Our 1974 E32 had all of the running and standing rigging replaced...about 3 years ago (before we bought it). The new mast is 42 feet high. That's just the mast - from the mast step to the mast head - does not include the fittings on the top. I have looked through the resource material on this website but can't seem to find the measurement for the factory masts that were stepped on these boats. Can anyone tell me what the height of the mast would have been when this boat was built? Many thanks, Helga
remember that the total length of the spar is different from the hoist measurement of the main sail (black bands at the gooseneck and the limit of upper hoist of headboard).
Looks like some need for good data here -- like a tape measurement from deck to top of boom and then from top of mainsail to top of truck.
Looks like some need for good data here -- like a tape measurement from deck to top of boom and then from top of mainsail to top of truck.
Well, here's a link to the Ericson 32-2 page on SailData, complete with a profile photograph and Bruce King's drawing:
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1165
Those rig dimensions appear to me to have been taken from Bruce King's drawing. It may be that Ericson substituted a taller mast for the actual production model but four feet sounds like a lot.
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1165
Those rig dimensions appear to me to have been taken from Bruce King's drawing. It may be that Ericson substituted a taller mast for the actual production model but four feet sounds like a lot.
Be careful
We often see people confusing "height of the mast" with the actual rig dimensions.
Any of the published rig dimensions are for sail design purposes and do not relate to height above water, or even above deck.
If you can tell us what you are really looking for, or for what reason we can probably give a clearer answer..
Happy trails,
S
We often see people confusing "height of the mast" with the actual rig dimensions.
Any of the published rig dimensions are for sail design purposes and do not relate to height above water, or even above deck.
If you can tell us what you are really looking for, or for what reason we can probably give a clearer answer..
Happy trails,
S
The actual MAST is 42 feet
Thanks for your comments.
I am certain that the actual mast is 42 feet as I measured it with the rigger hanging on at mast head. 42 feet is ONLY the mast from the masthead to the mast step. It does not include the instrumentation on top of the mast and does not include the coach house or distance to waterline. Just the spar itself.
This is a custom rig, and I`m thinking that because the boat came up from San Diego (light wind area) they opted for a taller than average mast. It seems tall to me and other people have commented on the height but I am unsure what the factory height of mast for a 1974 E 32 was.
Thanks for your comments.
I am certain that the actual mast is 42 feet as I measured it with the rigger hanging on at mast head. 42 feet is ONLY the mast from the masthead to the mast step. It does not include the instrumentation on top of the mast and does not include the coach house or distance to waterline. Just the spar itself.
This is a custom rig, and I`m thinking that because the boat came up from San Diego (light wind area) they opted for a taller than average mast. It seems tall to me and other people have commented on the height but I am unsure what the factory height of mast for a 1974 E 32 was.
I know there are a lot of years between your 32, and our 1990 32, but our mast is also 42 feet, basic length without instruments.
I wonder if BC did a ratio approach. 27 were so tall, 32 were so tall etc. I'm not saying he did it on purpose, but is there some correlation in the Ericsons between length and mast height?..that can be charted??
I wonder if BC did a ratio approach. 27 were so tall, 32 were so tall etc. I'm not saying he did it on purpose, but is there some correlation in the Ericsons between length and mast height?..that can be charted??
There is only the most general correlation. Some designs, within a specific boat LOA, are higher aspect. They will have taller masts and shorter booms. Here is the link to your boat's sail data:
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=652
And here is the link to the 1970s E32-2 sail data:
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1165
Compared to the 1970s E32-2, your boat has a higher aspect sail plan--longer mast and shorter boom. It also has more sail area and a higher aspect keel (deeper and narrower), slightly more ballast, and more overall weight.
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=652
And here is the link to the 1970s E32-2 sail data:
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1165
Compared to the 1970s E32-2, your boat has a higher aspect sail plan--longer mast and shorter boom. It also has more sail area and a higher aspect keel (deeper and narrower), slightly more ballast, and more overall weight.
Not to nitpick
Just remember that the length of the mast is not a relevant dimension for anything related to sails, so I am curious why this particular dimension is of interest. I suppose you can add the height from the waterline to the deck cutout, plus the instruments/antenna and come up with bridge clearance, but that is about it other than measuring for shipping on a truck.
The important dimensions are:
"I" (=top of the masthead sheave to the base of "I", which is about an inch below the chainplate deck fitting for the upper shrouds), which is one of the values to determine genoa and spinnaker size. If you attach a tape to the genoa halyard and raise it all the way, measure down to the chainplate deck fitting for the uppers and add 1", you will be VERY close to the designed "I" measurement. Note: "I" is measured to the top of the genoa halyard sheave, "ISP" is measured to the top of the spinnaker halyard sheave.. "I" is for genoa luff lengths (subject to small details for the tack fitting height above deck, furler drum below the sheave, etc.), and "ISP" is for spinnaker luff lengths ("SP" for SPinnaker).
"J" (stem fitting to the fwd edge of the mast),. This is the base of the foretriangle, and is the other dimension used to determine spinnaker and genoa size (is the basis for genoa LP and spinnaker girth)
"P" From the top face of the boom, up the mast a distance equal to the designed P. This point is usually where you would place a tape or painted band, and the lower edge of the band represents the point. This dimension is to determine the luff length of the mainsail. Usually the top of P will be about 6" below the top of the main halyard sheave. Sometimes though, for rating reasons, the top of P is a bit lower, so unlike with the "I", you cannot relate it exactly to the main halyard sheave..The band is there so you can sight up and see if you have pulled the sail above the limit of P, which is not permitted when racing. If not racing, and you are not concerned with having the mainsail match the P, just place a mark 6" below the top of the main halyard sheave, and you will have a max luff length for the mainsail which fits the available length with an allowance for a little stretch.
"E"-Aft face of the mast to a point on the boom which matches the published E. As with the P, if you don't know the designed E, you can just place a mark 6-8" fwd of the back end (load bearing end) of the outhaul sheave, and you will have a nice max foot dimension.
A sailmaker will use (when available) the I, J, P E to determine the primary dimensions of the sails. If this info is not available he will default to the points in reference to the sheaves and measure as I have described...
I just want to be sure you are getting and using the right information..:nerd:
If I missed your point and went off on a tangent I apologize!
Cheers
Just remember that the length of the mast is not a relevant dimension for anything related to sails, so I am curious why this particular dimension is of interest. I suppose you can add the height from the waterline to the deck cutout, plus the instruments/antenna and come up with bridge clearance, but that is about it other than measuring for shipping on a truck.
The important dimensions are:
"I" (=top of the masthead sheave to the base of "I", which is about an inch below the chainplate deck fitting for the upper shrouds), which is one of the values to determine genoa and spinnaker size. If you attach a tape to the genoa halyard and raise it all the way, measure down to the chainplate deck fitting for the uppers and add 1", you will be VERY close to the designed "I" measurement. Note: "I" is measured to the top of the genoa halyard sheave, "ISP" is measured to the top of the spinnaker halyard sheave.. "I" is for genoa luff lengths (subject to small details for the tack fitting height above deck, furler drum below the sheave, etc.), and "ISP" is for spinnaker luff lengths ("SP" for SPinnaker).
"J" (stem fitting to the fwd edge of the mast),. This is the base of the foretriangle, and is the other dimension used to determine spinnaker and genoa size (is the basis for genoa LP and spinnaker girth)
"P" From the top face of the boom, up the mast a distance equal to the designed P. This point is usually where you would place a tape or painted band, and the lower edge of the band represents the point. This dimension is to determine the luff length of the mainsail. Usually the top of P will be about 6" below the top of the main halyard sheave. Sometimes though, for rating reasons, the top of P is a bit lower, so unlike with the "I", you cannot relate it exactly to the main halyard sheave..The band is there so you can sight up and see if you have pulled the sail above the limit of P, which is not permitted when racing. If not racing, and you are not concerned with having the mainsail match the P, just place a mark 6" below the top of the main halyard sheave, and you will have a max luff length for the mainsail which fits the available length with an allowance for a little stretch.
"E"-Aft face of the mast to a point on the boom which matches the published E. As with the P, if you don't know the designed E, you can just place a mark 6-8" fwd of the back end (load bearing end) of the outhaul sheave, and you will have a nice max foot dimension.
A sailmaker will use (when available) the I, J, P E to determine the primary dimensions of the sails. If this info is not available he will default to the points in reference to the sheaves and measure as I have described...
I just want to be sure you are getting and using the right information..:nerd:
If I missed your point and went off on a tangent I apologize!
Cheers
Seth
Unless I completely misunderstand the way you describe the "I" value measurement, it is a hypotenuse line in a triangle. In other words for someone standing in the cockpit facing forward, with the mast being a plumb line, and assuming an imaginary right angle line from the base of the mast to the deck chainplate, the "I" measurement would form the hypotenuse in that triangle? If so, then it sounds to me like that, for a deck stepped mast, the "I" value would always have to be larger than the mast length? Particularly with a trunk cabined, as opposed to flush deck, boat?
If that is true, then that would mean the original poster's original mast would have been even shorter than the 38' "I" value.
Unless I completely misunderstand the way you describe the "I" value measurement, it is a hypotenuse line in a triangle. In other words for someone standing in the cockpit facing forward, with the mast being a plumb line, and assuming an imaginary right angle line from the base of the mast to the deck chainplate, the "I" measurement would form the hypotenuse in that triangle? If so, then it sounds to me like that, for a deck stepped mast, the "I" value would always have to be larger than the mast length? Particularly with a trunk cabined, as opposed to flush deck, boat?
If that is true, then that would mean the original poster's original mast would have been even shorter than the 38' "I" value.
Fore Triangle Trivia
For the fore triangle, the mathematical base for the measurement is from the calculated base position at 90 degrees from the bow. This would only exist as a point for your tape measure for a few vessels with a perfectly flush deck.
So, whether the actual spar is stepped on the house top or thru to the keel, the assumed fore triangle measurement point remains the same.
Such is my understanding of this, although my verbiage may be inexact.
Loren
For the fore triangle, the mathematical base for the measurement is from the calculated base position at 90 degrees from the bow. This would only exist as a point for your tape measure for a few vessels with a perfectly flush deck.
So, whether the actual spar is stepped on the house top or thru to the keel, the assumed fore triangle measurement point remains the same.
Such is my understanding of this, although my verbiage may be inexact.
Loren
Not a hypoteneuse
The "I" measurement is a vertical measurement which runs from a point about an inch below the deck fitting for the chainplates for the upper shrouds (the actual point is shown on the sailplan, but this is the easiest place to locate a tape to physically measure the base of "I") STRAIGHT up to a point equal to the top of the halyard sheave (load bearing part of the sheave).
This dimension is a reference for the size of the luffs of the genoa and spinnaker, but does not directly correspond to the final cut luff length of the genoa, but does for the spinnaker. By using the I and J measurements you then calculate the hypoteneuse, which will be the gross luff length of the genoa. You then make adjustments for mast rake by actually measuring the headstay, and subtracting a bit for the tack fitting and any reduction for the top drum of a furler (if installed)-of course if you have a furler you also need to subrtact for the bottom drum as well.
Hope this helps!
The "I" measurement is a vertical measurement which runs from a point about an inch below the deck fitting for the chainplates for the upper shrouds (the actual point is shown on the sailplan, but this is the easiest place to locate a tape to physically measure the base of "I") STRAIGHT up to a point equal to the top of the halyard sheave (load bearing part of the sheave).
This dimension is a reference for the size of the luffs of the genoa and spinnaker, but does not directly correspond to the final cut luff length of the genoa, but does for the spinnaker. By using the I and J measurements you then calculate the hypoteneuse, which will be the gross luff length of the genoa. You then make adjustments for mast rake by actually measuring the headstay, and subtracting a bit for the tack fitting and any reduction for the top drum of a furler (if installed)-of course if you have a furler you also need to subrtact for the bottom drum as well.
Hope this helps!
Off topic is good - you learn more
Once again, thanks for all of your comments - both off topic and on! My reason for asking about the height of the actual mast on an E32 is simple curiosity.
Because it is a custom rig and because myself and other people have commented on the height I took the opportunity of having a rigger up the mast (I'm replacing the roller furling) to measure the mast. Again, because it was a custom job I was curious to find out what the stock mast height would have been.
As an aside, it was also nice to know the exact height so I can add on on the height of all the expensive pokey bits on top and the height from waterline to mast step to make sure I clear bridges!
I am going to be buying a new main this season, but I plan on having the sailmaker actually drop by and take measurements. Also, knowing whether or not the custom rig results in a greater sail surface area than the boat was designed for will give me a better sense of what to look/feel for in terms of the balance of the boat and when/how to reef the main and the jib. Always a challenge finding that sweet spot between center of effort and center of lateral resistance. The more info the better!
Once again, thanks for all of your comments - both off topic and on! My reason for asking about the height of the actual mast on an E32 is simple curiosity.
Because it is a custom rig and because myself and other people have commented on the height I took the opportunity of having a rigger up the mast (I'm replacing the roller furling) to measure the mast. Again, because it was a custom job I was curious to find out what the stock mast height would have been.
As an aside, it was also nice to know the exact height so I can add on on the height of all the expensive pokey bits on top and the height from waterline to mast step to make sure I clear bridges!
I am going to be buying a new main this season, but I plan on having the sailmaker actually drop by and take measurements. Also, knowing whether or not the custom rig results in a greater sail surface area than the boat was designed for will give me a better sense of what to look/feel for in terms of the balance of the boat and when/how to reef the main and the jib. Always a challenge finding that sweet spot between center of effort and center of lateral resistance. The more info the better!
Final word?
In Sync
Just so you have the real scoop, your vintage 32 came in std and tall rigs.
AS PDX noted:
The std mast had an I of 38, a J of 13, a P of 31.5, and an E of 13
The tall rig was: I of 41, J of 13, P of 34.5, and E of 13.
However, the I and the length of the mast are not the same-as we have now discussed.
Your mast is deck stepped, so if the overall length is really 42 feet, this is VERY big! Since you can't lengthen the J (fixed at 13'), the aspect ratio is VERY high (very tall and skinny sails). A length of 42 feet would mean an I of about 44 or so feet (height of the mast step above the base of I (or around the chainplate point), so your rig is about 3' taller than the tall rig version.
Has the boom been lengthened as well? If you measure from the aft face of the mast back 13' you will have the designed E dimension (for mainsail foot length). If not, the main has also become very high aspect, but this is not a big deal.
Anyway, all this said, the boat should be much better than usual in under 10 knots of breeze, and obviously will become overpowered much sooner.
You might find the boat has less weather helm than other 32's since the CE is effectively moved forward a bit. If you find the boat has lee helm when all trimmed up, you may want to increase aft rake by easing the headstay and taking up on the backstay the same amount..
It may take slightly different tuning, but you should be able to get it right..
The 2 things I would consider are using smaller headsails than the usual 150%. Large LP sails get hard to trim at very high aspect ratios, and you may find that a 110% genoa is your best all around sail (except in drifting conditions)-assuming it is built to the max hoist. This will have the equivalent area of a 130% or so on the std or tall rigs, and probably be much more efficient.
The other item is a small concern over the mast support post. Has it been beefed up? That was a weak spot in this boat as it takes a LOT of compression load. The extra tall rig will create that much more load. Inspect it and keep an eye on it....
Anyway, enjoy your "turbo 32", and let us know how it sails!
S
In Sync
Just so you have the real scoop, your vintage 32 came in std and tall rigs.
AS PDX noted:
The std mast had an I of 38, a J of 13, a P of 31.5, and an E of 13
The tall rig was: I of 41, J of 13, P of 34.5, and E of 13.
However, the I and the length of the mast are not the same-as we have now discussed.
Your mast is deck stepped, so if the overall length is really 42 feet, this is VERY big! Since you can't lengthen the J (fixed at 13'), the aspect ratio is VERY high (very tall and skinny sails). A length of 42 feet would mean an I of about 44 or so feet (height of the mast step above the base of I (or around the chainplate point), so your rig is about 3' taller than the tall rig version.
Has the boom been lengthened as well? If you measure from the aft face of the mast back 13' you will have the designed E dimension (for mainsail foot length). If not, the main has also become very high aspect, but this is not a big deal.
Anyway, all this said, the boat should be much better than usual in under 10 knots of breeze, and obviously will become overpowered much sooner.
You might find the boat has less weather helm than other 32's since the CE is effectively moved forward a bit. If you find the boat has lee helm when all trimmed up, you may want to increase aft rake by easing the headstay and taking up on the backstay the same amount..
It may take slightly different tuning, but you should be able to get it right..
The 2 things I would consider are using smaller headsails than the usual 150%. Large LP sails get hard to trim at very high aspect ratios, and you may find that a 110% genoa is your best all around sail (except in drifting conditions)-assuming it is built to the max hoist. This will have the equivalent area of a 130% or so on the std or tall rigs, and probably be much more efficient.
The other item is a small concern over the mast support post. Has it been beefed up? That was a weak spot in this boat as it takes a LOT of compression load. The extra tall rig will create that much more load. Inspect it and keep an eye on it....
Anyway, enjoy your "turbo 32", and let us know how it sails!
S
Last edited:
Matey
Member III
32 compression post support
I'll add my 2 cents to the need of some compression post support on the 32-2.
I would think hard about doing it ..
This drawing from Ericson showing a beam athwartships .. was not how my 72' was built. I found this out the very hard / expensive way.
The area between the mast and compression post was filled with a cabosil mix of some sort. In addition, the mast sits with it's port side over the post and the starboard side some inches inboard. My overhead cracked just under the starboard side of the mast, originating from the mast wiring hole(s).
I ended up pulling the rig, having the overhead cut out and cloth and carbon fiber layed up above the post. In addition we fabricated this support for the post & mast above. The support might have prevented all this work, but the fix was significant.
Of course I added a furler, internal halyards, G10 backing plates for the aft lowers, new lites / wire and spreader work while at it, so the $-pain-$ multiplied .. but that's boats eh ?
Regards, Greg
I'll add my 2 cents to the need of some compression post support on the 32-2.
I would think hard about doing it ..
This drawing from Ericson showing a beam athwartships .. was not how my 72' was built. I found this out the very hard / expensive way.
The area between the mast and compression post was filled with a cabosil mix of some sort. In addition, the mast sits with it's port side over the post and the starboard side some inches inboard. My overhead cracked just under the starboard side of the mast, originating from the mast wiring hole(s).
I ended up pulling the rig, having the overhead cut out and cloth and carbon fiber layed up above the post. In addition we fabricated this support for the post & mast above. The support might have prevented all this work, but the fix was significant.
Of course I added a furler, internal halyards, G10 backing plates for the aft lowers, new lites / wire and spreader work while at it, so the $-pain-$ multiplied .. but that's boats eh ?
Regards, Greg
Attachments
-
Comp Post.jpg -
1000937 (1).jpg -
2 016.jpg
Ericson's recommended fix was to sister the door post with the same dimension of wood, then jack up the beam, and then insert a quarter inch thick piece of aluminum between the beam and the sistered door post. This doesn't sound as solid as your fix, which supports the mast completely, but it would have obviated the knee taking up doorway space. Did you try this? If I understand your post correctly, your boat had a chunk of hardened cabosil in place of the plywood beam? Did this mean you couldn't jack it up?
