E35-2 - Deck fitting glassed to deck?

[adam]

[SUP]
My boat had twin deck fittings underneath the spreaders. I assumed that they were for flag halyards, and as they were both a trip hazard and potential source of leaks I thought I'd just pull them off.

It turned into a minor nightmare.

Tore up the deck, broke two screwdrivers, pulled out the angle grinder to chop it up, and still haven't removed the fitting.

First of all, it turns out the fitting was epoxied to the deck. Secondly, the fitting extends down into the deck connected to who knows what because I can't access the bottom of it.

Anyone know what this fitting was for,[/SUP][SUP] and what anyone was thinking epoxying it to the deck?

[/SUP]

 

[Loren Beach]

Aside: your site bio sez you sail an E-29. Might be good to update that.

I wonder what year and model type your boat is?
If it's an E-35-2, that strap you see on deck probably goes down thru the deck and is bolted thru a partial or full bulkhead inside.

Have you inspected the underside of that fitting? And, have you a picture to post of the inside of your boat below that fitting?

Loren

 

[adam]

Bio updated.

And I feel like a bit of an idiot. This deck fitting wasn't epoxied to the deck. It was unused and indeed attached to a small chainplate. Once I undid the bolts on the chainplate it pulled right out.

On the port side it's held in place with 3 bolts. On the starboard side it seems it's only held in with a single bolt as the "bar" is in the way.

What was the deck fitting for?

 

[adam]

Maybe this picture will help?

The mysterious fitting, no idea what it was for, sits almost dead center intween all of the shrouds.

 

[celtic sea]

I have the same fittings on my 1975 E35-2. I'm assuming they are for the flag haylards too. They both line up perfect with the shroud pulleys.
Maybe someone here can confirm what there for.
John
E35

 

[adam]

I have the same fittings on my 1975 E35-2. I'm assuming they are for the flag haylards too. They both line up perfect with the shroud pulleys.
Maybe someone here can confirm what there for.
John
E35

Still not 100% sure, but it seems most likely it was used for a boom preventer and/or some sort of old school racing vang.

 

[Christian Williams]

Jib lead for a staysail or storm jib?

 

[bgary]

Jib lead for a staysail or storm jib?

I was kind of thinking the same thing - padeye for a block. It probably isn't for a preventer, it's aligned for a fore-and-aft load, not an athwartship load.

 

[adam]

I feel slightly less dumb now. When I removed the fitting on the other side, I learned it was glued in with polyester resin, in addition to being attached to the chainplate. It made it fun removing everything....

 

[garryh]

it is too much of a coincidence that the non-skid above is the same pattern and colour as mine. I had assumed mine was a PO applique of some sort a la Treadmaster, etc... is this actually a pattern moulded into the gel with a different paint colour..? This would make it a LOT easier when I have to start digging into the decks vs removing a plasticky glued down applique

 

[Lucky Dog]

Seems there was lime of questions many years ago.
i took mind off....one less set of holes to rot the core.
There is next to no structual strength the way it is mounted.
I think it was clipping a spinnaker or jib pole to.

mark

 

[garryh]

this is an old thread but came across this mysterious fitting discussion on another thread so thought it might be good for posterity to include it here. It appears this is mainly a deck tie down plate to counter the upward force on the deck via the aft lower which is not attached to a bulkhead but rather bolted to the joint of the deck and cabin trunk. The 'tie down' plates on my 35-2 are smooth with no ring... the rings are toe stubbers and kinda useless so may have been removed by a PO.
I am just recoring my decks and was going to remove this fitting ... now I won't. I will also make sure that there is some substantial coring material in that specific area vs the 'honeycomb' Nydacore I am using for the larger areas... will use either plywood or solid laminate.

 

[adam]

It appears this is mainly a deck tie down plate to counter the upward force on the deck via the aft lower which is not attached to a bulkhead but rather bolted to the joint of the deck and cabin trunk.

Interesting....

I wonder if I should replace them then.

 

[garryh]

I would suggest it is a design feature, they seemed useless before... now I will replace them and fortify the core in that area. Mine on both sides are bolted to the main bulkheads. Here is the link to the other thread discussing these-
http://www.ericsonyachts.org/infoexchange/showthread.php?10349-E35-2-lower-shrouds&highlight=e35II

 

[Christian Williams]

Here is a theory, based on the thread referenced above, and on Seth's comment:

The aft lower had the purpose of preventing mast pumping, and not much else. Ergo, only needed a deck step.

However, the aft lower prevented the boom going all the way out when downwind.

So racers downwind would move the aft lower forward on that course, so the main would fill better.

Where to put the aft lower? On the hardware in question.

Seth's comment:

[h=2]Aft lowers[/h]

.....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.​

 

[Loren Beach]

Double Lowers and other trivia

For best strength and general conservative design, I have noticed that double lowers are much more common than single (in line) shrouds.
The Olson's have in-line double spreader rigs, but also have, (at least on the tall rig versions) check stays. Those extra aft-led stays are only used, in my experience, for times when you might bash into big chop and load up the spar when the boat tries to stop for an instant.
We have used them off shore, but never for our river sailing.
Note B: in your mast support system, I suspect that those lowers are likely the most heavily loaded, compared to the uppers.
Note C: as long as your boat has parallel shrouds, you can still let the main out quite a ways before the boom gets too close to the boom. Boats with aft-swept spreaders are really unhandy for downwind sailing, in comparison.

I tie the upper check stays off with light line to a deck turn buckle or eye, and keep the heavier/larger line tails put away for those times when I need them. The tails go thru blocks mounted way aft on each side and thence to the secondary ST winches.
If I were competing and having to use those winches for a chute I would put a cam cleat by those turning blocks.

We used to race our former boat and it had secondary winches that we really only needed for mark roundings on windy days.... when you have the chute and also the jib in play at the same time. Those are times when your cockpit looks like a run-amok spaghetti factory.

 

[garryh]

the downwind temporary attachment point for the aft lowers makes perfect sense. But wondering if the 'tie down' theory as an ancillary benefit has merit. If the aft lower is in fact there mainly to reduce mast pumping in a seaway, there will be cyclic upward forces on the deck which need to be countered.
I wonder if we will ever know..? : |

 

[garryh]

do have to admit though, would seem to be a pretty meager plate if it is to serve as a deck tie down..............