# Pearson 26 Ariel thoughts



## BillBadAss (Mar 31, 2016)

Hi all, just joined the forum last week and beginning my search for my first sailboat. Right now I found a freshwater 26 Ariel with a newer (at least 2013 as this was the first year the motor was produced) 9.9 evinrude 4 stroke, no trailer, has all rigging and ready to sail, not sure of the sails age, has new head system, and good bottom paint. I was originally leaning toward buying a marina repo or something of the likes and fixing it up, but i found this that I could trade a car and bike for which is about 5k in value, is that a fair price? NADA had it valued at 6 but I don't necessarily believe what it says. I read this is referred to as a "great boat for its time" how will it hold up today? My budget isn't super high, and I do want something thats at least a 26. I'm still planning to go check out what some marina's have available this next weekend, just wanting to see if this would be a good option as well. Thanks all!


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

I have a Bristol 27, which is almost a sister-ship to the Ariel. All the Alberg boats of this size are very similar to each other. They tend to be tender for about 15-20 degrees, then stiffen up. I liked mine. If you have a choice, get a boat with an inboard engine. Outboard engines are hard to keep in the water in a big chop. Having it in a well helps some. The value of any boat depends a lot more on condition than it does on age, or who made the boat. If it is, indeed, in sail-away condition $5k seems reasonable. I think there is another one for sale in Chicago (Nautical Donations, where I got mine) for around $3500.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

If it is a Person Ariel it is likely from the 1960's era as my Tartan 27' is (1967). I happen to be quite fond of the look of those older designs; very salty or shippy looking. 
Boats of this age often can have issues with soft decks from Balsa core being wet for years and/or Chainplate issues. Walk all over the decks checking for soft spots and inspect where the chain plates enter the cabin and how they are secured/anchored. If you see any discoloring around the chainplates inside the cabin then they may need re-doing. 

5K sounds like the top price for this boat (to me) unless it is in pristine condition (which is pretty much guaranteed it is not because of it's ~ 50 years). I'd offer $3.5K for it to start the negotiating if it passes your inspection.

Look closely at the sails. If they are not stiff at all it will cost at least $2K to get new ones. Everything that may need to be fixed should be a bargaining chip for you.

Good luck.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I know the Ariel's quite well. They were not great boats when new. Build quality was mediocre and they really were not great sailors. I often use them as an example of how boat designs of a given era could vary very widely in sailing ability and construction quality by comparing the Ariel to the Tartan 27, which was a better built and better sailing boat in all ways. The Tartan 27 is a roomer boat with a lot more storage and much more useful interior layout. The Tartan is much faster and more seaworthy, and has a much nicer motion. The Tartan 27 can be adjusted to steer herself where as the Ariel does not track well at all and so is more tiring and less fun to steer. You can buy both for around the same price, which all other things being equal makes the Tartan a much better choice in all ways. 

I also agree with the others, that if this boat is in really nice shape, an outboard (rather than inboard) Ariel is worth maybe $3,000-$3500, but if the interior is past its 'use by date', and/or sails are shot, dubious standing rigging, sun rotted running rigging, and/or the engine is dormant, and so on, this boat could easily have a negative financial value. 

But more to the point, boats are pretty common in this segment of the market. You can often get them for nearly free or at a minimal price. The costs to put a poorly maintained one into shape will be similar and make the purchase price seem like a bargain, whether the design was a good one and the boat well constructed, or the boat was trash to begin with. Because of that, if you are going to take on one of these old girls, at least try to get one that began life as the best design, best constructed boat that you can find, which getting to the point means, you should be able to do much better than an Ariel. 

Jeff


----------



## BillBadAss (Mar 31, 2016)

I haven't seen the boat yet, going to look this week and can post some pictures of it. Im not really interested in this one unless it is in pristine condition which I'm lead to believe its atleast in above average. About the inboard...When would I be using my motor in chop is my other question?? I genuinely do not know since I am new, I had never thought about this, I'd only been thinking about entering the channel into the harbor and docking, this could bring about a really good point, I'd prefer to find something with a diesel inboard as it is, I like diesel fuel a lot. I had an inflatable achillies that constantly porpoised in any type of chop above idle speed, had a short shaft and needed a long shaft, it was an incredibly irritating problem so I see where it would not be preferred.


----------



## CJT (Jan 31, 2016)

I think Jeff got it right... good advice.
Would disagree with Barguito's comment regarding the importance of an inboard on an Ariel or any boat that size but there are plenty who would agree I am sure. Having said that I know Erie can work up a vicious short sea if someone across the way in Canada sneezes so he may have a point. I could also see a greater need in areas where there is a strong tidal influence. Another consideration might be be that on an Ariel the convenience of an inboard might be compromised by a lack of space to properly tend to a diesel.
On my Columbia Challenger I had an aft outboard well in a lazarette that was modified to allow the engine to be tilted up out of the water. It was an 8 hp long shaft and it would come out in a good chop but I VERY seldom used it in those conditions. Only ever needed it to get out of the marina and that only because the fairway heading out was wind on the nose and a little too tight for easy short tacking. Always sailed it back into the slip. One of the great virtues of having a smaller, easily maneuverd boat.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

You can count on there being chop even on the calmest days; wakes from other passing boats will bring even a long-shaft outboard's prop out of the water. On my boat, the outboard prop cavitates when I make a very sharp turn. That being said, outboard engines have their advantages: they are cheaper and easier to maintain or replace, they provide a lot of bang for the buck, and in some instances (when mounted on the transom) allow for amazing maneuverability. 

On the Ariel in general: Like all Alberg boats, they are very pretty. Not particularly good sailers, but very nice to look at. However, I always thought the Ariel was an inferior model: not as big as the Triton, but not so much smaller as to gain much of the advantages of being smaller than the Triton (less maintenance, lower costs). In my mind, just a smaller, more cramped version of the Triton. However, the Commander version of the Ariel hull makes sense to me. Chopping off most of the cramped cabin (which no one today would use for much cruising anyway) in favor of a really big cockpit makes the Commander well suited for daysailing. You still have all of the issues of the boats being about 50 years old at this point and not a great sailer to begin with, but at least you will be comfortable and looking fine while going slowly! 

Unless the boat has been painted, don't expect much in the way of finish; the gelcoat is most likely shot by now. It's a good bet that the ports leak, the deck hardware needs rebedding the sails are baggy, the deck has delaminated and the rigging needs replacement. However, there's always a chance that you will find that rarity where the owner has taken care of all of those things for you. Good luck!


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

I have sailed an Ariel, and unlike Jeff, I found it to be well built and tracked very well as is typical of a long keeled boat.

I also disagree about the inboard motor being better on the Ariel. An outboard in a well is much nicer for a long keel small boat like this - it has the advantage of being able to be turned in the well acting as a "stern thruster", and makes backing out of a slip a simple matter which is otherwise difficult with long keels. In a well, the outboard is low enough that it shouldn't cavitate, and is more than enough to power a small sailboat. Furthermore, maintainence of an outboard is much simpler than on a 45 yo inboard, and in the extreme, repowering is simple and relatively inexpensive - truly one of the benefits of a having a smaller sailboat - at 30' upward you are stuck with an inboard.


----------



## BillBadAss (Mar 31, 2016)

Lazerbrains said:


> I have sailed an Ariel, and unlike Jeff, I found it to be well built and tracked very well as is typical of a long keeled boat.
> 
> I also disagree about the inboard motor being better on the Ariel. An outboard in a well is much nicer for a long keel small boat like this - it has the advantage of being able to be turned in the well acting as a "stern thruster", and makes backing out of a slip a simple matter which is otherwise difficult with long keels. In a well, the outboard is low enough that it shouldn't cavitate, and is more than enough to power a small sailboat. Furthermore, maintainence of an outboard is much simpler than on a 45 yo inboard, and in the extreme, repowering is simple and relatively inexpensive - truly one of the benefits of a having a smaller sailboat - at 30' upward you are stuck with an inboard.


Could you tell me more about your experience? How did it handle the water? I've had 4 boats with outboards, I love them for the simplicity and cheapness, but I do see where there'd be a benefit of an inboard, for instance, (and possibly most notable for me) no one is at risk of getting hit on my prop at the beach which is something I've always really worried about with a big outboard hanging off the back of any boat.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am not 100% certain that I would recommend an Ariel with an inboard vs an outboard as being more preferable, but Ariels with inboards are more valuable since the factory inboard is a particularly reliable engine with comparatively inexpensive parts, and the factory installed outboard (in an outboard well) pretty much eliminates the majority of advantages cited by Lazerbrains. The outboard well on an Ariel made access to the outboard very inconvenient, limits the size of the engine, and there was almost no ability to rotate the engine to assist with steering. 

An outboard in a well tends to remain in the water more than a transom bracket hung outboard, especially when motor-sailing. But in the case of the Ariel, especially outboard versions which have the added weight of an outboard and its tank that far aft, Ariels tend to be particularly prone to pitching, and so will lift the propeller close enough to the surface to cause them to race when in a steep chop or powerboat wake. 

The biggest problem with outboards in a well, is the the fact that they cannot be tilted up out of the water. This leaves the dilemma of either leaving them in the water and living with the increased drag of the lower unit and a shorter engine life, or else removing them when you come in or making a long passage. Removing the considerably heavier four-stroke outboards that are currently popular is not a reasonable option. But using the smaller lighter (typically 4 hp or less) two-stroke engines that this boat was designed for, limits the functionality of the engine since those engines typically lacked starter motors or generators. 

And all of that said, Ariels are a really poor choice for a venue which is known for a short chop. 

Jeff


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Well, there's transom hung outboards and outboards in wells, and then there's inboards.

In my limited experience, transom hung outboards are the worst. To mount them low enough to keep the leg in the water, they can be difficult to reach and operate and they *still* like to get the prop out of the water.

I owned a Coronado 25 with an outboard well that came with a Honda 9.9 (which really was overkill) with a regular length leg, and even in Chesapeake chop, it *never* cavitated.
The well brings the engine prop inboard a bit, and gets the engine down lower.

Then of course, there are inboards. The prop is at the lowest point and is much farther inboard than any outboard but you then don't have the luxury of just lifting the engine off the boat for repairs or replacement.

JeffH is a very knowledgeable sailor with years of experience, but he has very refined tastes. 
I would agree that the Tartan 27 is a better boat, but the Ariel isn't a hateful boat. I think it would be enjoyable if it were in great condition and you took the time to learn its characteristics.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Completely agree with Ajax_MD re: transom hung outboards. I don't care for that configuration one bit - difficult if not dangerous to try to get to the motor controls, and the motor easily cavitates. 

Inboard in a well with a long shaft on a 26 foot - I love that configuration. 

As for the "increased drag" of leaving an inboard in the well - on my current boat I have measured speed with engine in and out of well, and the difference in speed is 1/4 knot according to my instruments. On an inboard, unless you have a folding prop you will get 1/2 knot speed loss, as was proven by Yachting Monthly's tests last year.

Also, Jeff is incorrect about fitment of a modern 4 stroke in the Ariel well. In the boat I sailed on, we had a Tohatsu 6hp long shaft 4 stroke. Great motor for the Ariel, kept the boat at hull speed, did not cavitate in the chop, and was easy to rotate (and access) in the motor well. I have the same motor in my own boat, and at 55 pounds, it is easy to lift out of the well when you need to. If you get one, make sure to get the high thrust prop if it doesn't already have it.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Lazerbrains said:


> Completely agree with Ajax_MD re: transom hung outboards. I don't care for that configuration one bit difficult if not dangerous to try to get to the motor controls, and the motor easily cavitates.


The suitability of the transom-hung outboard configuration depends completely on the design of the boat and the engine. On my Oday 23, the outboard is transom mounted; with the engine fully extended into the water, the throttle is still easy to reach. I'm not wild about the location of the gear shift, but I'm fashioning an extension for it.

I have found that the design of outboard wells also varies considerably from boat to boat. I'm not familiar with how it works on the Ariel, but I have seen some outboard wells that do not allow any movement of the outboard, and some that allow for full movement.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

mstern said:


> The suitability of the transom-hung outboard configuration depends completely on the design of the boat and the engine. On my Oday 23, the outboard is transom mounted; with the engine fully extended into the water, the throttle is still easy to reach. I'm not wild about the location of the gear shift, but I'm fashioning an extension for it.
> 
> I have found that the design of outboard wells also varies considerably from boat to boat. I'm not familiar with how it works on the Ariel, but I have seen some outboard wells that do not allow any movement of the outboard, and some that allow for full movement.


I agree that a "blanket statement" about transom hung outboards may not have been the best way to phrase this. I'm glad it works well on your boat.

As far as not being able to swivel a well-mounted outboard, that is not a critical function, it's merely an extra benefit. After all, those of us with inboards don't get to "swivel" them. They are fixed and we can still maneuver easily.

Yeah, 4-stroke powerheads in old boats with outboard wells can sometimes be a problem. These wells were generally designed with smaller, 2-stroke engines in mind. I had to pull the cowling off of my Honda 9.9 to get it up out of the water. I could get it to the first "click" on the detente with the cowling on, which got the leg half out of the water.

The few times I (foolishly) raced the boat, I borrowed a Honda 5hp 4-stroke which was much easier to manage.

Anyway, let's circle back to a statement Jeff made- An Ariel may not be a good choice in an area with heavy chop. (paraphrase)

It's not just how/where the engine sits in the boat. It's the fact that the Ariel is from that classic era of long overhangs and short waterline. Sailed incorrectly, that boat will grind to a halt in Lake Erie chop and it'll rattle the fillings out of your teeth in the process.

I'm still not saying that the Ariel is a bad boat or the wrong boat. I'm saying that you need to know this, so that you can sail the boat differently to overcome these challenges. The best technique I've found, is to foot off, keep your speed up, and actively sail around the worst of the "potholes." No autopilot for you, in these conditions.

You'll sail extra distance and it *might* take longer, but you (and the boat) will take less of a beating, you'll be less fatigued and more comfortable. Your GPS track will look like Ray Charles was driving, and your tacks will be considerably more than 90 degrees, but it works.

Pinching into a chop is slow, painful and breaks boats.


----------



## BillBadAss (Mar 31, 2016)

Thank you all for the advice on inboard vs. Outboard especially. I decided not to move forward with the boat. Wasn't worth the trade in my opinion, and the boat wasn't that clean. I'm checking some more out this weekend, I'm going to make a separate thead and post some pics of everything I find.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Ajax_MD said:


> As far as not being able to swivel a well-mounted outboard, that is not a critical function, it's merely an extra benefit. After all, those of us with inboards don't get to "swivel" them. They are fixed and we can still maneuver easily.


Yes, but your Pearson is a fin keel. Unlike a fin keel, a full keeled boat like the Ariel is very difficult to control while backing up - it is the nature of the beast. The ability to swivel the motor is a great advantage here, and allows to single hand out of a slip without the use of springlines and extra crew.



Ajax_MD said:


> Anyway, let's circle back to a statement Jeff made- An Ariel may not be a good choice in an area with heavy chop. (paraphrase)
> 
> It's the fact that the Ariel is from that classic era of long overhangs and short waterline. Sailed incorrectly, that boat will grind to a halt in Lake Erie chop and it'll rattle the fillings out of your teeth in the process.


Long overhangs and short waterline do not make the boat bad in chop, nor do they make it rattle your teeth. The Ariel has a "heavy cruiser" displacement ratio of 402, which combined with the fine bow entry will tend to slice through the chop instead of pounding. What you will get with the long overhangs, however, is a tendency to hobby horse, but this is only a problem if you depower the sails in such conditions.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Sorry, you are correct. The overhangs have nothing to do with it. Short waterline, combined with the wrong, short wave period, CAN still grind you to a halt. The fineness of the entry and the displacement ratio will just make it less painful. There's only so much slicing that's going to happen.

A longer, heavier boat of similar numbers might do better.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> a full keeled boat like the Ariel is very difficult to control while backing up - it is the nature of the beast.


While I agree with you that a boat like the Ariel is difficult to control in reverse, the source of that problem is not the length of the Ariel's keel but the position of the rudder relative to the turning axis of the boat.

But I need to digress for a moment, strictly speaking the Ariel is not a full keeled boat. In its day, it would have been considered a fin keel boat with an attached rudder. I know that the semantics of that view has changed in the 50 years since the high level Pearson staffer explained that to us at the factory.

But that semantic issue aside, since today we no longer would call it a fin keel, getting to the substance of the matter, with its sharply cut away forefoot and raked rudder post, the Ariel has a comparatively short keel as compared to what would rightly be called a full keel, which is why these boats do not track well at all.

As I said, I do agree with you that the Ariel does not steer as easily or precisely as a more modern design, but the reason that the Ariel is harder to control in both directions results from the position of the rudder so close to the center of rotation on the comparatively short length of the keel and to a lesser extent relative position of the rudder to the overall length of the boat.



Lazerbrains said:


> Long overhangs and short waterline do not make the boat bad in chop, nor do they make it rattle your teeth. The Ariel has a "heavy cruiser" displacement ratio of 402, which combined with the fine bow entry will tend to slice through the chop instead of pounding. What you will get with the long overhangs, however, is a tendency to hobby horse, but this is only a problem if you depower the sails in such conditions.


With all due respect, I suggest that you might want to read up on yacht design and spend some time on various boat designs of similar size but with differing configurations to better understand of what you speak. I don't know about the physics in the alternative dimension where those statements might be true, but at least here on earth, any reputable, reasonably up-to-date source of yacht theory and any impartial observation of boats underway would tell you that long overhangs and short waterline absolutely highly contribute to making a boat bad in chop, both in terms of pitch and roll There aren't even ways to effectively mitigate against that.

You refer to the Ariel as having the D/L of a 'heavy cruiser'. But by any standard, an Ariel is not a heavy cruiser. It gets its ridiculously high D/L because it has an absurdly short waterline length relative to its LOA. If you compare the Ariel to the slightly later Halsey Herreshoff designed, similar length and construction Bristol 26, the Bristol 26 weighs the same amount as the Ariel, and yet because the Bristol has a decent waterline length its D/L is only 234, which by modern standards is still moderately heavy but by the standards of the day was considered quite light. But by no standard, either then or now, would either boat be considered as actually being a "heavy cruiser", despite the illusion that the Ariel's numbers might suggest. In fact by any normal criteria (motion comfort, carrying capacity, interior volume, tracking, etc.) for a cruising boat, the Bristol would be a better option.

In terms of whether the Ariel has a fine bow, while the bow of the Ariel is not as full as most of Alberg's designs, and certainly not as full as many of the heavier cruisers of the preceding era, there is also nothing fine about the Ariel's bow. Carl Alberg was fond of 'apple cheek bows'; bows which had comparatively wide entry angles even for that era, and which has a lot of fullness above the waterline. If you compare the bow on the Bristol 26, which actually does have a pretty fine bow for that era to the bow of the Ariel you will see what I mean.

Since we have both spent time on Ariels, and if you think back to the motion when sailing an Ariel in a steep chop, you will recall that as the Ariel collides forcefully with each wave, there is momentary lurch during which it decelerates losing forward motion, then the bow rotates sharply upward as the volume of the fullness just above the waterline encounters the heave from the wave, (hobby horse) and because there is no dampening due to the long stern over hang, it rotates past the wave top before the bow falls into the trough missing the back of the wave and coming down hard on that fullness above the waterline. That does not happen as harshly on a boat from that era with a finer bow, a longer waterline and less fullness just above the waterline.

But the bigger motion comfort issue in a chop with the Ariel is roll. In the fifty plus years since the Ariel was designed, yacht design science has come to understand the factors affecting motion much better than they were at that time. We have come to better understand the importance of dampening, slowing progressive buoyancy change, roll and pitch moments of inertia and so on. When you look at the Ariel, its short waterline relative to hull length means that the water plane gets smaller and the canoe body deeper. This results in very poor dampening. The high roll and pitch moments of inertia initially slow the roll, but also put it out of phase with the wave train. This causes larger roll and pitch input forces, and with minimal dampening, means causes these boats to roll and pitch through greater roll and pitch angles and with greater acceleration forces at the ends of the rolls and pitches than a more moderate design such as the Bristol 26 mentioned above. If you have had a chance to sail these two boats in similar conditions within a short period of each other, as I have, or watched the two sailing in similar choppy conditions, this contract becomes very obvious.

Those large roll and pitch angles increase leeway and decrease drive from the sails, slowing these boats dramatically in a chop compared to better designs from their own era.



Lazerbrains said:


> tendency to hobby horse, but this is only a problem if you depower the sails in such conditions.


I also disagree with this portion of your post. If you power up an Ariel, they heel over more, much more. While that steadies the boat some in very small gentler waves, in a chop, being heeled farther over means that you land harder on each wave since you are landing on the flatish area above the waterline, which can make the landing even more jarring.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

BillBadAss said:


> Hi all, just joined the forum last week and beginning my search for my first sailboat. ...just wanting to see if this would be a good option as well. Thanks all!


Bill,
No, not a good option. Old design boats like the Ariel have little to offer you, unless you're looking for a classic where you want to own history regardless of how well it serves as a sailboat. The Ariel in particular offers even less, as other posters have explained in depth, its not a good example the kind.

The market is loaded with better designed 27s available at the same cost, my recommendations being Cals and C&Cs - maybe Catalinas, anyone of which would provide more room, comfort and performance.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> This causes larger roll and pitch input forces, and with minimal dampening, means causes these boats to roll and pitch through greater roll and pitch angles and with greater acceleration forces at the ends of the rolls and pitches than a more moderate design such as the Bristol 26 mentioned above. If you have had a chance to sail these two boats in similar conditions within a short period of each other, as I have, or watched the two sailing in similar choppy conditions, this contract becomes very obvious.
> 
> I also disagree with this portion of your post. If you power up an Ariel, they heel over more, much more. While that steadies the boat some in very small gentler waves, in a chop, being heeled farther over means that you land harder on each wave since you are landing on the flatish area above the waterline, which can make the landing even more jarring.
> 
> ...


HI Jeff -

Interesting that you would mention a Bristol 26, as I owned one for 2 years. My experience as an owner of that boat is in contradiction to your statements. The B26 has a tendency to pound when in a chop, riding up and down on the waves, and also offers much less course stability in such circumstances - it generally will carve an "s path". The Ariel, on the other hand, tends to slip through the chop, with a much less jarring motion - it tends to be more in the waves than on them. I experienced none of the "roll and pitch" qualities you describe. When under sail, the boat stiffens quite well to a 20 degree heel and takes a straight course through the chop, unlike the B26, which requires much more helm correction to stay on course.

Frankly, I am quite confused as to why you would describe the Ariel, with its long keel (or whatever semantics you wish to describe) as having poor course stability, when that is one of the main attributes of a long keel design. It is, in fact, the same attribute that contributes to one of it's deficiencies - the fact that it is not as responsive at the helm.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> HI Jeff -
> 
> Interesting that you would mention a Bristol 26, as I owned one for 2 years. My experience as an owner of that boat is in contradiction to your statements. The B26 has a tendency to pound when in a chop, riding up and down on the waves, and also offers much less course stability in such circumstances - it generally will carve an "s path". The Ariel, on the other hand, tends to slip through the chop, with a much less jarring motion - it tends to be more in the waves than on them. I experienced none of the "roll and pitch" qualities you describe. When under sail, the boat stiffens quite well to a 20 degree heel and takes a straight course through the chop, unlike the B26, which requires much more helm correction to stay on course.
> 
> Frankly, I am quite confused as to why you would describe the Ariel, with its long keel (or whatever semantics you wish to describe) as having poor course stability, when that is one of the main attributes of a long keel design. It is, in fact, the same attribute that contributes to one of it's deficiencies - the fact that it is not as responsive at the helm.


I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree since we have obviously had two diametrically opposed experiences with these boats.

In my case, I had been racing under PHRF on an Ariel owned for many years by an excellent sailor. One of the regular crew from the Ariel bought a Bristol 26. The owner of the Ariel and I began racing on the Bristol to help him get his program going.

As it turned out for quite a while, we would be on the Ariel one race and the Bristol the next. I had the chance to steer both boats when were going out to the race course and at times during the race. I also had the chance to observe the behavior of both boats side by side when I was racing on other boats. There was a visually and dramatically obvious difference between these boats and that is in part the basis of my comments.

During the period when we sailing these two boats back to back, there happened to be a period of quite a few weeks with really snotty weather, gusty winds which in turn built up a really ugly chop near the mouth of the river, during which we were sailing first in the Ariel, then in the Bristol and then back in the Ariel.

All three of us, including the Ariel owner, remarked about the difference in motion and steering of the two boats. The Bristol could be trimmed to be very balanced so that small steering inputs were all that were needed. It was not thown around as much as the Ariel.The Ariel if trimmed for speed developed a lot of weather helm and took a lot of steering input to maintain course since every wave would throw it farther off course than the Bristol and so greater energy was required to bring it back to course. If you tried to balance the helm, the Ariel would be stopped by the chop. The Bristol was sailed more upright and seemed to knife through rather than collide harshly with each wave, albeit with perhaps more heave than pitch.

Where we may find common ground is this; While my memory of the two boats in a chop and gusty conditions is quite clear, at least in part because the three of us had be discussing it, analyzing it, trying to experiment to make the Ariel easier to steer in those conditions, I really do not have strong memories of either boat in flatter water. It may be that the Ariel tracks better in flat water, lighter winds, or on certain points of sail than the Bristol.

I would also note, that when you see an Ariel in 3D so that the extent of the canoe body is visible, they just do not have that long a keel.



And if you compare the finer bow and general hull shape of the Bristol 26 you can visualize that some of the Bristols gentler ride and better course holding comes from the bow's ability to 'grip' and hold a course. (The Bristol's bow being more attenuated and slightly hollow, vs the convex boat of the Ariel) and slide into a wave further before feeling the full impact of the wave. Also the hollow of the bow threw water away from the boat rather than drenching the cockpit.)



Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Captain poopy pants (Oct 8, 2016)

How is it possible to compare to drastically different hull designs while pushing both boats exactly the same?


----------

