Got Design Questions?

[peaman]

I am not understanding this statement. Semantics, perhaps. The forces from the shrouds are taken directly down to the TAFG by large-diameter SS Navtec rods, and some internal bulkhead connections. (Depending on EY model.)

The deck, while it may have some additional reinforcement, is for the most part structurally neutral with respect to the shrouds. My point is that moving the shrouds outboard will impose lateral loads at the deck level, while in the original configuration, lateral loads are lower in the hull, well below the deck.

 

[Christian Williams]

The 32-3 stays are actually easy to inspect, and giving up the close sheeting angle would be a step backwards in time.

 

[Dave G.]

From a purely performance point of view decreasing the upwind/pointing ability of the boat makes zero sense to me. As others have said it would also take major redesign and structural changes to both the hull and the rig.

 

[TLEO]

The 32-3 stays are actually easy to inspect, and giving up the close sheeting angle would be a step backwards in time.

I wanted to thank everyone for their knowledge, It was a crazy blonde question I asked my husband who thought I should ask the group. Not stepping backwards, i guess there are stupid questions.

 

[Frank Langer]

 

[frick]

I did see an E29 with the Chain plates moved to the hull. It looked good.
What I wonder, as an old Racer, Does it mess up jib sheets, meaning that you can not point as high.

 

[Pete the Cat]

I did see an E29 with the Chain plates moved to the hull. It looked good.
What I wonder, as an old Racer, Does it mess up jib sheets, meaning that you can not point as high.

Probably it will mess up the sheeting angle, but it might not be that critical depending on the jib, angle of attack, and the general sailing characteristics of boat--if the boat points poorly, it won't matter much. I am mystified why anyone would abandon the careful structural design of most production boats and move chainplates outboard. You understand that these are under incredible pressure when underway and you would need to ensure that load is properly transferred to the rest of the vessel's structures--this generally means fastening chainplates to bulkheads or knees that transfer the load widely to the hull. This is not a DIY thing for amateurs imho.

 

[alcodiesel]

I broke a chain plate and the weld was rusted where it attached to a horizontal piece that is glassed in. We were unable to inspect the others because of the glassing in. So we attached new, external chain plates and bolted then to the same internal horizontal plates. The new ones are about one inch outboard of the old ones. No noticeable pointing difference on the E27. But I'm a crusier not a racer.

 

[Seth]

Martin,

Thanks for this opportunity! I have a 1988 E26 that I think the Practical Sailor quotation of "A maximum boat for a minimum length" definitly applies to. (From a review of the E25+)


1) On the face of it, there are lots of similarities between the E25, E25+, E26, and E27. How does a designer find ways of adding differentiatable functions/features when working in one foot increments?

2) The E26's appear to have had more model changes (I through IV) than any of the other Ericsons. What was the reason for this?

3) The original E26 was of Crealock design. What did he keep and what did he improve upon of the original boat?

4) In his opinion, did Ericson's Mexican production boats have any substantial quality differences from the California boats?

Thanks again,

Pat
E26->"Pronto"

Just a small reply to some of your points.. Your comment "On the face of it, there are lots of similarities between the E25, E25+, E26, and E27"... The 27 is the outlier to that group. The BK 25, 25+ and 26 and even the 28+ are certainly evolutionary from the 25..although starting with the 25+ many new features and construction methods were employed. The original 26 from Crealock is entirely a different boat and there is no carry through in design philosophy to the BK boats. The 27 was an older BK design (before the newer designs starting with the 25+) using different construction methods and if you try to compare it to the 25/25+ 26 and 28+ the only real similarity is the cabin top and window shapes. Yes they are all BK designs but of entirely different eras... The small changes in features in "one foot increments" are just responses to Ericson's interpretations of market demands... Cheers

 

[Seth]

Bow Weight and Jib

I would like to expand upon something mentioned by Steve in post #2. In all the years I have been racing my 1983 E38, I have found that fore & aft weight distribution and jib selection & trim are the most critical design-induced challenges I face with this boat.

Regarding the fore & aft weight distribution, the forward water tank has the most significant effect. If it is any more than 1/4 full, the boat will teeter-totter in even the smallest waves, slowing the boat down considerably on any point of sail. Similarly, most races require we carry an anchor chain greater than or equal to our LOA. If we carry 40' of chain in the forward fo'csle, we get the same teeter-tottering effect; therefore, we have to secure our anchor, chain and rode in the cabin during races. I must also clear the aft locker of all but the lightest gear (usually, only life jackets are stored there). While I agree with Steve that a full starboard water tank will lead to a noticeable lean to the right, I have not been able to detect a measurable performance effect whether full or empty, even on port tack. Interestingly, while all the riggers and other sailing professionals have told me that I need to strip the boat and make it as light as possible (within the rules, of course), I have not been able to quantify a difference between the lightest possible configuration, to one where the boat is packed with heavy gear, as long as the heavy stuff is secured below decks and away from the fore and aft ends.

Performance-wise, then, I would like to know if Mr. King agrees with me that the fore & aft weight distribution is one of the primary "cons" of the hull design and if he can answer why the engineering team would put the forward water tank in that position knowing its potential effect on sailing performance.

Without getting into a long explanation of my second point regarding headsails, I'll simply mention that for peak performance, I find that we need to change headsails constantly through very narrow shifts in wind speed and relative direction, while other boats I have sailed on and against can fly their headsails through far broader weather windows. This has been a great disadvantage for me in shorthanded races, where I have to change headsails (or lead positions) every, say, +/- 5 mph, while the B25 I'm racing against can use the same headsail +/- 20 mph. Since my E38 did not even come with forward lead tracks for flying a #3 (perhaps it was an option, but I had to install them myself), it seems to me the boat was designed for a single, mid-sized, all-weather jib, like a yankee-cut 135%.

I would love to know from Mr. King more about the marriage between rig and hull design. Did the shape of the hull begat the rig or vice versa? Given what we now know about how the boat performs, together with advances in sail construction and equipment, is it possible that another rig configuration would improve the performance on this hull?

Alan

Alan Cheeks
Trojan Conquest
1983 E38
Redondo Beach, CA

Good question and post. You are absolutely right that to get the most out of the 38, you need to get weight out of the ends- and especially the bow. In fairness, ANY design of that era with similar hull shapes and the then fashionable high aspect rig with big headsails and small mainsails will be similar in this respect and ANY will need to get the anchor and rode back to the middle of the boat for optimum performance, so you are not alone. If you decide to stay in cruise mode and leave that stuff forward, performance and especially pitching moment will suffer, so don't feel bad. I race constantly on a variety of boats and never is the anchor and rode kept forward. That said, partially because of the fineness of the forward sections the 38 might be a more prone than others to hobby horsing and it is even more noticable. The location of the forward water tank was done for lots of reasons, and performance was pretty far down on the list. It is a performance cruiser that can race in local fleets, and again, anyone who races seriously knows to empty ALL the tanks (fuel, water and holding) for best performance, so again this is not unusual.

Regarding sails, you have to remember the period and what was fashionable at the time; high aspect ratio rigs with big headsails, and that means narrow ranges for the various sized headsails. As a cruiser/racer (vs racer/cruiser) the idea was to reduce the number of tracks-but MANY 38 owners who have raced have added forward tracks for smaller headsails. Yacht design and construction is an exercise in compromise, and it is almost impossible to get everything right for all sailors at a market competitive price. The fact that adding tracks is a good idea does not mean here was anything wrong with the design- it is just a compromise. Like most boats of the period, to optimize performance you needed 3-5 different headsails between 150/155% down to around 90%. This was fine for fully crewed racing but for shorthanding it was problematic as you have learned. The most common compromise as you say is a 130-135% genoa with a slightly raised clew on a good furler so you can reduce headsail size as needed. Obviously in under about 8 knots of wind you are slightly underpowered and when you need to reduce sail your sail shape is not idea as it is partially furled. If you sail in a predominantly windy area I might go with a 115% or so RF genoa with a clew just high enough to fit the tracks to carry you from 15 KTWS and up. As you did, you can always install forward inboard tacks for best performance with small headsails. But you will suffer in the low end without larger headsails. If I really wanted to optimize I might go with a smaller genoa and add a Code zero on a top down furler for light air, which is easily lowered and stowed when not in use. The 38 is a tender boat (lots of sail area) that needs to reduce sail early compared to other designs, but that is also what makes it a good performer in most conditions, so finding the optimum compromise is challenging. The main point is that these boats (like all boats) cannot be all things to all sailors and they have compromises to get what the builder felt were the best combination of features below the waterline, below deck, on deck and up the rig. Cheers

 

[Christian Williams]

For cruising, the 38 performs without complaint with full water and anchor and chain forward. It goes to windward well in chop or a seaway, the bow nicely knifing, the bow wave thrown aside such that no spray reaches the cockpit. Hobbyhorsing isn't a noticeable problem. I say this so cruisers and families not worry too much about scandalizing the King design. Seth has given the necessary formula for handicap racing competition.

The 38 is indeed tender, and what will really spoil the joy is too much sail to windward with nobody on the rail. The slab reefing controls should be considered a critical system and lines, blocks, clutches and winches upgraded or maintained. I reef the mainsail at 15-17 knots to maintain comfort and easy steering.

Since the 38 does not plane or even surf much, sail area off the wind, especially on a broad reach, should be less rather than more. If the boat is difficult to steer, mainsail area is too great and the sail is probably overtimmed. Let it luff and see directional control return. A reef does the same thing.

"Pushing" a 38 without a racing crew and an attentive helmsman just puts the boat on its side, turns the rudder into a brake, and does not make it go faster despite the excitement, noise and cinematic effect. The difference in speed between an expertly sailed E38 with professional crew and a well trimmed cruising boat is probably one knot.

Yes, some sailors enjoy being uncomfortable, heeled 30 degrees, and holding on with both hands. Others think that a well sailed cruising boat should proceed with savoir faire, and that that is the essence of Ericson.