Is this all a lot of B.S.
Hi Jeff,
BS = shorthand for "backstay"
At least that's the way I read it.
Loren
Hi Jeff,
BS = shorthand for "backstay"
At least that's the way I read it.
Loren
-
Untitled Document The 2024-2025 Fund Raising Season has Opened!
EricsonYachts.org has opened the season for raising funds to support the expenses of the site. If you would like to participate, please see the link below for additional information.
Thanks so much for your continued support of EricsonYachts.org!
-
Untitled Document Join us on January 24th, 7pm EDT
for the CBEC Virtual Meeting
EY.o January Zoom Meeting
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)
Hydraulic Backstay
- Thread starter ted_reshetiloff
- Start date
sailingdeacon
Member III
Here is photo of the Blue Label mast by Sparcraft. Unfortunately the company rep is not available again until Tuesday. But the photo shows a much more retangular mast than those see here. I'll confirm more, but the key issue here might be that a sailmaker might not at all be aware of a design change to the Ericson34 masts - one that apparently changed in June of 1989. If all this is true then a sail built now for a post-1989 E34 would have too much built in curve for the mast.
I strongly suspect I have the original Mainsail (will try to contact the original owner) and if so probably have a stiffer mast than the sail was designed for - not perfect for the mainsail I have. This might explain why I am having trouble getting it board flat
Wonder if all the Ericsons had a mast design change?
I strongly suspect I have the original Mainsail (will try to contact the original owner) and if so probably have a stiffer mast than the sail was designed for - not perfect for the mainsail I have. This might explain why I am having trouble getting it board flat
Wonder if all the Ericsons had a mast design change?
Attachments
-
blue.jpg
sparing (partner?)
Your mast is DEFINITELY different than the Kenyon spar on Escapade. That's not a bad thing but you are correct in thinking that a sail cut for my boat wouldn't be optimum for yours. Escapade was built in early to mid 88 (if the HIN numbers can be trusted) hull #265. When I had my new main built the sailmaker came out and measured not only the P & E dims but noted the mast bend and how the mast curved as well as the sail controls I had. It was then cut to match my set-up with excellent results. It's the first new main I've ever had on a boat and it really amazed me how much you can move the draft around with the different sail controls. He's since sailed with us a couple of times to make sure everything worked out OK and made some suggestions on what to add. It's interesting that Ericson switched spars at the end. Just adds to the confusion. Oh well!
Have fun & sail fast
Bud E34 "Escapade"
Your mast is DEFINITELY different than the Kenyon spar on Escapade. That's not a bad thing but you are correct in thinking that a sail cut for my boat wouldn't be optimum for yours. Escapade was built in early to mid 88 (if the HIN numbers can be trusted) hull #265. When I had my new main built the sailmaker came out and measured not only the P & E dims but noted the mast bend and how the mast curved as well as the sail controls I had. It was then cut to match my set-up with excellent results. It's the first new main I've ever had on a boat and it really amazed me how much you can move the draft around with the different sail controls. He's since sailed with us a couple of times to make sure everything worked out OK and made some suggestions on what to add. It's interesting that Ericson switched spars at the end. Just adds to the confusion. Oh well!
Have fun & sail fast
Bud E34 "Escapade"
Yup
Ditto that! You can see they kept the original Kenyon boom as well!
As Bud says, the better sailmakers will measure the boat specifically, and part of this is to determine the amount of prebend and/or available bend. If the sail was built for the original mast, and this one is stiffer-it could be the issue.
I still think that mast is tuneable to match this sail (or get very close). It is a good section from a good sparbuilder.
My suggestion is to retune the rig for more prebend (step in the aft most position, mast pushed against the front of the partners, and set the fwd. lowers up about 3 turns tighter than the aft lowers-go sailing. If the lower section is still too full(with the outhaul sufficiently tight of course), ease the aft lowers and take up the fwd lowers in equal amounts until (increasing prebend) until the sail is right.
I think, unless this sail is a lemon, you will be able to tune the fullness out..
Good luck!
S
Ditto that! You can see they kept the original Kenyon boom as well!
As Bud says, the better sailmakers will measure the boat specifically, and part of this is to determine the amount of prebend and/or available bend. If the sail was built for the original mast, and this one is stiffer-it could be the issue.
I still think that mast is tuneable to match this sail (or get very close). It is a good section from a good sparbuilder.
My suggestion is to retune the rig for more prebend (step in the aft most position, mast pushed against the front of the partners, and set the fwd. lowers up about 3 turns tighter than the aft lowers-go sailing. If the lower section is still too full(with the outhaul sufficiently tight of course), ease the aft lowers and take up the fwd lowers in equal amounts until (increasing prebend) until the sail is right.
I think, unless this sail is a lemon, you will be able to tune the fullness out..
Good luck!
S
sailingdeacon
Member III
Finally the good info
Sparcraft of Charlotte, NC, was extremely helpful - them manufactured the Ericson masts. After seeing photos of the mast and with a good description of the retangular section, and identifying with my Blue Label type, they definitely agree that the mast is what they call F305 rather than the previous Kenyon section. The mast is lighter but stiffer, "relatively stiffer" but only 20% so. (If one places the mast on two saw horses, with a weight in the middle, the kenyon will bend 20% more than the newer F305)
At our club I noticed an E32 of a later date than my 1987 E34. It also has this same retangular type mast. So all you Ericson owners of post 6/89 have a different mast. Sailmakers should be made aware of it.
Finally, I loosened the headstay 1" tightened the forward lowards to 1000 lbs, loosened the aft lowers to 600 lbs, and I now get more bend, but not over about 4" at most. The bend is very gradual all the way up, not mostly at the top as in the photo seen on this posting) I will test the sail flatness this weekend. My BS adjuster has only 7" !! but it is enough to go from loose to very tight. The forestay with a furled headsail (yes I race with a furling 155 and blade) is very, very loose when there is no bs pressure.
So at least I know if I buy a new mainsail to make sure he knows the mast details. (By the way guys, in eastern NC, unless you are a hugely big spender for many sails, no sailmakers will come out and bend your mast with a turnbuckle to test the bendability.)
Sparcraft of Charlotte, NC, was extremely helpful - them manufactured the Ericson masts. After seeing photos of the mast and with a good description of the retangular section, and identifying with my Blue Label type, they definitely agree that the mast is what they call F305 rather than the previous Kenyon section. The mast is lighter but stiffer, "relatively stiffer" but only 20% so. (If one places the mast on two saw horses, with a weight in the middle, the kenyon will bend 20% more than the newer F305)
At our club I noticed an E32 of a later date than my 1987 E34. It also has this same retangular type mast. So all you Ericson owners of post 6/89 have a different mast. Sailmakers should be made aware of it.
Finally, I loosened the headstay 1" tightened the forward lowards to 1000 lbs, loosened the aft lowers to 600 lbs, and I now get more bend, but not over about 4" at most. The bend is very gradual all the way up, not mostly at the top as in the photo seen on this posting) I will test the sail flatness this weekend. My BS adjuster has only 7" !! but it is enough to go from loose to very tight. The forestay with a furled headsail (yes I race with a furling 155 and blade) is very, very loose when there is no bs pressure.
So at least I know if I buy a new mainsail to make sure he knows the mast details. (By the way guys, in eastern NC, unless you are a hugely big spender for many sails, no sailmakers will come out and bend your mast with a turnbuckle to test the bendability.)
Frank Langer
1984 Ericson 30+, Nanaimo, BC
Why do you keep your headstay "very, very loose"? My understanding is that roller furlers work better with moderate tension; otherwise they can be sloppy when furling/unfurling the headsail. I also understand from most tuning guides that the headstay should have at most about 6" if sag in a reasonable wind. Any comment or reason why you prefer it so loose?
Thanks,
Frank.
Thanks,
Frank.
Tension and Furling
Our rigger advises us to bring headstay tension up to at least 1500# when rolling it in or out. A straight headstay wire works better when rotating the foil.
I can indeed tell the difference in tension on the furling line when rolling it in.
Like others here have related, I do relax it at the dock and also let some steam off the halyard.
Loren
Our rigger advises us to bring headstay tension up to at least 1500# when rolling it in or out. A straight headstay wire works better when rotating the foil.
I can indeed tell the difference in tension on the furling line when rolling it in.
Like others here have related, I do relax it at the dock and also let some steam off the halyard.
Loren
Last edited:
sailingdeacon
Member III
I did not mean to imply I keep the headstay loose. Following the long thread of discussion here, the issue was why I was not getting a good mast bend. Only if I loosen the headstay significantly can I get a descent bend - due to the different mast on this boat. I will tighten it when when I furl. And yes, I also reduce tension on the halyard at the dock.
ted_reshetiloff
Contributing Partner
Another tuning Question
I find that in heavy air when I crank up the BS to bend my rig and take the sag out of the headstay that my uppers and intermediates get a soft. If I were to put a few turns on it would fix the problem but then at the end of the day when I unload the rig my uppers and intermediates would be really tight. Probably tighter than I would like. My guess is that I should probably put some ring dings on the upper and intermediate turnbuckles and get some heavy and light air settings, but maybe there is an easier route. I am preparing for what will likely be a heavy air regatta in 2 weeks and I am thinking I should do something about the rig tune. On the bright side I did manage to find 8 other guys to help crew the boat. Might look for 2 more if the forecast turns out to be heavy.
I find that in heavy air when I crank up the BS to bend my rig and take the sag out of the headstay that my uppers and intermediates get a soft. If I were to put a few turns on it would fix the problem but then at the end of the day when I unload the rig my uppers and intermediates would be really tight. Probably tighter than I would like. My guess is that I should probably put some ring dings on the upper and intermediate turnbuckles and get some heavy and light air settings, but maybe there is an easier route. I am preparing for what will likely be a heavy air regatta in 2 weeks and I am thinking I should do something about the rig tune. On the bright side I did manage to find 8 other guys to help crew the boat. Might look for 2 more if the forecast turns out to be heavy.
Rake or bend?
That old saw......
I see that you are loosening the headstay to get more bend. My suggestion had been the opposite-tighten the headstay to get more bend.My thinking was that if it has less slack to begin with the mast will bend (from compression of course) sooner. By easing the HS you ARE inducing more rake, but not necessarly bend...
OTOH, if you are sure that is what you have accomplished, that is what counts most..And while 7" of throw is pretty minimal, all that really matters is that main can go from full to VERY flat, and you can keep the HS tight enough when beating in about 12-15 KTWS-which means keep the sag within 6-7"...
Ted-I know you will see this at the dock, but when sailing, with or without the rig bent, the WINDWARD shrouds should all be tight, and of course the lee shrouds will be somewhat looser. Don't worry that the shrouds lose some tension when you compress (I mean bend!) the mast-they can't help it. Just be sure the overall tensions are adequate for the conditions. You can tell by sighting up the windward side of the rig when it is fully loaded. It should be completely in column with no sagging to leeward at any point-except maybe slightly at the top in the upper ranges (but not below about 15 TWS). If you see this(rig in column), and if the lee shrouds have maybe 1-2" of play (over 15 TWS-slightly less in lighter air), you have good shroud tension for the conditions-at least in the ballpark. But, you are correct that you will get better performance tuning the shrouds for the conditions-develop light, med and hvy air settings for the uppers, intermediates and lowers (if you have the time and inclination) for optimal speed. The lighter the wind, the lower the shroud tension.
Over....
S
That old saw......
I see that you are loosening the headstay to get more bend. My suggestion had been the opposite-tighten the headstay to get more bend.My thinking was that if it has less slack to begin with the mast will bend (from compression of course) sooner. By easing the HS you ARE inducing more rake, but not necessarly bend...
OTOH, if you are sure that is what you have accomplished, that is what counts most..And while 7" of throw is pretty minimal, all that really matters is that main can go from full to VERY flat, and you can keep the HS tight enough when beating in about 12-15 KTWS-which means keep the sag within 6-7"...
Ted-I know you will see this at the dock, but when sailing, with or without the rig bent, the WINDWARD shrouds should all be tight, and of course the lee shrouds will be somewhat looser. Don't worry that the shrouds lose some tension when you compress (I mean bend!) the mast-they can't help it. Just be sure the overall tensions are adequate for the conditions. You can tell by sighting up the windward side of the rig when it is fully loaded. It should be completely in column with no sagging to leeward at any point-except maybe slightly at the top in the upper ranges (but not below about 15 TWS). If you see this(rig in column), and if the lee shrouds have maybe 1-2" of play (over 15 TWS-slightly less in lighter air), you have good shroud tension for the conditions-at least in the ballpark. But, you are correct that you will get better performance tuning the shrouds for the conditions-develop light, med and hvy air settings for the uppers, intermediates and lowers (if you have the time and inclination) for optimal speed. The lighter the wind, the lower the shroud tension.
Over....
S
Last edited: