E35-2 lower shrouds

[CaptDan]

Hey E35II Vikings,

I don't know how many of you read Good Old Boat magazine. In this (September/October) issue, N.A. Ted Brewer - who writes a regular boat comparisons article - discusses the similarity between the '60s/70s Mistral 33, Seafarer 34 and Ericson 35-2. Accompanying this latest installment are line drawings, one of which, of an E35II with a single lower shroud. Further, he contends - mistakenly, I assume - the model, indeed, features a single lower.

I've written a response, which the magazine's editor is forwarding to Ted Brewer for elaboration. Long story short, every E35II I've seen features double fore/aft lowers. Did I miss a version or year that didn't?

PS: Mr Brewer speaks glowingly of the E35 - opinions I WOULDN'T disagree with.

Thanks.

Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"

 

[exoduse35]

As far as know I have one of the oldest 35-2's around #163 Built in 1970. It is certainly one built within a year or so of the first. It has the 2 lower shrouds and the placement of the supporting bulkheads suggests that it was always intended to be that way. My boat has some significant features that differ from any other 35-2 I have seen so I know that there was some rethinking and modification as they went along. But I cannot see any possibility that there would have been a design flaw so significant that it would be so evident so soon into production, and that, the fix would have either needed a complete rework of the interior, or by extraordinary luck the supporting structure would be perfectly placed, and it not be a legendary event to the entire Ericson community. That is a long run on sentence but the short one is : Don't believe everything you read!" Of course feel free to believe ALL the good things they said about the E35-2! Edd

 

[CaptDan]

My boat has some significant features that differ from any other 35-2 I have seen so I know that there was some rethinking and modification as they went along. But I cannot see any possibility that there would have been a design flaw so significant that it would be so evident so soon into production,

I agree. But here's what Ted Brewer emailed me, and my response:

Dan

The original E 35 was an old Pearson hull, as you know, and then Bruce King designed the new 35 in 1969 or so and the first boats came out about 1970. They had a nice sheerline, swept back fin, a bit of a bustle, pretty overhangs and droopy boom.

As far as I can determine, the first of these boats had a single forward lower. I found that sail plan on Google; check out 'Ericson 35 sales brochure #2'. on the bottom page.

I've no idea when, or why, they added the aft lower, but it was probably a good idea. If you check out ' Ericson 35 yacht' in general you will find there have been many modifications over the years and I picked the earliest I could find as a fair comparison.

Fair Winds
Ted Brewer

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the info. It makes sense, and gybes with what Martin King indicated.

I didn't want to make a big deal out of what amounts to a triviality, since I'm partial and agree with your positive assessments of the boat. (Having owned hull #485 for eleven years, I find little to complain about other than that droopy boom which I'm looking forward to finally solving with a new main.) But having seen so many E352s, from late 1970 vintage to one of the last hulls made (circa 600), all of which featuring double lowers, I was understandably puzzled.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write. I'm a huge fan of your work, designs and Good Old Boat articles; I've learned a great deal from your insights and I'm sure, so have many other good old boaters as well.

And fair winds to you too.

Regards,

Dan G>
El Sobrante, CA
1977 E35II "Kunu"

Take from this what you will.

Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"

 

[cimarronE35]

Hull #1 "Aquarius" is at Southwestern YC here in San Diego. She has wooden spreaders, but that is the only diff in rigs I can see. She has for and aft lowers. Not sure when Ericson made the switch to aluminum spreaders as my 73 has them.

 

[exoduse35]

# 163 has wooden double spreaders. It is a 1970. Edd

 

[CapnTommy]

CaptTommy

As far as the lowers go- i am a SAMS surveyor and I just did a quick walkthrough on a 35II Hin# obscured but reported to be an 82 (I WILL find out) it had two lowers but there was a plate on deck where a single would have been and a chain plate beneath abandoned. The chain plates for the doubles didn't appear to be OEM but I can't swear to it. Vessel was reportedly raced hard.

 

[exoduse35]

My '70 has the same plate to which you refer, It sets just below the head port and has a curved base plate where it sets against the the deck house. It does not have any support from a bulkhead below and I am pretty certain that it lacks the strength to support a shroud. I have often wondered what it was there for, but as near as I can tell it is meant to hold a block for a spinnaker down haul coming ran around the cabin lid. Or possibly a mount to run a small halyard to the lower spreaders for hoisting a flag. Those are just guesses and if anyone has a definitive answer I would love to know! Edd

 

[exoduse35]

The "deck tie down" is pictured as the center of the fixtures there along the cabin trunk below the windows. The placement is identical to mine, however mine looks like a smaller version of the aft chain plate on yours. It has the shoulder running up the trunk and an eye protruding. Yours looks to be almost flush to the deck. Mine seems as though it may have some usefulness that has been abandoned, and that is what is perplexing.

 

[Dave N]

This photo shows the deck fittings for the fwd and aft lowers(along the cabin trunk), the uppers(outboard along the toe rail), and the deck tie down(along cabin trunk betwixt the fore and aft lowers). The attachement of the aft lower chain plate is very poorly "engineered". There is nothing to take the load beneath the deck for the aft lower chain plate, like a bulkhead, it is merely bolted to the deck and the cabin trunk side. There does not appear to be any additional fiberglass underneath or in the cabin trunk side. The deck tie down was to keep the aft lower from pulling up the deck. Over all, a half arsed piss poor effort...but this approach helped to keep the cost down(I suppose). 1979 35 II

 

[steven]

I have hull #446 1976. Setup looks the same as Dave's.

Maybe the aft lower is not expected to take much load.
It's not exactly clear to me what the lowers are for.

 

[exoduse35]

My chain plates are also identical. Only the tie down in the center is different. It is however in the same location. The difference is that it protrudes up and has a hole through it so it appears that something has been removed or is made to attach there.

 

[Lucky Dog]

We have all our rigging down while we rebuilding. From past posts I have read here it seems it is only good for stubbing your toe. Am I wrong in just taking out and sealing off one more hole in the deck?

 

[Dave N]

We have all our rigging down while we rebuilding. From past posts I have read here it seems it is only good for stubbing your toe. Am I wrong in just taking out and sealing off one more hole in the deck?

Which fitting are you referring to?

 

[Lucky Dog]

The deck tie down.

 

[Dave N]

We have all our rigging down while we rebuilding. From past posts I have read here it seems it is only good for stubbing your toe. Am I wrong in just taking out and sealing off one more hole in the deck?

I think that if you are going to use the aft lowers, and you should, the tie down is a must. I've never seen another boat with such an inadequately engineered shroud attachment. Some sort of a knee below deck is definately the norm. Seems like the aft lowers were sort of an afterthought and somebody made the decision to just bolt the chain plate to the deck. The fitting itself is nice but the deck itself is not up to the task. The deck will lift and deflect even with the tie down....without it you will have problems.

 

[Seth]

Aft lowers

.....were definitely standard equipment. They are needed to limit pumping of the mast in a seaway, and can be used to adjust prebend in the mast to match the luff curve of the mainsail. You can increase/decrease the load on the aft and fwd lowers to add or reduce prebend, but need to have them for sailing in any significant seaway.
There is a setup many racers used on this boat to disconnect the leeward aft lowers when sailing downwind (this will allow the main to be eased farther out when running without getting distorted by hanging up on the lowers). Kind of a hyfield lever with a disconnect pin. For racing it is a real advantage, but you want to remember to get it loaded back on once you start using headsails again, because unless the water is really flat, you may find the rig pumping too much. It would take a lot of abuse before you would be in danger of losing the rig, but the rig should have support forward and aft below the lower spreaders when sailing upwind or headsail reaching in any significant breeze and/or seaway.

Safe travels,

 

[beachologist]

My 35-2 has had the tie down plates removed and the holes filled in. There appears to be 3 filled holes, through the main bulkhead, below where the tie down plate is. I'm thinking that maybe chain plates were attached to the tie down plate. I've recently begun hearing a creaking sound from the area when going up wind and even when I walk in the area pull on the lowers. Does the tie down plate attach to a chain plate?

 

[Dave N]

You MUST have the tie down plates. There is no support below for the aft lowers and this is a serious shortcoming. The tie downs are all you have to keep the aft lowers from pulling up the deck. They are a poor compromise but better than nothing.

 

[kaikoura]

How are the tie down plates secured to the hull if you now what I mean..a chainplate or something going to the hull or some other fitting?
Apparently the E 35 is pretty strong as designed,,no falling masts yet?

 

[Dave Neptune]

Fwiw

I have a 1970 E35-MKII # 136 wooden spreaders and double lowers. I have had her since March of 1983 and did all new statding 5 years ago.
Not to hi-jack the thread but I have been having a problem with the lower spreaders "drooping" aand it's not the side the burgees are hung on. Any ideas?

Dave Neptune