Ericson 35-2 encapsulated keel - voids never filled?

[Joseph Marschner]

Hello, all! I have a 1971 E 35-2. Hull 212. I noticed an issue when we hauled a few weeks ago and decided to investigate. Apparently, a PO ran into something VERY hard, VERY fast, and put a large crack in the leading edge of the keel. In two surveys, no one picked up the very substandard repair. I found it though, and drained a LOT of water out of the keel. I was dreading the drying out process,-and time - until I discovered something VERY interesting. I have taken out all of the delaminated glass, and am grinding it back to rebuild and re-fair. The INTERESTING thing about this was that when I cut the old gnarly, crumbled glass out under the "repair," the keel was EMPTY around the lead. NO "slurry of glass fibers, resin and (possibly) asbestos as I have heard people mention - just NOTHING. A complete void around the lead - an inch to an inch and a quarter on each side. I put my endoscope down in, and could run it ALL the way back to the aft end of the keel. Then I went up. Same thing up to the "top". NO EVIDENCE of ANYTHING ever being in the keel around the lead - glass cloth is evident, but NO residue of any kind indicating that there was EVER anything packed around the lead. Is there anyone here who has ever looked into their keel and found similar? Did they just miss this on hull 212? I mean, I am happy about it, since it makes drying it out super easy, but I have never seen anything like this. I am attaching a picture. I cut the glass back to where it was solid to fair (don't worry, I've done this before), and the "hole" is now about eighteen inches by four inches or so, so it is easy to see down in. I am happy to send video of the complete void my 'scope turned up if anyone is interested. I've never seen anything like this before. I guess there is always a first time. That said, it is 52 years old, has been raced hard, and the keel has never moved, so there's that! I look forward to hearing from anyone who has opened their keel and found a similar issue - or even a completely filled keel. I'm just baffled and don't know what to make of this. The plan is to grind back and put it back exactly as it was (sans lousy repair). I can't see any reason to change what obviously wasn't broken.

 

[william.haas]

Well I have no insight to offer from all my years of boat work - but that is a curiosity. My immediate thought was that it could easily be filled from “above” with epoxy but the heat cure, cost, additional weight, and a myriad of other issues make me think the don’t mess with what’s not broken logic is sound. I would be curious to learn if this was the intended design from others with your boat.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

Well I have no insight to offer from all my years of boat work - but that is a curiosity. My immediate thought was that it could easily be filled from “above” with epoxy but the heat cure, cost, additional weight, and a myriad of other issues make me think the don’t mess with what’s not broken logic is sound. I would be curious to learn if this was the intended design from others with your boat.

Thanks for your input! I actually thought about filling it, working epoxy in by injecting from the bottom up - kind of a layer at a time to keep the heat down, but I worry about the same issues - more weight (although negligible with a 5500 pound lead casting already there), but also, I don't like re-engineering things that obviously have worked well for decades. I do my own work, but I have asked around a bit, and every glass guy and boatbuilder at my yard have looked at this and left scratching their heads. Seems none of them have seen anything like this before either. It actually makes some sense, in that fiberglass is ridiculously strong, pound for pound against other materials, but hitting a rock or reef with a fully solid keel structure is likely to cause ancilliary damage elsewhere. I wonder if they had in mind a kind of "crush zone" where the keel would get wet, but would be protected if the glass shattered - kind of like modern cars. That's what happened here, anyway. The keel got crushed, but nothing ever touched the lead - at least not enough to cause damage. There has probably been water in there for years (we bought the boat in the water from a friend who's husband passed, based on a recent survey, and also because it's a beautiful boat) and I'll wager it was full of water when the lousy repair was done. It's dry, now. I chased it with some acetone to be sure, and then the endoscope brought up no moisture to speak of. Drilling small holes brings only dry fiberglass fillings, so if the design was intentional, it works.

 

[Parrothead]

During my employment, the companies where I worked set internal ballast in a pool of mish mash, an asbestos fiber thickened resin in a pour-able consistency. It was poured in the keel void prior to and after the insertion of the ballast. The intent was total encapsulation although we never cut one open to be certain. Because of the resin quantity the catalyst ratio had to be precise to avoid a runaway thermal event, 7cc's to the gallon and no more. Boat models I know that used this process were the CAL 25, 27, 29, Cruising 35 and 2-46, the Gulf 32 and Islander Freeports 36 and 41, my Westsail 32 also. There were other CAL's internally ballasted, the iconic CAL 40 in particular, but they were no longer in production during my employment.

From the picture it is clear to me Ericson did not do such encapsulation. There is not even a hint of structural filler.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

During my employment, the companies where I worked set internal ballast in a pool of mish mash, an asbestos fiber thickened resin in a pour-able consistency. It was poured in the keel void prior to and after the insertion of the ballast. The intent was total encapsulation although we never cut one open to be certain. Because of the resin quantity the catalyst ratio had to be precise to avoid a runaway thermal event, 7cc's to the gallon and no more. Boat models I know that used this process were the CAL 25, 27, 29, Cruising 35 and 2-46, the Gulf 32 and Islander Freeports 36 and 41, my Westsail 32 also. There were other CAL's internally ballasted, the iconic CAL 40 in particular, but they were no longer in production during my employment.

From the picture it is clear to me Ericson did not do such encapsulation. There is not even a hint of structural filler.

Thanks for that. It helps confirm that what I am looking at is supposed to be that way. I was prepared to dig out the type of "mish mash" you mentioned, so I was shocked when I saw the clean, empty cavity around the lead casting. I guess I'll just close it up and go sailing!

 

[Parrothead]

In no way did I intend to suggest the internal ballast was "supposed to be that way." It's your boat and therefore your choice but once I knew of the condition, that would never fly on my boat.

 

[Afrakes]

When dismantling my 81' E-28+ I found sprayed in foam between the lead and frp encapsulation. Perhaps a couple of well-placed holes to inject foam would work.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

In no way did I intend to suggest the internal ballast was "supposed to be that way." It's your boat and therefore your choice but once I knew of the condition, that would never fly on my boat.

I understand what you are saying, but it hasn't seemed to be an issue for 52 years, so I'm going to go with the assumption that it was designed that way. That begs another question - either my boat was the ONLY hull with voids like this, (which seems unlikely) or many, if not all early era 35-2s are built this way. I'm guessing there are plenty of folks sleeping soundly thinking their encapsulated keel is bedded snugly and tightly in its shell, when actually, if they looked inside, they'd find a surprise.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

When dismantling my 81' E-28+ I found sprayed in foam between the lead and frp encapsulation. Perhaps a couple of well-placed holes to inject foam would work.

Thanks! I thought about that. And a few other unorthodox fillers like liquid rubber (sani-tread or liquid butyl) but I think I am just going to treat it like a bolt-on lead keel that happens to have a fiberglass airfoil (aquafoil?) around it. It's worked that way for over half a century, and the builders probably intended it to last no more than 15 - 20.

 

[tenders]

For some reason I was under the impression that the original design included lead shot poured around those lead ingots before the final encapsulation at the top of the keel. Could that shot have fallen or been taken out after your incident? Or perhaps my impression was incorrect.

My encapsulated keel has had quite a bit of water inside it over the years. I installed a drain bolt near the lower trailing edge so it drains out all winter.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

For some reason I was under the impression that the original design included lead shot poured around those lead ingots before the final encapsulation at the top of the keel. Could that shot have fallen or been taken out after your incident? Or perhaps my impression was incorrect.

My encapsulated keel has had quite a bit of water inside it over the years. I installed a drain bolt near the lower trailing edge so it drains out all winter.

I have read the same, and I even read a post elsewhere that Bruce King confirmed that lead shot was used to fill voids in these keels. That said, I have looked at every inch of the inside of the cavity with an endoscope, and there is not ONE pellet of shot anywhere. I also can't imagine that the shot would have "floated up" to get out of the voids deep in the keel. I suppose it is possible that it was removed, but for what reason? I though about the idea that the grounding that caused the hole in the leading edge could have cracked the entire keel and the shot dumped out the bottom, but no such damage appears on the inside, and the seam down the middle of the two hull halves seems perfectly intact except for where the damage occured. I would go ahead and fill it, but the voids there would probably need about fifteen gallons(maybe?) of shot, which could add 400 lbs to the keel. That's enough to change the boats sailing characteristics if it was not in the original design spec, and would also add a lot of weight just sitting on top of the fiberglass at the bottom. Currently, the casting is suspended, so it stays up there somehow. I have never felt it move in the slightest, even with the voids, so it seems pretty solidly set in there (maybe even bolted? -though no keel bolts are visible in the bilge. I will keep looking for answers, though. I may put a few shots up here later from the endoscope trip down the keel trunk so every one can see the fairly pristine condition of the glass on the inside of the keel.

 

[Parrothead]

Really? Massive voids and foam encapsulation are acceptable?? Please read this short 20 year old thread from your own forum, especially Martin King's response:

e27 encapsulated keel void

Hi All, I am looking at the purchase of a 76 E27 and the survey turned up the strangest thing. There appears to be a complete void on the lower half of the keel below the encapsulated ballast. This is forward of the bilge sump and runs the entire length of the keel for the lower half on...

ericsonyachts.org

 

[Alan Gomes]

Really? Massive voids and foam encapsulation are acceptable?? Please read this short 20 year old thread from your own forum, especially Martin King's response:

e27 encapsulated keel void

Hi All, I am looking at the purchase of a 76 E27 and the survey turned up the strangest thing. There appears to be a complete void on the lower half of the keel below the encapsulated ballast. This is forward of the bilge sump and runs the entire length of the keel for the lower half on...

ericsonyachts.org

Wow! Makes me wonder what's going on inside of my keel? (Not that I'm going to tear it open to find out.)

All these boats were built to a price, with sometimes sloppy production, and the Ericsons were in no way an exception to this. This shows up in a variety of contexts, sometimes remaining hidden until an issue surfaces decades later. The repair we did to the "ant farm" layup in my skeg is "Exhibit A" for this. There have been some other things on my boat as well. Having worked for several of the So. Calif. builders in the 70's (though not Ericson specifically), you've seen how the sausage is made, Neil. My takeaway is that it's best not to have too inflated of a view of the quality control in *any* of these operations and to be clear-eyed about it.

If it were your boat, what would you do? Just glass it over and figure that even though it's pretty funky and inexcusable it will probably hold together, granting that it has done so thus far? Attempt to fill the void with something structural? Something else?

 

[Parrothead]

If it were your boat, what would you do? Just glass it over and figure that even though it's pretty funky and inexcusable it will probably hold together, granting that it has done so thus far? Attempt to fill the void with something structural? Something else?

If it were mine, I would repair the external fiberglass and fair the keel first. Following that I would drill an array of small holes, say 3/4", in the keel sides and pump in mish mash (the material I described earlier) using the upper holes as inlets and the lower holes as sight gauges, plugging them as the void fills. Finally and after curing, I would repair and fair the holes. If there was a sump aft of the ballast inside the keel it would have to be confirmed it was sealed off from the ballast.

From the looks of the void in the picture, 20 gallons or more of mish mash wouldn't surprise me.

 

[tenders]

…I would drill an array of small holes, say 3/4", in the keel sides and pump in mish mash (the material I described earlier)…

From the looks of the void in the picture, 20 gallons or more of mish mash wouldn't surprise me.

Where are we going to find 20 gallons of asbestos these days?

 

[Loren Beach]

Apropos of Whatever.... on the subject of filers -- one time I needed some bulk filler for a small project, and harvested sawdust from under the table saw. Mixed with epoxy it worked fine; price was right too.

Story Time: regarding production production boat building, I personally observed a hole (about 12'X12") sawed into the side of the frp keel molding on a 30ish Newport, back in the early 90's. A mass of uncured resin and lead shot had oozed out into a big bucket. The yard cleaned the opening out until reaching cured resin all around. A cast block of lead was epoxied back in and the opening was covered by layers of glass and epoxy and the keel side area faired in. They were trying (and I did not find out if they succeeded) to get Capital Yachts to pay for the repair.

Ericson's may not be the 'best' but are a lot better built than the average boat in their era. (IMHO)

Sidebar: our prior Ranger 20 had a pair of lead castings installed in the stub keel, leaving room for the CB pivoting in the center part. The larger R-24 had a formed lead casting installed into the keel cavity. I visited the factory often, as a dealer for a while, but never observed whether or how the lead was secured into place. The sumps were sealed on the top and gel-coat finished, I should note.

Intuitively, it seems like some sort of poly slurry would have been flowed around the lead casting, but I do not have any personal information. My surmise is that with a tight fit for the lead, the heavy glass work on the top (i.e. the sump of the bilge) is sufficient for the task. (?)

 

[Alan Gomes]

Ericson's may not be the 'best' but are a lot better built than the average boat in their era. (IMHO)

Since we’re swapping humble opinions, I’ll say that’s certainly not true based on some of the stuff I’ve seen with my own boat.

Ericsons are overall decent production boats from the era and I like mine just fine. Better built than most of the others? Meh. “A lot better built”? No way.

 

[Parrothead]

Where are we going to find 20 gallons of asbestos these days?

The asbestos I mentioned was the thickening agent of the era that provided tremendous strength to the resin amalgamation due to its fibrous properties. When the dangers were discovered other safe structural thickeners were substituted. Loren mentioned sawdust and I can attest it was used by O'Day. However, it was difficult to mix, tended to form clots and floated to the top of the resin. Before they sold, Crystaliner Corporation in Costa Mesa, CA (boat builders and fiberglass supplies vendor) sold gallon paper sacks of a filler they called mish mash into at least the 2000's although there's no way it was asbestos of course. I still have a near full bag of it on the shelf.

Quick math = 20 gallons of mish mash runny enough for this project would consist of roughly 18 gallons of resin and maybe 2 gallons of filler material.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

For some reason I was under the impression that the original design included lead shot poured around those lead ingots before the final encapsulation at the top of the keel. Could that shot have fallen or been taken out after your incident? Or perhaps my impression was incorrect.

My encapsulated keel has had quite a bit of water inside it over the years. I installed a drain bolt near the lower trailing edge so it drains out all winter.

Tenders - I took a considerable amount of care with the 'scope today, and lo and behold, I found several pieces of lead shot! Mystery solved! I also found two pretty serious punctures that had been repaired from outside. Now we know where the lead shot went. I am having the yard give me sling time tomorrow to grind back the rest of the lousy repair, find the perforations, grind them out and re glass with probably six layers or so of 1708 and epoxy. Maybe a bit more depending on the size of the breech. Apparently, a previous owner opened up the keel on a rock or something, dumped the shot ballast, took it to an equally unscrupulous yard and asked them to do a quick repair, probably for a quick sale, since he know he had seriously damaged the boat and it would cost quite a bit to repair properly. Anyway - thanks for the heads up on lead shot. I have seen that Bruce King has confirmed that, and I can still see one or two in there now that I know what I am looking at. No resin or filler, though, just shot, I can confirm. I am repairing the keel glass properly, and then I will refill with lead shot. I think I can get most of it in through the gaping hole in the front of the keel, which is even bigger after today, as I cut all the delaminated glass back to solid material. The rest I will put in from the top, either through the sole (which will require cutting out a teak and holly/fiberglass/plywood laminate), or going through the keel at the very top and then glassing it closed. A lot of work, but I'm not paying someone to do it, so it'll be worth it. Thanks again for the comment on lead shot - it sent me in the right direction. Everyone was telling me it should have resin and glass fibers/asbestos, etc., which I know could not have ever been the case.

 

[Joseph Marschner]

The asbestos I mentioned was the thickening agent of the era that provided tremendous strength to the resin amalgamation due to its fibrous properties. When the dangers were discovered other safe structural thickeners were substituted. Loren mentioned sawdust and I can attest it was used by O'Day. However, it was difficult to mix, tended to form clots and floated to the top of the resin. Before they sold, Crystaliner Corporation in Costa Mesa, CA (boat builders and fiberglass supplies vendor) sold gallon paper sacks of a filler they called mish mash into at least the 2000's although there's no way it was asbestos of course. I still have a near full bag of it on the shelf.

Quick math = 20 gallons of mish mash runny enough for this project would consist of roughly 18 gallons of resin and maybe 2 gallons of filler material.

Parrothead - I really appreciate you taking time to relay your experience. I have seen the mish-mash you mention up inside quite a few keels (I wish I had known it was likely asbestos when I was grinding, but I always wear a respirator). That's why I was so puzzled about this one. Tenders mentioned lead shot, and I confirmed that is what is supposed to be in there. I even found several (not 400 pounds, mind you) when I looked more carefully with the 'scope. It turns out, I can also see two VERY severe punctures in the bottom of the keel right as it turns from the "lowest point" to rise forward to join the body. Apparently, these punctures, and the large gaping hole above, were enough to jettison most of the encapsulating lead ballast leaving only the casting dangling. I'm grinding it back tomorrow - the yard owner is giving me sling time to get at all of it. The plan is to grind out the bad, re-glass to reinforce the bottom of the keel, fair it all out, and then drop in lead shot from the gaping hole in the leading edge, and additional shot from a few small holes in the top of the keel trunk which I will then grind out and glass. The only other option is to cut through the cabin sole, which is about an inch of teak and holly (not plywood- real woodwork, but laminated to fiberglass backed by plywood) to get to the bilge above the keel. I plan on taking the sole out so I can get to that area anyway, but i'd prefer that not become part of the current project - I have to go back to work eventually!