The 30+ did have a very low riding boom. Under sail it is not such an issue and at the dock you can raise the topping lift so that it sits high enough above the pedestal so as not to interfere with your cockpit enjoyment. But, you are not the first to have this concern. The simplest solution is to have your sailmaker shorten the leech a foot or so, which will raise the boom up (obviously). You will lose a little sail area but it might be worth it as this boat has plenty to begin with. Of course the typical 90 degree angle of the luff and foot will no longer be 90 degrees and the boom will always be up a bit higher than the tack, but this should not really cause any problems, and if you don't race seriously, it is a small price to pay. The other, more "complete" solution is to raise the gooseneck up 10-12". This will require a more involved recut of the mainsail (shortening the sail by taking this amount off the luff, so you will have a new tack patch and a new clew patch), but the geometry of the sail will remain correct, and of course the labor and materials to move the gooseneck. This will also cause a loss of sail area, affecting the light air performance a little, but again, the boat is quite powered up to begin with and if you sail where is always some breeze you might be happier. If your main is already well used, I would try shortening the leech first and see how you like it. If you do, and are bothered by the new boom angle, maybe raise the gooseneck at the same time you buy a new mainsail so it fits perfectly and the reefs remain in the correct locations. Have fun
-
Untitled Document Join us on November 22nd, 7pm EDT
for the CBEC Virtual Meeting
Adventures & Follies
All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the people you've met online!
See the link below for login credentials and join us!
(dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)
Got Design Questions?
- Thread starter Martin King
- Start date
A previous owner of our 30+ raised the boom about 8 inches and had a new sail made to fit. This moved the boom up enough to install a dodger. They also installed a gas shock vang/boomkicker which keeps the boom up and away unless you tighten the vang down against it.
Even so, with the vang fully on the boom is right in my face (I'm 6'1"), so I still have to worry about getting knocked in the head.
Even so, with the vang fully on the boom is right in my face (I'm 6'1"), so I still have to worry about getting knocked in the head.
Dave G.
1984 E30+ (SOLD)
Yes it's a low boom on the 30+ and have thought about raising the boom for all the obvious comfort reasons. Dodger clearance, and maybe even allow for a bimini of some type for cruising. I had a sailmaker suggest he could shorten the main from the head by widening the headboard and gain 6" . Norm what year and hull# is your boat ?
Hi Martin,
I'm a new owner of a 1990 32-200 and would like to know what your Dad likes most about this design and of course, what he would do differently?
I would be most interested in any modifications he would recommend, if any.
Thank you,
Joe
Norm
Member I
Thanks for responding. My 1985 E35 (#695) has old sails and I plan to replace them and the standing rigging before next year's sail to Mexico. I believe raising the boom 12" and shortening it based on a sailmakers calculations may be the best solution. Then I can build a bimini for sun protection and avoid the chance of crew getting banged in the head.
Norm
Member I
Thanks. 1985 #697
Norm
Member I
Thanks.Since my sails are blown out and will be replaced I think a total redesign with a shortened headsail will be good. I can raise the gooseneck and redo the running rigging, but need to get the sailmaker to calculate the best fit.
i like the idea, having run around last week, requiring sea tow to pull me off, do you have sketches of the modifications?
Mars Metals has done split bulb modifications for many boats, and used to have some photos on their site of an Ericson 38 and an E-35. Not sure if their photo gallery is still online.
Draft Reductions | MarsKeel
As the front-runner in Keel production, we have developed a cost-effective, yet practical, alternative to complete Keel refits.
marskeel.com
Richard, it helps other help you if you will put your boat model, engine model, and sailing area into your Sig Line.
Martin, if you’re checking this thread occasionally, I have a question about the 31 Independence.
On our boat, at the bottom aft end of the anchor locker there is an opening in that bulkhead right above the curve in the bottom of the hull. The opening is three or four inches across. The inlet hose for the forward water tank runs through there and the outlet hose for the holding tank ran through as well before we removed the tank.
But that opening is still big enough that anchor chain can make its way aft into the forward storage compartment under the v-berth.
We use 100’ of chain and 200’ of rode so the rope portion effectively blocks that opening, but I’m curious if that was a design consideration for someone that used all chain. It could put at least some of the weight of the chain lower down and further aft. The bolts for the bobstay live in that same compartment so that might be a problem but they could be covered to keep the chain from snagging.
Just wondering if that was intentional or coincidental or if maybe our boat is the only one that has that opening.
On our boat, at the bottom aft end of the anchor locker there is an opening in that bulkhead right above the curve in the bottom of the hull. The opening is three or four inches across. The inlet hose for the forward water tank runs through there and the outlet hose for the holding tank ran through as well before we removed the tank.
But that opening is still big enough that anchor chain can make its way aft into the forward storage compartment under the v-berth.
We use 100’ of chain and 200’ of rode so the rope portion effectively blocks that opening, but I’m curious if that was a design consideration for someone that used all chain. It could put at least some of the weight of the chain lower down and further aft. The bolts for the bobstay live in that same compartment so that might be a problem but they could be covered to keep the chain from snagging.
Just wondering if that was intentional or coincidental or if maybe our boat is the only one that has that opening.
Hi David,
I'm not sure what Ericson intended there. For sure they wanted to drain the anchor locker to the bilge, but beyond that who's to say?Routing chain weight aft out of the locker is a good thing but I'm not sure that opening is big enough to allow that without feeding problems.
Bobby Steele
Member II
I’d be curious about the 36C. Those were beautiful and roomy boats. Why was it discontinued so quickly?
Well, for one thing both the 36C and the 31C were expensive to build, even back then and appealed to a very niche market. The market was also beginning to change in the late seventies with a demand for increased accomodations for a given length, and little or no exterior wood. I've talked about this in another thread whereby we move into phase 4 of production fiberglass boats with demands for wide sugar scoop transoms, plum stems, and sheerlines designed with a ruler. Boats were now being designed from the inside out, to meet the market at the expense of aesthetics. It's no surprise that a boat like the 36C would have a short production run.
Tom Dilworth
Junior Member
Hi Martin,
I have a 1967 Ericson 30, “Ellie”, which I love and have sailed to Mexico and recently Alaska. But as I’m sure you know, the propeller shaft exits the boat above and behind the rudder. This placement is unusual to say the least and allows the shaft and engine to be nearly level, which is a good thing. I haven’t noticed anything negative, except that when backing you really need to an iron grip on the tiller or the prop wash will jamb the rudder hard over. Another thing that I was initially worried about was cavitation, because the prop is only about a foot under the surface of the water. However that has never been an issue in 2,000 hours of motoring. So I would love to know what Bruce’s thoughts were on this unusual arrangement- why he did it that way and what are the pros and cons.
Thanks! Tom Dilworth
TLEO
Student of Life
Hello,
I'm wondering if anyone has moved their rigging from inside to outside the toe rail? It would clear up the side deck and eliminate the guess work in inspection, and we would be able to seal up any holes to keep everything dryer. We currently have no issues other then needing to replace our 35 year old original rigging.
I'm wondering if anyone has moved their rigging from inside to outside the toe rail? It would clear up the side deck and eliminate the guess work in inspection, and we would be able to seal up any holes to keep everything dryer. We currently have no issues other then needing to replace our 35 year old original rigging.
Prairie Schooner
Jeff & Donna, E35-3 purchased 7/21
Do you mean the shrouds, upper and lowers? I'd think there are really specific structural considerations built around where they are now and that it wouldn't be good to switch. But I'd be interested in hearing a more educated response.
TLEO
Student of Life
Yes, this is what I would like to know. Keeping the front and backstays as they are and relocating the uppers and lowers to the outside. I've seen it done on a Pacific Seacraft, and was wondering if it had ever been done to an Ericson.
You should also consider the basic rigging design changes that appeared in the (late) 70's and into the 80's. Earlier (and proportionately narrower) fiberglass boats, including Ericson's, had chainplates glassed into the hull layup until the wider designs in the 80's rewarded having the shroud bases inboard and tied to internal grids and rods. And to bulkheads. This allowed closer jib sheeting angles.
Another difficulty, due basically to aging, is that the shroud chainplates that were embedded into the hull layup had no way to inspect them for cracks or corrosion without removal and expensive re-glassing of new ones.
On the older (chainplates out next to the deck edge) designs, from EY and a host of other builders, it often makes more economic sense to establish new external chainplates and just use the buried ones as backing plates. The sheeting angle changes, but not very much.
The rig geometry on the 80's King designs is wrong for forcing the headsail sheeting all the way outboard by changing the shroud bases.
You did not mention it, but one other reason sailors quickly got to liking having the shroud bases located inward close or beside the cabin side was safety and ease of traversing the side decks.
Such a change would required new spreaders. Also the need for an evaluation by an NA. This might also affect the insurability. Remember that your hull, keel, and rig were designed as a functional entity.
Pointing.... the hull and fins of many of the PSC designs would not reward the movement/placement inward of the shroud base, IMHO. The very efficient keels of the Ericson's does, a lot.
"Your boat, your rules" as the saying goes, but an obvious rig change in that generation of the Ericson's would likely reduce the resale value to near-zero. Yup, that's an opinion.
peaman
Sustaining Member
The original shrouds are anchored low in the liner and near the TAFG. They pass through the deck with no real transfer of forces. Moving the shrouds outboard would create compression loads at the deck level, which would need to be accounted for. Not sure how that could be done satisfactorily. Perhaps by reinforcing the side decks and spreading the loads fore and aft, or by some stiff member bridging the house inside or outside. And then there is the impact on sail trim imposed by outboard shrouds.
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.)
There is a great description of rigging force loading in the Brion Toss Riggers Apprentice book. He views the whole load as a "circle" of force with the mast as one side, the spreaders and shrouds as another, and the internal structure including deck and bulkhead or the EY ss rods as the part that connects these forces back to the base of the spar.
For instance, the deck layup is heavier in the area where your shroud loads pass thru, down to the internal connections. I observed this layup change when we had the shroud SS bases off during our re-fit.
Edit, at about 4 minutes into this great new video, you can Really see the ease of moving fore and aft around the inward (stock) shroud bases. And, the inboard sheeting angle is apparent, also.
Early Spring Sail
New video of our latest spring sail on the Chesapeake which includes some fun with a Insta360 camera.
Last edited: