• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

Dismasting

Bill Robbins

Member II
Just a brief description of events and a warning for everyone to closely look at their rig.

Over the last 8 months I had the mast pulled and the following work was done: The mast/boom was painted, new spreaders, new shieves in the head, new standing rigging and turnbuckles , new electrical wires with conduit, new lights and instruments, all new running rigging, all new gear to lead reefing and halyards aft to cockpit, lazy jacks, reefing lines, new pneumatic ridged boom vang .
The sails were 4 years old with a Harken 1.5 jib furling system.

Eight months ago I replaced the main bulkhead where the port upper shroud chainplate attaches. It had sever damage due to dry rot. All other chainplates were inspected and looked good.
I thought we were good to go!

We departed San Francisco and were headed South to Ventura. We were making 8 kts in 8-10 foot sea's, and 20+ kts of wind. Life was grand. Then it happened. The forward chain plate broke. In seconds the whole rig was in the water.
With only one other person on board, a sloppy sea, and the butt end of the mast wanting to harpoon us amid ships, I decided to cut the rig away. Once the mast was away, we safely motored South to Santa Cruz.
Lots of discussion can be started in what did you do when...., or why did you not do that. I am open to any of discussion on this topic. For now I just want to let people know about the ultimate cause of the failure.

The forward chainplate attaches to the bow by several large screws or bolts with inlayed backing. I do not know exactly how it attaches since I have never taken them off to completely check them. If I had removed it I would have seen a large crack that most likely had developed over the past several years.

The chain plate makes two significant bends which allows the plate to contour along the hull. The plate first lies along the stem for about one foot. It then makes a bend up the nose of the bow and runs vertically for about two inches. The plate then bends a second time, aft, leading the plate toward the mast head. The chain plate broke at the second bend.

Although I looked at the plate prior to the rig going up I did not see the crack. The crack developed on the inside of the second bend and laid up against the hull preventing visual inspection. I do wander if I could have seen a bit of the crack from the sides of the chain plate, but I will never know. Many boats have vasts amounts of calking in this area to further obstuct visual inspection. Suffice it to say A thorough job of inspecting every inch of the rig needs to be done on a regular basis. I thought I had. I was wrong. When I inspected the chainplates 8 months ago, I saw a "big" plate of stainless that seemed unbreakable. I now see it as a thin piece of strapping that is under built and prone to metal fatigue.. When I walk the docks now, I see the huge variation of chain plate construction, design, and quality of material that exists among different boats. I believe E-35's chainplates are marginally built, need close inspection, and replacement / upgrading for boats that are older and or wanting to sail offshore.

The chainplate has screws for removal. Take your chainpate off and look at it. I have now learned the hard way that this is why there are screws to secure it down and why they are not just glassed in. Bye the way, my backstay is glassed in. Are yours? Is there any way that salt water could have entered the space between the chainplate and fiberglass causing an internal rusting mess that is virtually impossible to see until it pulls out? Perhaps I am getting a little paranoid, but after you experience something like this you start to think this way.

At this point I am waiting for Allstate to process my claim. I have Actual value insurance up to 20K. This means a surveyor determines the value of my boat prior to the accident and I get paid the estimated value of the boat. The three estimates for Sails, Fiberglass repair, and the entire mast, have totaled $24,514. That is : $3,589 $3,800, and $17,125 respectively I expect Allstate to file my case as a "total constructive loss" because the repair costs are more than what they will determine the boat is worth. If they write me a check for the boat to settle the claim they will keep the boat. I have first rights to buy it back. The surveyor has also determined what it is worth now, post accident. If I choose not to buy it back, the boat will go through some bidding process, and once a winner has been selected I have one more chance to buy it back for one dollar more than the winning price. I am glad I have good documentation on the new upgrades. This will help my evaluation. However, I should have informed Allstate of these upgrades prior to my departure and increased the Boats Actual Value from 20 to 25K. We will see what happens.

Gee, I guess this was not so brief. But, I feel better. :cool:
 

Sean Engle

Your Friendly Administrator
Administrator
Founder
Wow -

Now you've got me concerned. I'll go over mine the next time I go to the marina...

//sse
 

Geoff Johnson

Fellow Ericson Owner
A question that comes to mind is whether your "new" Harken furler was installed with swivels that allowed free movement on all four axes. If not, your head sail could have fatigued your foward "chainplate".
 

Bill Robbins

Member II
Sorry I did not include the following.
My boat is an 1971 E-35.
As for the Harken 1.5 roller furling system. It was 5 years old. The swiveling mechanism, to my best recoletion , swiveled in one direction. However, do to the free rotation of the roller furling drum/ foil assembly about the forstay,the strain would always be in line with the one direction swiveling toggle. I think that this would avoid any twisting force on the chain plate Boy is this hard to describe. When I go to the boat next, I will get out the liturature on this and follow up with you all.
Good question though, I am interested in finding out for sure.
 

Geoff Johnson

Fellow Ericson Owner
I raised the issue because I remember reading a warning along those lines in some sailing magazine. My Harken furler was installed with two toggles ninety degrees from each other so that there would be no strain forward and back or to either side. I hope this was done at the masthead too. I have a 32-3 (1985) and my recollection is that the tang that wraps around the bow has a triangular reinforcing piece welded in the space between the tang where the headstay attaches and the bow roller, thus preventing any flexing of the tang. Sounds like Ericson did not do this on your model.
 

sailingdeacon

Member III
My 1987 E34 has the strap welded to a steel "nose" section which incorporates the anchor roller. It looks extremely stable to me. I don't recall the exact construction but it is all one piece.
 
Top