E35 vs E35 MKII vs E35MKIII HELP!!!

[CRSteve]

Hello All...
I own a 1985 E35 MKIII Tall Rig, hull #211, "Mr Toad". (formerly "Molly May")
Can anyone tell me the differences between an E35 vs E35 MKII vs E35 MKIII?
I am asked this question often and am starting to get a complex when my response is not much more than a blank stare.
Please help!
Thanks,
Steve Wallace
Campbell River, BC.

 

[Mort Fligelman]

Difference in 35 Fooot Ericsons

Steve:

The easiest way to check this out is to go to The Documents and Archives section under "Resources".

All of the information is there in the original factory brochures, and under all of the specific downloads.

Search this site carefully and you will be filled with boundless knowledge.

Best of luck

 

[PDX]

You won't find any brochures or other info about the original Ericson 35 in the downloads section. Reputedly it was an Alberg 35 copy and has very little in common with other Ericson designs. As with other Alberg designs, it is narrow, heavy, full keel, and has a large mainsail, small headsail. In contrast, masthead Bruce King designed Ericsons have balanced rigs, fin keels, and the 60s and 70s Ericsons were considered beamy and light weight at the time of their production.

The 35-2 is a 70s production, while the 35-3 is an 80s production. In general, the 35-3 is a bigger, heavier, probably faster and better constructed. If you are looking for specific differences, I agree that the downloads section has lots of info available.

 

[Lucky Dog]

A bit more

Copied form other member’s posts

The 35 is an Alberg design while the other two are Bruce King designs. If you look at all 3 side by side you will see similarities in the II and III and they are nothing like the traditional looking original 35. The III is definitely an evolution of the II.


35 is older Alberg design
35-2 is King design
35-3 is King design refined. (latest/last version)

and a link found at;

EY.o Information Exchange > Links, Resources & Downloads > EY.o Downloads Center > Model-Specific Documentation


http://www.ericsonyachts.org/infoexchange/local_links.php?catid=94

EIII is suppose to be faster...depends on who is doing the sailing

ml

 

[PDX]

To clarify

The original Ericson 35 is an Alberg knock-off. It is not an Alberg design. Alberg never worked for Ericson.

The story goes that Ericson people found the molds to an Alberg 35 hull in a dump where Pearson had deposited them. Apart from the rig and hull the rest of the boat (deck, cockpit, interior layout, cabin trunk) was designed by Ericson. Ericson also made a slight modification to the keel and rudder.

I don't know whether Bruce King was yet working for Ericson at this time. Most of the Ericson principles, in the early days, came from Columbia.

 

[Seth]

True Dat

Except to clarify there is no direct line between the 35-II and the 35-III.
The -III is an entirely new design from the -II. They had different design briefs, and the only similarity is that they occupied the 35 foot offering from Ericson at the time of manufacture..
There you go!

 

[treilley]

Seth, maybe from a corporate standpoint the boats are not connected but the fact that they were both designed by Bruce King and are of similar size, I would imagine that what worked well with the 35-II evolved on the 35-III.

I cannot believe that Mr. King did not treat the 35-III as an entirely new entity without considering the 35-II.

Just an observation and opinion so I could certainly be wrong.

 

[Seth]

Hate to say it, but it's true

The 35-II was designed as a true racer/cruiser, with shape and rig configuration intended to be optimized to the handicap rules as they were in effect at the time.

It was a relatively light displacment boat by the standards of the day.

The -III was designed as a cruiser of moderate displacement (again in the context of the times and market trends) with solid performance, but in no way was the hull shaped influenced by any rating rule considerations.

A close look at the hull shapes will reveal no similarities, and the construction styles are completely different.

The only "common" aspect is that Bruce King drew them both, and they represented his best efforts at meeting the design requirements for each project, and both are obviously very good boats.

Other than this, there are no specific conceptual design similarities.

But this a good thing. It is an example of how Ericson and Bruce King were able to produce 2 35 foot boats to meet the needs of the markets in the 70's and later in the 80's.

Are we cool, T?

Cheers,

S:nerd:

 

[Skip Jim]

Is it everyones understanding that the 35 lll is a faster boat than the 35 ll?

Jim

 

[treilley]

I get it now Seth.

Jim, although the PHRF rating would dictate that the 35-3 is faster, I have never personally raced against a 35-2.

 

[Loren Beach]

Speed vs Ease

One other piece of information that a handicap rating alone will not tell you, at all... is how easy a given boat is to sail to its rating.
Another way to say it is that some boats have to be worked at all the time to achieve their best speed -- i.e. they have a narrower range of sail shape and helm touches that will keep them right "in the groove."

While we are, at the usual 10 to 15 kt wind speeds, talking about displacement hulls, there is a noticeable and light helm "feel" to an efficient hull. Hard to quantify, but having helmed chunky hulls like a Catalina 28 or 30, the helm is relatively lifeless in comparison to my old Niagara or present Olson. One type of boat just wants to sail... and other has to be "forced", is one way to describe it.

When you look at Phil's E-35-2 carving up to weather on this site's splash screen, there is no doubt in my mind that the boat is just loving it!

No science here, just some experience and a bit of intuition. Not even worth one cent!
In comparison, Seth should charge 4 cents.

Cheers,
Loren

 

[Seth]

I'd never get away with it!

But seriously folks, the 35-III is a faster boat than the -II.
In most conditions it should be faster roughly in accordance with the rating difference.
The trick, as Loren alluded to, is that these statements are based on some assumptions: The boats have fresh sails and are using appropriately sized sails for a given wind condition and angle; they are not overloaded, and are loaded correctly; and they have clean bottoms.

These conditions are rarely met except by race boats, and despite what the bare facts of the 2 designs suggest, I can imagine many conditions where a -II would be faster than a -III.....

How about 12 knots TWS at a TWA of 160 degrees... The -II is flying a full sized .75 oz spinnaker, staysail and full main, while the -III is flying a furling 135% genoa and mainsail in the same conditions. Guess which is going faster?

On another topic, someone was commenting on weight placement having a big effect on pitching moment for their 38, and how he could tell the difference when he had anchor chain in the bow-the boat was slower and would pitch a lot in the waves.

Great observation, and this is true for any boat. As convenient as those bow lockers are, if you are racing you simply cannot afford to put ANYTHING in there. There is a significant performance penalty on any boat when you sail with weight in either end (although the bow is usually more sensitive), so when racing, you should not only remove any weight from the boat you can, but make sure you empty to bow locker, fwd tanks, and the aft cockpit lockers (as much as you can). I put the anchors, chain and rode in a sail bag on the cabin sole right on top of the keel when racing.

This is certainly not unique to Ericson designs, and any performance oriented cruising desgn will behave the same way-it is just physics.

Most folks are willing to sacrifice some performance when cruising or day sailing for the conveneience of these features, but one must accept the impact this will have on performance-the same way your car is a bit more sluggish off the line and around the corners when fully loaded.

Sorry for trying to cover both issues here, but it seemed like a good fit.

Don't forget to tip your waitress!

 

[LeifThor]

I really appreciate what everyone has said in this post about the two boats as I’ve often wondered myself. I’ve owned two Ericsons a 1978 fixed keel 25, and now I’m living on a 1972 E35-2 with my girlfriend. I’ll give my two cents and I’m sure some people will raise their eyebrow and that’s fine we all have our own opinions. and though most of the feedback in this post revolves around performance sailing I find sailboats to be a much deeper subject than just how well they sail.

So first I’m gonna cover the bad part of my E35-2. The most important structural elements of this boat were all made with non-stainless steel just regular rusting steel. The mounts for the helm under the cockpit, the engine mounts, the compression plate under the mast, and the gas tank. I would be the first to say that the Ericson engineers did an absolutely fantastic job on designing these boats especially Bruce King the hull. I could spend pages and pages just talking about the woodwork or the fiberglass, but their choice in using non-stainless steel for all of these incredibly critical products was almost unforgivable, especially given their pivotal requirement to keep the boat structurally sound. On my 1972 boat they also used wood without any paint or coating below the sole of the cabin which I thought was for stringers but turned out to be simply to support the fiberglass floor. Due to the way they were tabbed in.

That’s about all the bad there is with this boat. I bought this boat pretty beat up because it was a dream someday to own an E35. I had sold my E25, having moved to another state and was hoping to get a 30 foot boat for under 8k primarily eying Catalina 30s given what I could afford. And then on craigslist I found this 72 E35-2 for 8k, and I got it in a heartbeat even though it needed a lot of work.

Since purchasing it a year and a half ago I have replaced everything in the engine except the block. It’s an atomic four rebuild five years old, but gas tank carburetor alternator water pump fuel pump fuel filter, and the entire exhaust system from engine to stern all replaced. I could have punched my hand through the back of the gas tank. I’ve removed the rotting wood below the floor sole and spent 100 hours cleaning the area that no one ever sees.

I’ve pulled all the port lights and repaired/reseated them, And I’m about to pull the mast replace the rigging and mast compression plate. I am currently in the process of replacing both hatches on the deck which were supposedly rebuild just a few years ago and are already falling apart. With the new rigging and the new proper marine hatches, the heavy duty brand new sails the boat came with, radar, awesome windless, and rolling furler, top of the line traveler, and full cockpit Bimini (all which came with the boat) this boat will be able to make Bluewater voyages.

One difference to note between the E35-2 and the E35-3 is that the E35-2 has a fiberglass inner shell in the cabin area. Some people like it some people hate it, I personally love it as it keeps the boat looking clean and smelling clean. Another difference between the two boats is my engine is in the bottom of the boat under one of the seats rather than under the cockpit. That’s bad for noise good for center of weight and far easier to work on the engine under the cockpit. Heads up the replacing the exhaust system was a nightmare given how low the engine sat compared to the waterline. I was successful in the engine runs so cool you can put your hand on the manifold while it’s running in gear.

And the last difference which I think is a big one is that after 1980 when resin prices went up blistering became much more predominant because of the way the resin was mixed. So if you have any boat that’s older than 1980 you have less of a chance of blisters.

And of course there’s the most obvious fact that the newer Ericsons are… Newer so 10 years less wear and tear. I talked to owner of the other day who had his E38 built in 1990, 18 years after mine was built.

So that’s my two cents on it. I really wish I had an opportunity to sail on both versions with the same captain to compare how they sail. All of my comments are primarily mostly centered around the structural elements of just the E35-2. I have been inside a couple E35-3s, and did not notice the difference in size. But I did immediately notice the difference in smell and the way the ceiling was different and that the engine was located under the cockpit. Both versions are beautiful, it really just comes down to personal taste.