[Public-List] Alberg 30 or Triton? - layup of glass

[John Birch]

"They were built with semi-skilled (to be generous) labor, with resin rich, 
polyester layups, and to a price."

I must respectfully disagree. While yes, they were built to a price, as 
everything is - they are not Hinckley's, they were never meant to be - that 
is why a Hinckley costs more.

As for layup of glass. Destructive tests over the years of plugs drilled 
from several hulls, for through hulls, has repeatedly revealed the hulls 
were laid up to the top Gibbs & Cox specifications of the time - 40% 60% 
Resin Glass mix. Of course today that would be considered resin rich, but 
back then it was state-of-the-art.

Just setting the facts straight.

And that is why Albergs have not fallen apart these past 45 years.

Best all and have a great Canada Day weekend eh.

John -    PS happy 4th to all our Yankee friends and all those South of the 
M/D line ; )




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rachel" <penokee at cheqnet.net>
To: "Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all" <public-list at lists.alberg30.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Public-List] Alberg 30 or Triton?


>
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:59 AM, C.B. Currier wrote:
>> ...
>> 1. the Triton is a nice Carl Alber designed boat - but compared to  the 
>> Alberg 30 it was not built as well.
>
> To be fair, I don't think any of our "family budget" coastal/racer/ 
> cruisers of the era were built all that well.  They were built with 
> semi-skilled (to be generous) labor, with resin rich, polyester  layups, 
> and to a price.
>
> To their credit, they are nice designs and have lasted much longer  than 
> anyone probably expected them to.
>
> I did enough work on my A-30 to see how it was built, and I have  looked 
> at many A-30s and also Tritons - some in the middle of projects  and so 
> "laid bare," so to speak.  I don't see anything that would make  me say 
> one was better built than the other.  Neither were  masterpieces, and both 
> had good and bad points compared to the other.   For example (with the 
> "better" boat listed first in each example):
>
> 1) Triton, lead ballast; A-30 iron ballast.
> 2) A-30 masonite deck (early); Triton, balsa (poorly sealed; not that 
> there is anything inherently wrong with balsa).
> 3) Triton, fiberglassed hull-to-deck joint; A-30 bolted hull-to-deck 
> joint that is prone to leaks at toerail bolts.
> 4) Triton, ballast pig either externally bolted or internal and well 
> sealed from bilge; A-30, ballast pig not well sealed from bilge.
> 5) Triton (all but latest) bronze large port frames; A-30, aluminum  large 
> port frames.
> 6) A-30 top opening sail lockers in cockpit; Triton (early only) side 
> opening lockers.
>
> I could go on but I think this gives the idea.  Basically, in my  opinion, 
> the layups are very similar if not the same.  Then there are  good and bad 
> details in each of the builds, and they flip-flop a bit  as the boats go 
> through model year changes.  I don't see the A-30  coming out either way 
> above or way below the Triton in build quality.   The A-30 is a bit 
> roomier, but that isn't part of build quality.
>
> I chose an A-30 and really liked it, but I also looked at Tritons.  In 
> the end I chose the boat in the best condition that fit my intended  use 
> and budget.  It happened to be an A-30 at that moment in time (and  I did 
> have a use for the extra room in the A-30, but that's not really  part of 
> this conversation).
>
> Rachel
> ex-#221
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> 



 1278011775.0