail in there right through. It was forward of the bulge, but must have been aft of the lead

The false keels can have any of myriad problems. This one sounds like something that definitely could happen if some moisture got into the foam core and/or hollow area inside the false keel molding. You didn't say how big the bulged area was, but offhand I wouldn't say it was necessarily a deal-breaker.

One must choose the problems they are willing to accept. Trade a minor, non-structural keel repair for sound decks...or visa versa. The false keel serves no structural purpose to the boat; yes, the rudder is secured to it, but other than that, the whole thing could fall off with no dramatic effects. Therefore, I would place any false keel issues in the "I could be dealing with far worse problems, so this is nothing" category. You should fix the issues, but it's not that big a deal.

Did you get right on the ground and look up at the bottom of the false keel? You might often find longitudinal cracks there, near the centerline, like this one that I had in Glissando:


Even this issue, while requiring repair, is not a deal-breaker, in my opinion. Again: none of these boats is perfect. False keel problems, in the scheme of things, are pretty minor. Repairs are straightforward and effective. I'd be way more concerned about a rotten deck core or some such.

Now you're probably wondering why I didn't run away, but the decks seemed *not* to need recoring, the topsides were original gelcoat and not crazed. The deck had been painted and had some cracks but not the overall horrible crazing I've seen on some. Also a new mast (boat was dismasted) and probably running A-4.

If the decks are truly sound, you're ahead of the game. It's a rarity, unless repairs have already been effected, so be sure to confirm or refute their condition before purchase.

The new mast should be a plus, and since you never know about engines, a decent A4 keeps things even, or better.

Oh yeah, two maybe-problems inside: the 2" bit of anchor-locker bulkhead at the top outside edge was de-tabbed on each side. Also, is it normal for the main chainplate knees to *not* be attached to the underside of the deck (wondering about dismasting damage).

As I remember, the chainplate knees are not tabbed to the deck--completely normal.

The anchor locker tabbing--nothing to worry about. The top ends of the tabbing on the bulkhead tend to be sloppy anyway, at best. Repairs are easy.

Which brings me to my last question: I believe the sails were all pretty much shot. Any ballpark estimates for a new set of main, jib, genoa? I know that's super-variable, but would love an idea of cost if anyone has purchased recently.

Obviously the prices vary depending on options, quality, and location, but expect to pay in the $1500 +/- neighborhood for a genoa and $1500-$2000 for a mainsail.

The keel problem kind of bugs me because it's a repair that would have to be done on the hard, possibly necessitating a lift or slings or complicated jacking and blocking.

If you need to have the boat moved, just be sure to block only beneath the ballast, and to block high enough to give you room to work (about 8-12" off the ground is fine). Repairs to the keel should be pretty easy, and shouldn't require any special equipment or talent. Here's how I did mine.

http://www.triton381.com/projects/resto ... sekeel.htm

Good luck, and I hope this is "The One"!

[PenokeeBlue]

Hi Tim (and others reading)

Thanks for the post back and so soon (I'd only checked the forum about 15 times after I posted (obsessively), so that's not bad :-) :-)

Thanks for the perspective on the false keel issue. I couldn't look at the bottom of it because the boat is only about 3" off the ground. I did a little poking around on the National Triton Assoc site and saw yours and others' contributions there, too, which also helped. The boat's up north, so I suppose the original foam could have soaked up water, then frozen and bulged the keel, then stayed that way (?) I could see a number of lines in the paint there too, even though the paint is relatively new.

Here's why I say the decks were okay. Not to say great, but not horrible. The previous, previous owner had drilled 1/2" holes in the underside of the deck in the V-berth and the lockers (not in the main saloon 'cause of the liner), so I could get my finger in to scrape at the core in these areas. It wasn't soggy, that I could tell. I could scrape some out fairly easily with my fingernail (also dryish), but I was wondering if "new" core would be that friable, or if that means it may have been dampish in the past and has now dried but reamained a bit weaker. I re-cored the decks in my Monty with marine plywood (on hand), so I've never felt "shiny new" balsa core.

The current owner said the PO drilled the holes there to "let the core breathe." Okay... sounds a bit weird to me, but okay.

Your point is well taken on Triton flaws; in my price range it's a matter of which flaws do I want :-) Since I'm looking to live aboard, the fact that the interior was "pleasant" and sort of liveable might win out over good sails, at least for now. Although I hope not to be a "never leaves the dock" kind of liveaboard - I figure, if you're going to do that, you might as well have the spaciousness of a powerboat.

I have a mast and an A-4 question too, but I'll create a new topic for those.

More facts and opinions always welcome! Anyone want to weigh in on externally ballasted vs. internally ballasted (all other factors being equal for the sake of discussion)?

Thanks so much --- Rachel

[Tim]

The current owner said the PO drilled the holes there to "let the core breathe." Okay... sounds a bit weird to me, but okay.

In other words, he had reason to believe there was moisture in the core, and opened the inner skin to allow said moisture to drain out, or ostensibly to allow air to circulate. This can be effective at drying somewhat damp core; once wet-but-dried core can be perfectly fine for continued use, as long as the wood retains its original structure, more or less. Brand new balsa is definitely firmer, but if what's there is generally firm and sound, and well bonded to the skins, then it should be OK.

...the fact that the interior was "pleasant" and sort of liveable might win out over good sails...

You can get new sails anytime, and new sails are less work (and less incovenience) than rebuilding an interior. Your reasoning seems sound!

Anyone want to weigh in on externally ballasted vs. internally ballasted (all other factors being equal for the sake of discussion)?

I prefer external ballast--you can see what you've got, and it's easy to maintain. It's well proven, and the oft-seen bleating on some message boards about it being somehow less safe or whatever is misinformed, unless you're talking about modern race boats with their razor-thin keel foils and small bolting area.

Internal ballast is fine, but problems can arise if (when?) moisture gets into the cavity. This is pretty common, but rarely causes serious issues.

I wouldn't let the internal vs. external issue color your preceptions about any boat, ever. It's an invisible and insignificant difference that has no overall bearing on the boat in general. I would have bought either kind, depending on what the situation was; it so happened I ended up with external. Take each boat on its overall merits (or lack thereof).

[Penokeeblue]

Tim,

Thanks for the extra comments on the external ballast. I had been avoiding looking at earlier Tritons because the whole idea of keel bolts and false keels worried me. The owner actually thought this was a late 1960s boat, but when I queried him it turned out to be older; of course by then I was already looking at it :-)

I wonder when they switched from the side-opening cockpit lockers to the top-opening ones. This 1961 had the top-opening ones - I had thought they didn't come in until later, but was obviously wrong. That was something I did *really* want - those top opening lids.

--- Rachel

[Tim]

Any idea of a hull number on this boat?

I'm not sure when they switched to the top-opening lids, but all that matters is that yours has them! Those other ones are the worst, and rank right up there with that short bus-conceived fuel tank location.

[PenokeeBlue]

Hi Tim,

Reportedly, hull #295. At least, this is the number that was on the sails (main and jib). The builders plate at the rear of the cockpit was gone, and I looked all around the mast beam but found nothing (beam had been added to). The owner said it was a 1961, not sure what evidence he has. There was a plaque in the boat that looked to have been given to the owner, but not necessarily when the boat was new. It was dated '63

--- Rachel (maybe giving in on ballast but holding firm on locker lids :-)

[Tim]

Ultimately, the year is unimportant--the hull number is more important overall. No one seems to know exactly what hull number comes from what year, etc. My boat was advertised as a 1967, showing how far off people can be. I extrapolated from several hull numbers to make a best guess that mine is a 1963. #295 could be a 1962, 1962, or 1963, for all I know. Offhand, I'd say 1962 rather than '61, but it doesn't really matter that much.

I've never found a hull number on my boat anywhere but the builder's place, which happened to come along with the boat. The sail I got with the boat fortunately matched the number on the plate. But I have never seen a number elsewhere on the boat or in the interior either.

[Figment]

My hull number is carved into the forward face of the mast support beam.
Another triton I visited during my hunt had this as well, though obscured by 40 years of paint.

I've also come across the hull number in a few odd places like the backsides of drawers and hatches.

[windrose]

Ditto, in gutting the interior of my Triton #215, I found the hull number on the backs of the seatees, on the plywood that had been faced over with the "lovely" wood grain formica, even on the inside of the engine cover, bottoms/backs of drawers, etc. Looked like they had been cut in assembly line fashion and these were all the parts for old 215.