duluthboats
06-25-2002, 12:51 AM
It's time. :D
This poll is over 7 days from now.
Gary
This poll is over 7 days from now.
Gary
View Full Version : Power choice Poll
Willallison
06-25-2002, 02:10 AM
We forgot one Gary - water jet
Oh - and Trouty's plasmoidal neutron drive thingy!!
Oh - and Trouty's plasmoidal neutron drive thingy!!
duluthboats
06-25-2002, 07:54 AM
If othes have a choice they would prefer, just post a "write in". All votes will be counted.
Gary
Gary
Jeff
06-25-2002, 08:59 AM
What about surface drives?
Willallison
06-25-2002, 07:58 PM
:( A little intrigued here.
We've not had many suggest the use of a diesel inboard previously - so those of you who have voted for it.....please share your reasoning with us.......
We've not had many suggest the use of a diesel inboard previously - so those of you who have voted for it.....please share your reasoning with us.......
Nomad
06-25-2002, 10:06 PM
Fuel economy, Reliable, etc.
Jeff
06-25-2002, 10:06 PM
I voted for diesel inboard because surface drives were not an option in the poll. Even though I know outboards are lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain, I don't like the look of outboards on the transom or the sound of outboards - it comes down to appearance and style for me rather than functionality and logic alone. Stern drives require too much maintenance for my taste - in my experience with them, theres always something. I do like outboards because they tilt up, and thus if surface drives were on the table I would probably vote that way (except for the cost which might be too big a percentage of the overall budget.) Between inboard and outboard, I was very close to voting outboard but as I said I narrowly voted inboard. As far as diesel vs. gas, I would prefer the safer fuel and the more robust longer life engine.
Willallison
06-25-2002, 10:32 PM
All valid points Jeff - but as the man with the POWER:cool: I think you should add both water jets and surface drives to the poll - with petrol / diesel alternatives.....
If you were going the inboard route, then the biggest problem I see with diesel is cost (remembering our 50K budget...)
If you were going the inboard route, then the biggest problem I see with diesel is cost (remembering our 50K budget...)
Jeff
06-25-2002, 11:46 PM
Any objections Gary?
And if so, why did you rule them out? I presume as Will said, cost?
And if so, why did you rule them out? I presume as Will said, cost?
Portager
06-26-2002, 12:06 AM
First I think O-1 should accommodate either diesel or gas. Without a diesel option I think O-1 would only appeal to a small niche market. Since diesel is the higher weight I reasoned that we should design to that. Then providing a gas option should be pretty easy.
The lack of a diesel option, ability to heat water and high center of gravity are my main issue with outboards.
I choose inboard over stern drive because of maintenance concerns with the stern drive and the ability to locate the inboard engine at or closer to the CG.
Surface drive would have been my first choice if it were included and if enough other people voted for it. I don't want to waste my only vote on a write-in. The reason I favor the surface drive is they provide better corrosion resistance than stern drives and outboards, best performance and they are futuristic as opposed to outboards which look primitive in plain view.
I wish those who choose outboard would explain their reasoning.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
The lack of a diesel option, ability to heat water and high center of gravity are my main issue with outboards.
I choose inboard over stern drive because of maintenance concerns with the stern drive and the ability to locate the inboard engine at or closer to the CG.
Surface drive would have been my first choice if it were included and if enough other people voted for it. I don't want to waste my only vote on a write-in. The reason I favor the surface drive is they provide better corrosion resistance than stern drives and outboards, best performance and they are futuristic as opposed to outboards which look primitive in plain view.
I wish those who choose outboard would explain their reasoning.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
06-26-2002, 01:17 AM
Fair point, so even though I've listed them before, here are the reasons I voted outboard.
1. Lightweight / high power output.
2. Compact. With your engine hanging off the back, you suddenly have a great deal of storage space that would otherwise be taken up with motor, gearbox etc. With an inboard on a boat the size of O-1 you can either raise the sole to the point where you have a flat foor (raising the CG and making the boat taller overall, so it is less easily stowed and towed) or you can fill the most useful space of the boat with an engine box. Neither appeal.
3. Trimmable. That, along with no shaft, skeg, rudder means that you greatly improve efficiency and can alter trim as necessary. You can also raise an outboard completely clear of the water, no corrosion problems. Loading and unloading from a trailer is infinitely easier, you don't have to float the boat off. The trailer can be lower to the ground as there's no underwater running gear to worry about. Beaching or exploring shallow waters is infinitely safer and in the event that a prop is damaged, the motor can be tilted and a spare prop installed on the spot.
4. Economical. New generation, 4-stroke or direct injection 2-stroke outboards at the very least match the alternatives in the only area that really matters - mpg, and they are way ahead of conventional shaftdrives at anything above displacement speeds. On a big, heavy boat that may not be the case, but O-1 is neither.
5. Ease of installation and servicing. O-1 is supposed to be home-buildable. Nothing is simpler to install than an outboard. Ancillary systems are virtually non existent.
6. I don't see the hot water system as a problem. A 240 or 120 volt immersion style heater can be run via an inverter when the engine is running. Other than gas (lpg etc) there are no alternatives for inboards that I'm aware of which don't require the engine to be run (whilst away from shore power) in order to heat water.
7. Jo Blo could build O-1 and power it with an older 50 hp (or similar) outboard. This would get him out on the water. As his budget allowed, he could upgrade to something bigger and/or newer - tailoring the performance to his needs. Rarel;y can you do this with an inboard without major structural changes.
8. Sound levels are not much of an issue. 4-strokes are so quiet, I know of at least two occasions when owners have pushed the throttle forward not reaslising the motor was running! And with a little bit of ingenuity, I believe we can insulate / supress much of the noise anyway.
That's just a short list - I'm sure with a little thought, I could come up with a number of other reasons. Give Tom the soapbox - I'm sure he'll add a few more.....
I tried desparately to be persuaded by the surface drive concept (and still possibly could be) but as yet I haven't had my concerns over their versatility allayed. Perhaps if the inboard is chosen over the outboard, then we should investigate the drive alternatives further (shaft, sterndrive, surface drive, jet)
1. Lightweight / high power output.
2. Compact. With your engine hanging off the back, you suddenly have a great deal of storage space that would otherwise be taken up with motor, gearbox etc. With an inboard on a boat the size of O-1 you can either raise the sole to the point where you have a flat foor (raising the CG and making the boat taller overall, so it is less easily stowed and towed) or you can fill the most useful space of the boat with an engine box. Neither appeal.
3. Trimmable. That, along with no shaft, skeg, rudder means that you greatly improve efficiency and can alter trim as necessary. You can also raise an outboard completely clear of the water, no corrosion problems. Loading and unloading from a trailer is infinitely easier, you don't have to float the boat off. The trailer can be lower to the ground as there's no underwater running gear to worry about. Beaching or exploring shallow waters is infinitely safer and in the event that a prop is damaged, the motor can be tilted and a spare prop installed on the spot.
4. Economical. New generation, 4-stroke or direct injection 2-stroke outboards at the very least match the alternatives in the only area that really matters - mpg, and they are way ahead of conventional shaftdrives at anything above displacement speeds. On a big, heavy boat that may not be the case, but O-1 is neither.
5. Ease of installation and servicing. O-1 is supposed to be home-buildable. Nothing is simpler to install than an outboard. Ancillary systems are virtually non existent.
6. I don't see the hot water system as a problem. A 240 or 120 volt immersion style heater can be run via an inverter when the engine is running. Other than gas (lpg etc) there are no alternatives for inboards that I'm aware of which don't require the engine to be run (whilst away from shore power) in order to heat water.
7. Jo Blo could build O-1 and power it with an older 50 hp (or similar) outboard. This would get him out on the water. As his budget allowed, he could upgrade to something bigger and/or newer - tailoring the performance to his needs. Rarel;y can you do this with an inboard without major structural changes.
8. Sound levels are not much of an issue. 4-strokes are so quiet, I know of at least two occasions when owners have pushed the throttle forward not reaslising the motor was running! And with a little bit of ingenuity, I believe we can insulate / supress much of the noise anyway.
That's just a short list - I'm sure with a little thought, I could come up with a number of other reasons. Give Tom the soapbox - I'm sure he'll add a few more.....
I tried desparately to be persuaded by the surface drive concept (and still possibly could be) but as yet I haven't had my concerns over their versatility allayed. Perhaps if the inboard is chosen over the outboard, then we should investigate the drive alternatives further (shaft, sterndrive, surface drive, jet)
duluthboats
06-26-2002, 01:28 AM
LOL!!!
Now what havvvve I done. I plead ignorance. I thought a surface drive is an inboard. I spaced out jet drive. So by all means Jeff please make the requested changes. :cool:
Gary
Now what havvvve I done. I plead ignorance. I thought a surface drive is an inboard. I spaced out jet drive. So by all means Jeff please make the requested changes. :cool:
Gary
8knots
06-26-2002, 01:40 AM
I voted for the diesel inboard for the economy of the boat. In operation I mean. I know Volvo makes a few little diesels that should be reasonable. Allthough the love engine for the little trawler i posted before is a Lister Petter Alpha 55T You can get it at 45hp N/A with 4 cylinders she should run smooth and quite
installed height is just under 24" Antway sorry for the ramble just thinking out loud. 8
installed height is just under 24" Antway sorry for the ramble just thinking out loud. 8
Willallison
06-26-2002, 01:43 AM
8, you seem to have overlooked our performance requirements.
Top speed 28 knots etc - you won't get that out of a 45hp anything!
Top speed 28 knots etc - you won't get that out of a 45hp anything!
8knots
06-26-2002, 01:51 AM
Jumped back into the thick of things without doing my homework
sorry for the confusion! I will keep my fingers shut till i get back on track. Is there a quick link as to where we are at this exact moment to avoid confusion? A summation? 8
sorry for the confusion! I will keep my fingers shut till i get back on track. Is there a quick link as to where we are at this exact moment to avoid confusion? A summation? 8
Jeff
06-26-2002, 01:56 AM
Now I need to get up to speed on water jets - cost and performance vs. surface drives at these speeds.
Also I wonder if diesel + surface drive will simply stretch the budget too thin as both are big ticket items.
Also I wonder if diesel + surface drive will simply stretch the budget too thin as both are big ticket items.
Willallison
06-26-2002, 02:49 AM
Re surface drives,
I've just had a reply from propulsion alternatives ( http://www.propulsionalternatives.co.nz/ ) to a request about their suitability for a project like O-1. In part, it reads:
It is quite feasible to use a surface drive on this application and still
get the efficiencies you are after, but there are some careful design
considerations that must be accounted for.
Typically surface propellers are not as efficient as submerged propellers up
to speeds of about 35 knots. Having said this, the reduction in appendage
drag and the ability to use larger diameter propellers on the surface can
over compensate the inefficiencies. By using the correct application, and
of course the correct hull design and applying the correct power option, it
is possible to use surface propellers very effectively at these speeds. It
is certainly also possible, again with the correct application and biota
design to retain low planing speeds and even carry heavy loads.
As soon as I can get some more info, you'll be the 1st to know....
I've just had a reply from propulsion alternatives ( http://www.propulsionalternatives.co.nz/ ) to a request about their suitability for a project like O-1. In part, it reads:
It is quite feasible to use a surface drive on this application and still
get the efficiencies you are after, but there are some careful design
considerations that must be accounted for.
Typically surface propellers are not as efficient as submerged propellers up
to speeds of about 35 knots. Having said this, the reduction in appendage
drag and the ability to use larger diameter propellers on the surface can
over compensate the inefficiencies. By using the correct application, and
of course the correct hull design and applying the correct power option, it
is possible to use surface propellers very effectively at these speeds. It
is certainly also possible, again with the correct application and biota
design to retain low planing speeds and even carry heavy loads.
As soon as I can get some more info, you'll be the 1st to know....
Nomad
06-26-2002, 10:20 PM
8knots not all diesel inboards are slow I have done a few that have topped 40+ knots! Not to bad no?
Willallison
06-27-2002, 01:17 AM
'nother reason for outboards over diesel - price. You can by the latest in o/b technology for less than 1/2 the price of a diesel. With a 50K budget, this has to be considered.....
8knots
06-27-2002, 02:02 AM
I was at the time not aware of the speed range chosen for O-1
Now i will reconsider the options..... I think outboards are the answer for this project "ease of install, cost, power to weight ratio and most of all 28 kts is cake to a modern 4 stroke! 8
Now i will reconsider the options..... I think outboards are the answer for this project "ease of install, cost, power to weight ratio and most of all 28 kts is cake to a modern 4 stroke! 8
Portager
06-27-2002, 10:29 AM
I think O-1 should be gas with a diesel option. Then the people who really want diesel can pay extra for it, however to accommodate the diesel option I think you need to design around the diesel from the start.
I think the cost of outboards is very deceptive. What is the typical life of an outboard engine versus an internal gas or diesel? Outboards are essentially disposable engines. I have read that the investment that one makes in diesel engines is returned at the fuel pump, in maintenance costs and in resale value.
Look at the cost of the same make and model of used boats with gas and diesel engines. The diesel will hold its value much better.
Where is the data? We are making decisions based on polls and nobody is presenting any hard data. Everybody says outboards are cheaper, not nobody presents numbers.
We are never going to settle the gas versus diesel debate. My question is do we want to design a boat that can only accommodate one side of the argument?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
I think the cost of outboards is very deceptive. What is the typical life of an outboard engine versus an internal gas or diesel? Outboards are essentially disposable engines. I have read that the investment that one makes in diesel engines is returned at the fuel pump, in maintenance costs and in resale value.
Look at the cost of the same make and model of used boats with gas and diesel engines. The diesel will hold its value much better.
Where is the data? We are making decisions based on polls and nobody is presenting any hard data. Everybody says outboards are cheaper, not nobody presents numbers.
We are never going to settle the gas versus diesel debate. My question is do we want to design a boat that can only accommodate one side of the argument?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
06-27-2002, 12:26 PM
Fine you guys won me over(If you cant beat them....) I'm with Outboards
Portager
06-27-2002, 04:49 PM
OK, since I keep winning about comparison date, I did some research and make some calls. Here is what I have so far.
Tom's data shows that 115 HP will allow us to just meet our maximum speed goal, but this early in the design, I think we should have some margin, so I concentrated on engines around 150 HP.
Mercury Saltwater EFI 150 outboard
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/DotComTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&ParentID=null&page_id=643&ProdID=23317&Area=Saltwater%20EFI&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
150 HP, weight 416 lbs, displacement 2.5 liters, max RPM 5000-5600, 60 degree V6, Shaft Length: 20 in. , Alternator: 40 amp, MSRP $12,266, phone quote $12,273 Refurbished 2001 $7,499 60 Day Mfr. warranty http://www.boatmotors.com/rebuilt_outboard_motors/
Mercury Mercruiser 135 stern drive
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/MerCruiserProductTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&title=&prodIntrod=1&ParentID=null&page_id=651&ProdID=27131&Area=135hp%20-%203.0L&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
135 HP, weight 623 lbs, alpha drive, displacement 3 liters, max RPM 4400-4800, inline 4, L 34", W 23", H 20", Alternator: 65 amps
Mercury Mercruiser D2.8L D-Tronic inboard
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/MerCruiserProductTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&title=&prodIntrod=1&ParentID=null&page_id=651&ProdID=27177&Area=165hp%26%2342%3B%20-%20D2.8L%20D-Tronic&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
Propshaft HP 150 HP, weight 1,016 lbs, displacement 2.8 liters, max RPM 3600-3800, inline 4, L 49", W 28", H 21", Alternator: 65 amps
Steyr diesel 164, http://www.steyr-motors.com/products/products.htm
163 HP, weight 568, displacement 2.13 liters, max RPM 3800, inline 4 cylinder, L ", W ", H ", engine and trans retail $20,300, quote from http://www.laudiesel.com $11,438 + drive shaft, bearings, seals, propeller, ...
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 100, Marine Power 262 V6, Hurth 450A,
166 HP, weight 730 (engine) + 62 (trans) + ? (SMD 100) = 792 + ?, displacement 4.3 liters, max RPM 4300-4600, V6, L ", W ", H ", $10,337 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/mpower.htm#Mpower, spare prop $1,670 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/propeller.htm
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 200, Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA Turbocharged with Intercooler, Hurth ZF-63, 170 HP max 154 HP continuous, weight 895.1 (engine) + 101 (trans) + ? (SMD 100) = 996.1 + ?, displacement 3.455 liters, max RPM 3,300, Inline 4, L ", W ", H ", $20,054 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/yanmar.htm#Yanmar spare prop $1,670 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/propeller.htm
I think the Steyr is the best diesel engine choice for O-1. It is lighter weight than many gas engines of the same power so there is no weight penalty for the diesel option and the engine has a very attractive price. The Steyr is a very advanced engine. It has a monoblock engine which eliminates the head gasket and head joint (saving a lot of weight) and variable geometry turbo charger. It is said to be very smooth running and very little smoke. Mean time between overhaul (claim) is >7,000 hours. With a Simplicity surface drive the Steyr would be about $16,500.
Here are some reviews that I thought some of you might find interesting.
Outboard review;
http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/2000/8/Five_Outboard_Motors/
These are smaller outboards that O-1 would need, but some good comparison data.
Gas stern drive versus diesel stern drive test;
http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1997/10/Mercruiser_vs_Mercruiser/
These are much larger engines that O-1 needs, but I think it is interesting to note the difference in weight, cost and range. On identical boats and the same volume of fuel the gas had a max range of 149 mi @ 28 mpg versus the diesel max range of 261 @ 26 mph.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Tom's data shows that 115 HP will allow us to just meet our maximum speed goal, but this early in the design, I think we should have some margin, so I concentrated on engines around 150 HP.
Mercury Saltwater EFI 150 outboard
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/DotComTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&ParentID=null&page_id=643&ProdID=23317&Area=Saltwater%20EFI&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
150 HP, weight 416 lbs, displacement 2.5 liters, max RPM 5000-5600, 60 degree V6, Shaft Length: 20 in. , Alternator: 40 amp, MSRP $12,266, phone quote $12,273 Refurbished 2001 $7,499 60 Day Mfr. warranty http://www.boatmotors.com/rebuilt_outboard_motors/
Mercury Mercruiser 135 stern drive
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/MerCruiserProductTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&title=&prodIntrod=1&ParentID=null&page_id=651&ProdID=27131&Area=135hp%20-%203.0L&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
135 HP, weight 623 lbs, alpha drive, displacement 3 liters, max RPM 4400-4800, inline 4, L 34", W 23", H 20", Alternator: 65 amps
Mercury Mercruiser D2.8L D-Tronic inboard
http://www.mercurymarine.com/cgi-bin/mercprod/MercuryHome/Templates/MerCruiserProductTemplate.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no&title=&prodIntrod=1&ParentID=null&page_id=651&ProdID=27177&Area=165hp%26%2342%3B%20-%20D2.8L%20D-Tronic&BV_SessionID=@@@@0427355278.1025152100@@@@&BV_EngineID=gadcehckljfibedcfececjf.0
Propshaft HP 150 HP, weight 1,016 lbs, displacement 2.8 liters, max RPM 3600-3800, inline 4, L 49", W 28", H 21", Alternator: 65 amps
Steyr diesel 164, http://www.steyr-motors.com/products/products.htm
163 HP, weight 568, displacement 2.13 liters, max RPM 3800, inline 4 cylinder, L ", W ", H ", engine and trans retail $20,300, quote from http://www.laudiesel.com $11,438 + drive shaft, bearings, seals, propeller, ...
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 100, Marine Power 262 V6, Hurth 450A,
166 HP, weight 730 (engine) + 62 (trans) + ? (SMD 100) = 792 + ?, displacement 4.3 liters, max RPM 4300-4600, V6, L ", W ", H ", $10,337 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/mpower.htm#Mpower, spare prop $1,670 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/propeller.htm
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 200, Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA Turbocharged with Intercooler, Hurth ZF-63, 170 HP max 154 HP continuous, weight 895.1 (engine) + 101 (trans) + ? (SMD 100) = 996.1 + ?, displacement 3.455 liters, max RPM 3,300, Inline 4, L ", W ", H ", $20,054 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/yanmar.htm#Yanmar spare prop $1,670 http://www.simplicity-marine.com/propeller.htm
I think the Steyr is the best diesel engine choice for O-1. It is lighter weight than many gas engines of the same power so there is no weight penalty for the diesel option and the engine has a very attractive price. The Steyr is a very advanced engine. It has a monoblock engine which eliminates the head gasket and head joint (saving a lot of weight) and variable geometry turbo charger. It is said to be very smooth running and very little smoke. Mean time between overhaul (claim) is >7,000 hours. With a Simplicity surface drive the Steyr would be about $16,500.
Here are some reviews that I thought some of you might find interesting.
Outboard review;
http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/2000/8/Five_Outboard_Motors/
These are smaller outboards that O-1 would need, but some good comparison data.
Gas stern drive versus diesel stern drive test;
http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1997/10/Mercruiser_vs_Mercruiser/
These are much larger engines that O-1 needs, but I think it is interesting to note the difference in weight, cost and range. On identical boats and the same volume of fuel the gas had a max range of 149 mi @ 28 mpg versus the diesel max range of 261 @ 26 mph.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
06-27-2002, 07:19 PM
Ok, some numbers:
These are the list prices from my local maercury dealer, are for the package NOT INSTALLED and are in Australian $:
Mercruiser D2.8L Dtronic diesel inboard, with down angle g/box, $30,346
Same motor with a Bravo1 sterndrive, $33,017
150hp Optimax x-long shaft, $17,970. I use this engine as it is the most expensive, most high-tech they make in this power range.
Merc do not produce a petrol inboard in this power range (does anybody?), but their 135hp, 3L sterndrive (Bravo1) comes in at $13,852.
The optimax o/b, will at worst, very nearly match the diesel inboard for fuel economy and would outperform it in every other respect, given its lighter weight and the inefficiencies imposed by the shaft angle, appendage drag etc.
Most owners would struggle to put 100hrs a year on their engines and many would put less than 1/2 of that. The life of the Optimax, before any major work is required should exceed 1500hrs ( I know of a local commercial operator with over 2000 hrs on his and has experienced no problems). So at worst you could expect 15yrs of trouble free running. True, the diesel could (if properly maintained) quite easily double those figures, but given the $12,376 price difference, the owner could almost afford to replace his o/b after 10yrs or so for the same money.
These are the list prices from my local maercury dealer, are for the package NOT INSTALLED and are in Australian $:
Mercruiser D2.8L Dtronic diesel inboard, with down angle g/box, $30,346
Same motor with a Bravo1 sterndrive, $33,017
150hp Optimax x-long shaft, $17,970. I use this engine as it is the most expensive, most high-tech they make in this power range.
Merc do not produce a petrol inboard in this power range (does anybody?), but their 135hp, 3L sterndrive (Bravo1) comes in at $13,852.
The optimax o/b, will at worst, very nearly match the diesel inboard for fuel economy and would outperform it in every other respect, given its lighter weight and the inefficiencies imposed by the shaft angle, appendage drag etc.
Most owners would struggle to put 100hrs a year on their engines and many would put less than 1/2 of that. The life of the Optimax, before any major work is required should exceed 1500hrs ( I know of a local commercial operator with over 2000 hrs on his and has experienced no problems). So at worst you could expect 15yrs of trouble free running. True, the diesel could (if properly maintained) quite easily double those figures, but given the $12,376 price difference, the owner could almost afford to replace his o/b after 10yrs or so for the same money.
tom28571
06-27-2002, 08:02 PM
My choice of an outboard is driven by a couple of perferences.
1. For myself I only want a boat that is light enough to trailer easily and care for in my own yard.
2. I also want a light boat for economy of operation and economic performance.
3. I am happy to make the sacrifices of showers with water heaters, air conditioners, standing headroom in the sleeping cabin (but no in the pilothouse) and any other supposed creature comfort that impacts too much on number 1 & 2.
4. Since I don't need to travel at 35kts, a smaller lighter engine will fit best with number 1 & 2.
5. Since my boats are all one-off, I have no desire to expend limited time and energy in designing, debugging and installing a proper power system and am willing to accept the completely engineered package that can be had with an outboard.
In my admittedly limited study and experience I have concluded that I can best satisfy number 1, 2, 5 & 5 with an outboard of modest power and weight.
I sense that mumerous people have other slants on the relative importance of all these factors. So, for the time being I going to simply try to learn from the expertise of others on some of the different power systems and keep my prejudices in check (maybe).
I would question the costs of the different systems that Mike gave in that the outboard costs are real and need only added tax and a small installation charge. Any inboard installation is much more open ended and the discovery of all the problems and associated costs in getting a boat to meet its goals has been the undoing of many professionals, not to mention amateurs.
In gas engines, I'd want to look at the Mazda rotary for its small size and simplicity. In diesels, I have no clue since I've not seen any installations that could meet the goals we have set. Not to say that they aren't out there but I have little experience with them other than using diesels on sailboats and semi-planing powerboats.
On the hard data issue, I posted several examples of numbers but have had no direct feedback and almost no discussion. This is only related to hull design since several people have offered some data on power systems.
I suspect that many have been learning from others during the various discussions, so I'm not concerned that we have made little direct progress in developing the boat so far. The electric wheel discussion is good and may be a viable power system but not for our boat. Trouty's Scaler Magnetoelectric drive is interesting but too far over my head right now. I've downloaded the articles but have not been able to make my way through them yet. It still sounds like alchemy at this point. My approach to all perpetual motion schemes has been to wrap them in an envelop and apply the principal of conservation of energy. They have all failed the test so far. Maybe the light will shine by and by.
1. For myself I only want a boat that is light enough to trailer easily and care for in my own yard.
2. I also want a light boat for economy of operation and economic performance.
3. I am happy to make the sacrifices of showers with water heaters, air conditioners, standing headroom in the sleeping cabin (but no in the pilothouse) and any other supposed creature comfort that impacts too much on number 1 & 2.
4. Since I don't need to travel at 35kts, a smaller lighter engine will fit best with number 1 & 2.
5. Since my boats are all one-off, I have no desire to expend limited time and energy in designing, debugging and installing a proper power system and am willing to accept the completely engineered package that can be had with an outboard.
In my admittedly limited study and experience I have concluded that I can best satisfy number 1, 2, 5 & 5 with an outboard of modest power and weight.
I sense that mumerous people have other slants on the relative importance of all these factors. So, for the time being I going to simply try to learn from the expertise of others on some of the different power systems and keep my prejudices in check (maybe).
I would question the costs of the different systems that Mike gave in that the outboard costs are real and need only added tax and a small installation charge. Any inboard installation is much more open ended and the discovery of all the problems and associated costs in getting a boat to meet its goals has been the undoing of many professionals, not to mention amateurs.
In gas engines, I'd want to look at the Mazda rotary for its small size and simplicity. In diesels, I have no clue since I've not seen any installations that could meet the goals we have set. Not to say that they aren't out there but I have little experience with them other than using diesels on sailboats and semi-planing powerboats.
On the hard data issue, I posted several examples of numbers but have had no direct feedback and almost no discussion. This is only related to hull design since several people have offered some data on power systems.
I suspect that many have been learning from others during the various discussions, so I'm not concerned that we have made little direct progress in developing the boat so far. The electric wheel discussion is good and may be a viable power system but not for our boat. Trouty's Scaler Magnetoelectric drive is interesting but too far over my head right now. I've downloaded the articles but have not been able to make my way through them yet. It still sounds like alchemy at this point. My approach to all perpetual motion schemes has been to wrap them in an envelop and apply the principal of conservation of energy. They have all failed the test so far. Maybe the light will shine by and by.
Willallison
06-27-2002, 09:25 PM
On the hard data issue, I posted several examples of numbers but have had no direct feedback and almost no discussion. This is only related to hull design since several people have offered some data on power systems.
Which data were you referring to Tom, perhaps we should look at it now.....
Never one to be backward incoming forward, I'd be more than happy to give my impressions
Which data were you referring to Tom, perhaps we should look at it now.....
Never one to be backward incoming forward, I'd be more than happy to give my impressions
Willallison
06-27-2002, 10:04 PM
Alas, it appears I have fallen victim to my own research:(
I've been hunting around a bit to find the best hot water system that would be suitable for an outboard powered boat. Previously I've suggested the use of a 240 / 120 volt immersion style heater run through an inverter, when the engine is running.
But a little maths seems to render this option a no-goer. Whilst many outboard alternators are capable of putting out up to 60 amps, it is unlikey that they would be capable of doing so for an extended period of time. A 1500w water heater takes about 5 minutes to heat 1 litre of water to "shower temperature", so would take at least 20 minutes to heat just enough water for a frugal boater to wash. And whilst a 60 amp alternator can theoretically float such a drain, in reality it isn't designed for this kind of extended output, so would fail much earlier than it should.
Further, in order to manage this outpouring of power from the battery supply, you should use a number of large capacity batteries to avoid plate damage - there goes the weight advantage of using the outboards in the 1st place.
But a solution is never fat from sight! Whilst I'm not a big fan of using gas (lpg / propane) onboard petrol engined vessels, if the boat is designed to safely house such a supply from the outset, then it is an acceptable compromise. Bosch produce a range of tankless water heaters ( http://www.astravan.com/specs.html ) which would serve the purpose admirably. They are light, simple, effective and inexpensive.
The other alternative, which begins to make sense if you are going to spend extended periods of time at anchor, or making short trips which are not long enough to recharge your batteries properly, is to have a small, lightweight, petrol engined generator. These tend to be much quieter than their diesel cousins. They are also smaller and much less expensive to buy. This would allow the use of immersion or electric tankless style heating systems and open up a whole host of other possibilites as far as onboard electrics are concerned - heaters, air con etc......
The gas alternative is the lightweight choice, the generator the comfort choice......
I've been hunting around a bit to find the best hot water system that would be suitable for an outboard powered boat. Previously I've suggested the use of a 240 / 120 volt immersion style heater run through an inverter, when the engine is running.
But a little maths seems to render this option a no-goer. Whilst many outboard alternators are capable of putting out up to 60 amps, it is unlikey that they would be capable of doing so for an extended period of time. A 1500w water heater takes about 5 minutes to heat 1 litre of water to "shower temperature", so would take at least 20 minutes to heat just enough water for a frugal boater to wash. And whilst a 60 amp alternator can theoretically float such a drain, in reality it isn't designed for this kind of extended output, so would fail much earlier than it should.
Further, in order to manage this outpouring of power from the battery supply, you should use a number of large capacity batteries to avoid plate damage - there goes the weight advantage of using the outboards in the 1st place.
But a solution is never fat from sight! Whilst I'm not a big fan of using gas (lpg / propane) onboard petrol engined vessels, if the boat is designed to safely house such a supply from the outset, then it is an acceptable compromise. Bosch produce a range of tankless water heaters ( http://www.astravan.com/specs.html ) which would serve the purpose admirably. They are light, simple, effective and inexpensive.
The other alternative, which begins to make sense if you are going to spend extended periods of time at anchor, or making short trips which are not long enough to recharge your batteries properly, is to have a small, lightweight, petrol engined generator. These tend to be much quieter than their diesel cousins. They are also smaller and much less expensive to buy. This would allow the use of immersion or electric tankless style heating systems and open up a whole host of other possibilites as far as onboard electrics are concerned - heaters, air con etc......
The gas alternative is the lightweight choice, the generator the comfort choice......
Portager
06-28-2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Willallison
Ok, some numbers:
These are the list prices from my local maercury dealer, are for the package NOT INSTALLED and are in Australian $:.
Using the exchange rates provided at http://www.xe.com/ I got a conversion rate of $1 AUD = $ 0.565890 USD
Mercruiser D2.8L Dtronic diesel inboard, with down angle g/box, $30,346 AU = $17,172 USD
Same motor with a Bravo1 sterndrive, $33,017 = $18,684 USD
150hp Optimax x-long shaft, $17,970. I use this engine as it is the most expensive, most high-tech they make in this power range. = $10,169 USD
Merc do not produce a petrol inboard in this power range (does anybody?), but their 135hp, 3L sterndrive (Bravo1) comes in at $13,852. = $7,838 USD
The Steyr 164 HP diesel is $11,438 USD = $20,212 AUD
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 100, Marine Power 262 V6, Hurth 450A $10,337 USD = $18,267 AUD
[The optimax o/b, will at worst, very nearly match the diesel inboard for fuel economy and would outperform it in every other respect, given its lighter weight and the inefficiencies imposed by the shaft angle, appendage drag etc.[/B]
I like you Will, but I can't let you float an unsubstantiated claim like that through my sites without firing the torpedoes!
Since Mercury won't publish their specific fuel consumption data I had to estimate it. According to Boating Life magazine http://www.boatinglifemag.com/BL_Main/1,1675,1-1-1-10877-157-135,00.html "On average, an in-tune four-stroke gasoline engine will burn about 0.4 to 0.45 pounds of fuel per hour for each unit of horsepower. Likewise, a well-maintained two-stroke outboard burns nearly 0.6 to 0.8 pounds of fuel per hour for each unit of horsepower it produces. These figures apply to carbureted and fuel-injected engines, but not to direct-injected engines such as Mercury's OptiMax and OMC's FICHT models. " but this does not provide the BSFC for OptiMax. Using the Popular Mechanics review http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/2000/8/Five_Outboard_Motors/print.phtml and assuming the 3500 rpm data is close to the optimum the fuel consumption of the 4 cycle engines is 4.0 and 4.1. If I take the conservative assumption and assume the best engine is at the low end of the range i.e. 0.4 lb/HP hr and scale the OptiMax 0.4 * 4.5/4.0 = 0.439 lbs/HP hr converting to gallons per hour with a density of 6 lbs/gal produces 0.0731 gal/HP hr. The Yanmar specific fuel consumption is 185 g/HP hr = 0.407 lb / HP hr using a diesel density of 7.1 lbs/gal yields 0.0573 gal/HP hr. The Steyr specific fuel consumption is 210 g/HP hr = 0.462 lb/HP hr = 0.065 gal / HP hr. The Yanmar fuel consumption rate is 27.7% better than the Mercury Optimax and the Steyr fuel consumption rate is 12.5% better. Notice even though the assumed Optimax BSFC (0.439 lb/HP hr) is lower than the Steyr (0.462 lb/HP hr) the volumetric fuel consumption of the diesel is lower because the density of diesel is 7.1/6 = 1.183 or 18.3% higher than gas (petrol).
If the diesel is driving a surface drive it should be 10 to 15% more efficient that a outboard drive.
If the diesel is at an 18 degree down angle then the horizontal thrust vector is cos(18) = 0.95 or you loose 5%.
The Yanmar weighs 996.1 versus the OptiMax 416 or 580 lbs. For O-1 this would be about a 10% weight increase so the net result, with the surface drive the Yanmar would be 1.277 * 1.1 * 0.9 = 1.26 or 26% better fuel efficiency than Optimax and with an inboard 1.277 * 0.95 * 0.9 = 1.092 or 9.2% higher fuel efficiency than Optimax.
The Steyr weighs 568 versus Optimax at 416 or 152 which would increase O-1 3%. Net result with a surface drive the Steyr performance is 1.125 * 1.1 * 0.97 = 1.114 or 11.4% better than Optimax and as an inboard 1.125 * 0.95 * 0.97 = 1.037 or 3.7% better than Optimax
Since the diesels have 10% higher power that the OptiMax, I think the diesels will at least match the outboard performance.
The cost of the Steyr is $11,438 versus Optimax at $10,169 or $1,268 (USD) more. This represents a 2.5% increase for O-1. Granted this cost does not include the drive shaft, bearings and prop, but the cost difference is not that great.
The effort and complexity of installing an inboard engine is insignificant compared to the effort required to build O-1.
Cheers
Mike Schooley
Ok, some numbers:
These are the list prices from my local maercury dealer, are for the package NOT INSTALLED and are in Australian $:.
Using the exchange rates provided at http://www.xe.com/ I got a conversion rate of $1 AUD = $ 0.565890 USD
Mercruiser D2.8L Dtronic diesel inboard, with down angle g/box, $30,346 AU = $17,172 USD
Same motor with a Bravo1 sterndrive, $33,017 = $18,684 USD
150hp Optimax x-long shaft, $17,970. I use this engine as it is the most expensive, most high-tech they make in this power range. = $10,169 USD
Merc do not produce a petrol inboard in this power range (does anybody?), but their 135hp, 3L sterndrive (Bravo1) comes in at $13,852. = $7,838 USD
The Steyr 164 HP diesel is $11,438 USD = $20,212 AUD
Simplicity Surface Drive SMD 100, Marine Power 262 V6, Hurth 450A $10,337 USD = $18,267 AUD
[The optimax o/b, will at worst, very nearly match the diesel inboard for fuel economy and would outperform it in every other respect, given its lighter weight and the inefficiencies imposed by the shaft angle, appendage drag etc.[/B]
I like you Will, but I can't let you float an unsubstantiated claim like that through my sites without firing the torpedoes!
Since Mercury won't publish their specific fuel consumption data I had to estimate it. According to Boating Life magazine http://www.boatinglifemag.com/BL_Main/1,1675,1-1-1-10877-157-135,00.html "On average, an in-tune four-stroke gasoline engine will burn about 0.4 to 0.45 pounds of fuel per hour for each unit of horsepower. Likewise, a well-maintained two-stroke outboard burns nearly 0.6 to 0.8 pounds of fuel per hour for each unit of horsepower it produces. These figures apply to carbureted and fuel-injected engines, but not to direct-injected engines such as Mercury's OptiMax and OMC's FICHT models. " but this does not provide the BSFC for OptiMax. Using the Popular Mechanics review http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/2000/8/Five_Outboard_Motors/print.phtml and assuming the 3500 rpm data is close to the optimum the fuel consumption of the 4 cycle engines is 4.0 and 4.1. If I take the conservative assumption and assume the best engine is at the low end of the range i.e. 0.4 lb/HP hr and scale the OptiMax 0.4 * 4.5/4.0 = 0.439 lbs/HP hr converting to gallons per hour with a density of 6 lbs/gal produces 0.0731 gal/HP hr. The Yanmar specific fuel consumption is 185 g/HP hr = 0.407 lb / HP hr using a diesel density of 7.1 lbs/gal yields 0.0573 gal/HP hr. The Steyr specific fuel consumption is 210 g/HP hr = 0.462 lb/HP hr = 0.065 gal / HP hr. The Yanmar fuel consumption rate is 27.7% better than the Mercury Optimax and the Steyr fuel consumption rate is 12.5% better. Notice even though the assumed Optimax BSFC (0.439 lb/HP hr) is lower than the Steyr (0.462 lb/HP hr) the volumetric fuel consumption of the diesel is lower because the density of diesel is 7.1/6 = 1.183 or 18.3% higher than gas (petrol).
If the diesel is driving a surface drive it should be 10 to 15% more efficient that a outboard drive.
If the diesel is at an 18 degree down angle then the horizontal thrust vector is cos(18) = 0.95 or you loose 5%.
The Yanmar weighs 996.1 versus the OptiMax 416 or 580 lbs. For O-1 this would be about a 10% weight increase so the net result, with the surface drive the Yanmar would be 1.277 * 1.1 * 0.9 = 1.26 or 26% better fuel efficiency than Optimax and with an inboard 1.277 * 0.95 * 0.9 = 1.092 or 9.2% higher fuel efficiency than Optimax.
The Steyr weighs 568 versus Optimax at 416 or 152 which would increase O-1 3%. Net result with a surface drive the Steyr performance is 1.125 * 1.1 * 0.97 = 1.114 or 11.4% better than Optimax and as an inboard 1.125 * 0.95 * 0.97 = 1.037 or 3.7% better than Optimax
Since the diesels have 10% higher power that the OptiMax, I think the diesels will at least match the outboard performance.
The cost of the Steyr is $11,438 versus Optimax at $10,169 or $1,268 (USD) more. This represents a 2.5% increase for O-1. Granted this cost does not include the drive shaft, bearings and prop, but the cost difference is not that great.
The effort and complexity of installing an inboard engine is insignificant compared to the effort required to build O-1.
Cheers
Mike Schooley
Willallison
06-28-2002, 03:17 AM
Thought I'd get a rise out of that one!!
Consider this from an earlier thread:
Volvo's tests reveal that a 5.7L sterndrive uses approx 80 L/hr at WOT and 35 at cruise - 3000rpm.
A mercruiser 4.3L v-6 consumes about 65L and 27L respectively.
The 3L 225hp Mercury Optimax o/b consumes 66L @ wot and 28 L/hr at cruise (4000rpm)
The 3.5L Honda 4 stroke 225 sucks 77 and 35.
A 3.3L Ficht 225 drinks 74 and 40.
In particular note the 225hp Optimax consumption. At wot it is consuming 66 Lph or 14.5 gph. ie 0.065 g/hp/hr.
You quoted the Steyr as consuming 0.065 g/hp/hr - exactly the same!
One area where diesels have traditionally had it over the alternatives - and particularly outboards is at slow revs. A diesel's consumption tends to be essentially linear - the slower you go, the less fuel you will use in mpg terms. Older technology o/b's are almost the reverse, at displacement speeds they'd throw fuel out the exhaust almost as fast as you could pour it through the carbies. This is where my enthusiasm for Optimax comes from. Our own boat, with one its 225's pushing it at 6knots uses just 3 Lph - or 9 nmpg. I believe this is as good, or better than a diesel of similar power could manage and way better than any inboard petrol engine would do.
You will recall my enthusiasm for the surface drive concept - and all the creditable evidence does lead to a 10 - 15% improvement in efficiency as you say - but only at speeds over 35knots. At less than this, most information I have seen suggests that the surface drive will only match the alternatives. It also doubles the cost of the engine installation, so will probably not fit our budget.
I can't argue with the maths, but I'm not too sure that the results are born out in reality. I have a number of tests at home with direct comparisons between shaft drive and sterndrive powered boats. The efficiency of the sterndrive is essentially the same as the outboard, so the comparisaon is a valid one. I'll dig them out and post them asap
ps. I like you too Mike!!:D and I look forward to the response which I am sure will be forthcoming!!:D
Consider this from an earlier thread:
Volvo's tests reveal that a 5.7L sterndrive uses approx 80 L/hr at WOT and 35 at cruise - 3000rpm.
A mercruiser 4.3L v-6 consumes about 65L and 27L respectively.
The 3L 225hp Mercury Optimax o/b consumes 66L @ wot and 28 L/hr at cruise (4000rpm)
The 3.5L Honda 4 stroke 225 sucks 77 and 35.
A 3.3L Ficht 225 drinks 74 and 40.
In particular note the 225hp Optimax consumption. At wot it is consuming 66 Lph or 14.5 gph. ie 0.065 g/hp/hr.
You quoted the Steyr as consuming 0.065 g/hp/hr - exactly the same!
One area where diesels have traditionally had it over the alternatives - and particularly outboards is at slow revs. A diesel's consumption tends to be essentially linear - the slower you go, the less fuel you will use in mpg terms. Older technology o/b's are almost the reverse, at displacement speeds they'd throw fuel out the exhaust almost as fast as you could pour it through the carbies. This is where my enthusiasm for Optimax comes from. Our own boat, with one its 225's pushing it at 6knots uses just 3 Lph - or 9 nmpg. I believe this is as good, or better than a diesel of similar power could manage and way better than any inboard petrol engine would do.
You will recall my enthusiasm for the surface drive concept - and all the creditable evidence does lead to a 10 - 15% improvement in efficiency as you say - but only at speeds over 35knots. At less than this, most information I have seen suggests that the surface drive will only match the alternatives. It also doubles the cost of the engine installation, so will probably not fit our budget.
I can't argue with the maths, but I'm not too sure that the results are born out in reality. I have a number of tests at home with direct comparisons between shaft drive and sterndrive powered boats. The efficiency of the sterndrive is essentially the same as the outboard, so the comparisaon is a valid one. I'll dig them out and post them asap
ps. I like you too Mike!!:D and I look forward to the response which I am sure will be forthcoming!!:D
Portager
06-28-2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Willallison
In particular note the 225hp Optimax consumption. At wot it is consuming 66 Lph or 14.5 gph. ie 0.065 g/hp/hr.
You quoted the Steyr as consuming 0.065 g/hp/hr - exactly the same!
Nice argument except 1 liter = 0.26417205235815 gallons, therefore 66 lph = 17.43 gph i.e. 0.0775 g/hp/hr which is worse than the 0.0731 gal/HP/hr that I used.
You will recall my enthusiasm for the surface drive concept - and all the creditable evidence does lead to a 10 - 15% improvement in efficiency as you say - but only at speeds over 35knots. At less than this, most information I have seen suggests that the surface drive will only match the alternatives.
The information that I have indicates that above 35 knots the difference is ~30%, below 35 knots it drops to 10 - 15%.
I can't argue with the maths, but I'm not too sure that the results are born out in reality.
If you look at the "Stern to Stern" comparison http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1997/10/Mercruiser_vs_Mercruiser/ that I posted earlier I think it shows the results are born out in reality. Even though the diesel was 272 lbs heavier and 10 HP lower power, it provided slightly higher speed and significantly better fuel economy.
It also doubles the cost of the engine installation, so will probably not fit our budget.
I'd like to see some real numbers on this and take into account the cost and installation cost of the water heater.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
In particular note the 225hp Optimax consumption. At wot it is consuming 66 Lph or 14.5 gph. ie 0.065 g/hp/hr.
You quoted the Steyr as consuming 0.065 g/hp/hr - exactly the same!
Nice argument except 1 liter = 0.26417205235815 gallons, therefore 66 lph = 17.43 gph i.e. 0.0775 g/hp/hr which is worse than the 0.0731 gal/HP/hr that I used.
You will recall my enthusiasm for the surface drive concept - and all the creditable evidence does lead to a 10 - 15% improvement in efficiency as you say - but only at speeds over 35knots. At less than this, most information I have seen suggests that the surface drive will only match the alternatives.
The information that I have indicates that above 35 knots the difference is ~30%, below 35 knots it drops to 10 - 15%.
I can't argue with the maths, but I'm not too sure that the results are born out in reality.
If you look at the "Stern to Stern" comparison http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1997/10/Mercruiser_vs_Mercruiser/ that I posted earlier I think it shows the results are born out in reality. Even though the diesel was 272 lbs heavier and 10 HP lower power, it provided slightly higher speed and significantly better fuel economy.
It also doubles the cost of the engine installation, so will probably not fit our budget.
I'd like to see some real numbers on this and take into account the cost and installation cost of the water heater.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
06-28-2002, 07:14 PM
depends what kind of gallons you use! Imperial or US...... I used 1 gallon = 4.54609 Litres.
more to come........
more to come........
Portager
06-28-2002, 08:01 PM
That is the correct conversion for liters to Imperial gallons, however all my data was in US gallons. To compare my data to yours you need to multiply by 1.201 so 0.065 X 1.201 = 0.078 US gal/HP/hr.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Portager
06-29-2002, 10:37 AM
I calculated the weight of O-1 with the following propulsion options; Mercury Optimax 150 , Mercury Mercruiser 135 stern drive, Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA inboard, Yanmar 4LHA-HTA surface, Steyr inboard, Steyr surface drive. I set the empty weight of O-1 with the Mercury Optimax to 5,000 and increase it for the other options by my best estimate of the engine and drive weight difference. I calculated the fuel required to obtain a 300 NMi range with a 20% reserve for each engine/drive option based on the specific fuel consumption and the drive efficiency (I assumed the surface drive was 10% more efficient and the inboard 5% less efficient than the outboard and stern drives).
If the Excel spread sheet that I saves as a web page shows up, you will see that the fuel requirements in gallons were highest for the Mercury Optimax 107.4, followed by the Steyr inboard 105.4, Mercruiser 135 stern drive 98.8, Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 97.8, Steyr surface drive 90.2 & Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface 83.9.
The interesting thing is when I calculated the weight of the fuel, the order changes because of the higher density of diesel fuel. The lowest fuel weight is Mercruiser 135 stern drive at 593 lbs, followed by Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface drive at 595 lbs., Steyr surface drive at 641 lbs., Mercury Optimax at 644 lbs., Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 695 lbs., and the highest was the Steyr inboard 748.
When I calculated the fully loaded weight the lowest was Mercury Optimax at 5,644 lbs., Mercruiser 135 stern drive at 5800 lbs, Steyr surface drive at 5,993 lbs., Steyr inboard 6,100 lbs., Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface drive at 6,275 lbs. and Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 6,374 lbs.
So even though the diesels save fuel in gallons they do not save weight for a boat of this range. If you increase range the Yanmar surface drive eventually becomes the lightest weight but not until 2,400 NMi.
Next I calculated the fuel usage pre 100 hours assuming $1.20 US per gallon for gas (petrol) and $1.10 per gallon for diesel. I estimated the acquisition cost of each propulsion option (I need an estimate of the installation cost), subtracted the Optimax outboard and divided by the fuel savings per hr to get the hours to break even. The Steyr surface drive broke even in 214 hours of use followed by the Yanmar surface drive at 270, Steyr inboard at 290 and then the Yanmar inboard at 398. Note that these break even times do not take into account the value of money i.e. the interest you would pay on the investment until you get it back at the fuel pump so these numbers are optimistic.
Assuming 100 hr use per year and 10% interest, the break even period becomes Steyr surface drive 2.51 years followed by the Yanmar surface drive at 4, Steyr inboard at 4.63 and then the Yanmar inboard at 8.71.
Now I think the analysis is almost complete (we should try and estimate the difference in the cost of maintenance per hr and per year). I personally was surprised that the diesels were not lighter that the gas engines at O-1's range and I was also surprised at how soon the Steyr engine reached the break even point. This is partially due to the fact that the Steyr dealer quoted me a very good discount on the Steyr engine, but I expect this discount to be available for a number of years until the market figures out what a value the Steyr is.
I hope this analysis was as informative to some of you as it was to me.:)
I really hope the spread sheet comes through. I will make explaining an analysis much easier. P.S. It was a no go on the spread sheet. I'll have to find another way.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
If the Excel spread sheet that I saves as a web page shows up, you will see that the fuel requirements in gallons were highest for the Mercury Optimax 107.4, followed by the Steyr inboard 105.4, Mercruiser 135 stern drive 98.8, Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 97.8, Steyr surface drive 90.2 & Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface 83.9.
The interesting thing is when I calculated the weight of the fuel, the order changes because of the higher density of diesel fuel. The lowest fuel weight is Mercruiser 135 stern drive at 593 lbs, followed by Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface drive at 595 lbs., Steyr surface drive at 641 lbs., Mercury Optimax at 644 lbs., Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 695 lbs., and the highest was the Steyr inboard 748.
When I calculated the fully loaded weight the lowest was Mercury Optimax at 5,644 lbs., Mercruiser 135 stern drive at 5800 lbs, Steyr surface drive at 5,993 lbs., Steyr inboard 6,100 lbs., Yanmar 4 LHA-HTA surface drive at 6,275 lbs. and Yanmar 4LHA-HTA inboard 6,374 lbs.
So even though the diesels save fuel in gallons they do not save weight for a boat of this range. If you increase range the Yanmar surface drive eventually becomes the lightest weight but not until 2,400 NMi.
Next I calculated the fuel usage pre 100 hours assuming $1.20 US per gallon for gas (petrol) and $1.10 per gallon for diesel. I estimated the acquisition cost of each propulsion option (I need an estimate of the installation cost), subtracted the Optimax outboard and divided by the fuel savings per hr to get the hours to break even. The Steyr surface drive broke even in 214 hours of use followed by the Yanmar surface drive at 270, Steyr inboard at 290 and then the Yanmar inboard at 398. Note that these break even times do not take into account the value of money i.e. the interest you would pay on the investment until you get it back at the fuel pump so these numbers are optimistic.
Assuming 100 hr use per year and 10% interest, the break even period becomes Steyr surface drive 2.51 years followed by the Yanmar surface drive at 4, Steyr inboard at 4.63 and then the Yanmar inboard at 8.71.
Now I think the analysis is almost complete (we should try and estimate the difference in the cost of maintenance per hr and per year). I personally was surprised that the diesels were not lighter that the gas engines at O-1's range and I was also surprised at how soon the Steyr engine reached the break even point. This is partially due to the fact that the Steyr dealer quoted me a very good discount on the Steyr engine, but I expect this discount to be available for a number of years until the market figures out what a value the Steyr is.
I hope this analysis was as informative to some of you as it was to me.:)
I really hope the spread sheet comes through. I will make explaining an analysis much easier. P.S. It was a no go on the spread sheet. I'll have to find another way.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
06-29-2002, 01:51 PM
How much was that Steyr quote could give me an approx. ??
Portager
06-29-2002, 03:01 PM
Approximately $11,438 for engine and transmission.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
06-29-2002, 03:19 PM
How many Hp for 11ish?
Nomad
06-29-2002, 09:02 PM
Are they planing on large engines in the near future?
Nomad
06-29-2002, 10:00 PM
4 more days.......................
Portager
06-30-2002, 04:41 PM
Currently Steyr's largest engine is 240 HP. I don't know if Steyr is planning any larger engines in the future, but I don't think so. The dealer told me that their current engine was the result of a joint venture between Ford and somebody who I forgot to develop a light weight diesel engine in the 1970's. When diesel cars declined in the 80's Ford dropped out of the joint venture and it ultimately became the Steyr diesel.
They have an inline 4 and a V6, maybe they have a V8 up their sleeve?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
They have an inline 4 and a V6, maybe they have a V8 up their sleeve?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
06-30-2002, 04:49 PM
Thanks Mike Just checking to see what you know because Steyr will not E-mail me back. I have asked about dealership/manuf. setups etc. Kinda weird
duluthboats
06-30-2002, 08:12 PM
We really could use a few more votes here people. We are at a virtual tie. Come on, how about a dozen or so of you lurkers out there choose your preference for O-1s power. It only takes two clicks of you mouse.
Gary
Gary
tom28571
07-01-2002, 07:16 AM
One item that has a large effect on my choice of an outboard is maintenance and repair service. I know that diesels have the great reputation for reliability but I hear of far more problems with repair from friends with diesels than with outboards. I'm not talking specifically about the engines but about the availability of good service. When I have a problem with my outboard I can take it to the dealer who has "factory trained" service people to work on it. Yeah, they can screw up too, but at least they have access to expertise and a wealth of information. Each engine is a complete identical system under the hood which helps with the service..
Willallison
07-01-2002, 08:00 PM
Its taken me some time - and I still haven't found the article I was after - but here are some interesting numbers to consider. Look out Mike - here it comes!!
If the diesel is at an 18 degree down angle then the horizontal thrust vector is cos(18) = 0.95 or you loose 5%.
If we can accept that the efficiencies inherent in a sterndrive are similar to those of an outboard, then these are clearly not born out by reality. "Motorboat & Yachting" recently did a comparison on two 40-odd foot Sealines. One powered by 2x 260hp Volvo sterndrives, the other with 2x 420 hp inboards. The outdrive's managed a top of 31 knots. The inboards - with 38% more power managed just 32.
From another test ........the gains in efficiency can be astonishing. Take the Princess V42. Powered by a pair of 480hp Volvo TAMD74P inboard diesels, this 9.5 tonne boat has a top speed around 37 knots. But the same boat can reach close to 36 knots fitted with a pair of comparatively tiddly 260hp KAD44's driving through Volvo's highly efficient Duoprop outdrive legs.
Using the elementary designers formula that states: Speed = Efficiency x sq.rt (hp / displacement) the outdrive powered boat is about 30% more efficient - a startling improvement over conventional props
Now this tells us a number of things. One is that whilst one can't argue with Mike's mathematical case for the diesel inboard, in practice the numbers simply don't stack up. And whilst this isn't a direct comparison between inboards and outboards, it clearly demonstrates that both sterndrive and outboards (with their similar drivelines) will overwhelmingly outperform a similarly powered shaft driven boat. Further, it shows that should we decide not to go for outboards, then we should certainly consider alternatives to conventional shafts. Their greates assest - simplicity and longevity when submerged - is only applicable to boats left in the water for extended periods.
Now I know that I carry just a smidgen of bias towards outboards:p , but if forced to choose an alternative - for this style of boat - then a shaft driven inboard would be well and truely at the bottom of my list.
If the diesel is at an 18 degree down angle then the horizontal thrust vector is cos(18) = 0.95 or you loose 5%.
If we can accept that the efficiencies inherent in a sterndrive are similar to those of an outboard, then these are clearly not born out by reality. "Motorboat & Yachting" recently did a comparison on two 40-odd foot Sealines. One powered by 2x 260hp Volvo sterndrives, the other with 2x 420 hp inboards. The outdrive's managed a top of 31 knots. The inboards - with 38% more power managed just 32.
From another test ........the gains in efficiency can be astonishing. Take the Princess V42. Powered by a pair of 480hp Volvo TAMD74P inboard diesels, this 9.5 tonne boat has a top speed around 37 knots. But the same boat can reach close to 36 knots fitted with a pair of comparatively tiddly 260hp KAD44's driving through Volvo's highly efficient Duoprop outdrive legs.
Using the elementary designers formula that states: Speed = Efficiency x sq.rt (hp / displacement) the outdrive powered boat is about 30% more efficient - a startling improvement over conventional props
Now this tells us a number of things. One is that whilst one can't argue with Mike's mathematical case for the diesel inboard, in practice the numbers simply don't stack up. And whilst this isn't a direct comparison between inboards and outboards, it clearly demonstrates that both sterndrive and outboards (with their similar drivelines) will overwhelmingly outperform a similarly powered shaft driven boat. Further, it shows that should we decide not to go for outboards, then we should certainly consider alternatives to conventional shafts. Their greates assest - simplicity and longevity when submerged - is only applicable to boats left in the water for extended periods.
Now I know that I carry just a smidgen of bias towards outboards:p , but if forced to choose an alternative - for this style of boat - then a shaft driven inboard would be well and truely at the bottom of my list.
Nomad
07-01-2002, 08:30 PM
Come on someone either needs to vote or change their vote.................... ;)
Jeff
07-01-2002, 09:29 PM
After all the discussion I had a feeling that this one would come out close.
If only there were a surface-drive or inboard hybrid like the trimax drives (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=16) or BPM (http://www.raceboats.com/bpm.html) or Arneson's (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8) or PowerVent Drives (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10) without such a steep pricetag that would make thigns more interesting, but I fear our budget (like in reality) makes it a difficult decision.
--who me using this as an excuse to play with the new photo gallery?
If only there were a surface-drive or inboard hybrid like the trimax drives (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=16) or BPM (http://www.raceboats.com/bpm.html) or Arneson's (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8) or PowerVent Drives (http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10) without such a steep pricetag that would make thigns more interesting, but I fear our budget (like in reality) makes it a difficult decision.
--who me using this as an excuse to play with the new photo gallery?
Willallison
07-01-2002, 09:45 PM
The Trimax would have seemed a good choice here, but they only recomend using them in twin installations - singles for racing only
Jeff
07-01-2002, 11:10 PM
That's interesting - I didn't realize that (although it sounds familiar now that you've said it). What's the logic? Is there any similar recommedation for Arneson or BPM drives?
Willallison
07-01-2002, 11:57 PM
Not that I know of. I only happen to know about the Trimax's because I spoke with the their people about a pleasure craft application. Pity, because (apart from the price) the Trimax is a rather attractive package. According to Buzzi's people, the system performs well in the "getting onto plane phase" compared to other surface drives. Without going back through my files, I'm not sure why they don't suggest for single installations......
Portager
07-02-2002, 01:18 AM
The stern drives on the Princess V42 are all DuoProp (counter rotating props) which are documented to provide 15% higher thrust than a single prop for a given power level. Since the inboards do not have counter rotating props this accounts for about half of the efficiency difference.
In general, it is a bad idea to compare efficiency at maximum speed because the power : speed curve is so steep. It is better to compare power levels at a common speed near cruise speed. Most diesels are optimized for maximum efficiency at cruise (as opposed to gas engines that are optimized for maximum speed) and since the inboards thrust angle can not be trimmed their performance suffers at maximum speed.
Many manufacturers design their boat around a certain engine and then offer alternate engines as options. The boat is rarely redesigned and re-optimized for the optional engines which makes the optional engine appear to under perform.
In the case of O-1 it is best to compare drive efficiency at 22 to 24 knots as you pointed out in the case of surface drives.
Here is an interesting FAQ from http://www.powerboatguide.com/FAQ/faq.htm "Why is a 27-foot boat with twin 200-hp outboards faster than the same boat with 200-hp inboard engines?
Simple. You can trim outboard engines to gain maximum prop efficiency for speed and conditions. Inboards have fixed shaft angles regardless of speed or sea conditions. Trimming outboards lifts the hull farther out of the water, reducing the wetted surface and drag considerably.
Also, two-stroke outboards are designed for cruising at a higher percentage of maximum rated rpm than the four-stroke gas inboard, and the outboard's horsepower-to-weight ratio is better. It should be said that in rough-water conditions inboard models are generally better designs, as the centralized weight of the engines allows the boat to stay on plane and handle better at much lower speeds than outboard designs."
And another quote from the same FAQ, "I know that engine hours are important, but what constitutes a lot of hours on a particular set of motors?
This is always a hard question to answer, so we'll just offer up some general guidelines. When it comes to gas engines (inboards and I/Os), most dealers and brokers figure those with over 1,000 hours are probably tired. With turbocharged diesels 3,500 hours is a lot of running time, and with naturally aspirated diesels it's not uncommon to pile up 5,000 hours before an overhaul is required.
Unfortunately, a good many of today's ultra-high-performance diesels never see 2,000 hours before an overhaul is required. Sometimes this is a manufacturer problem, but premature marine diesel death usually results from improper owner care and maintenance. ..."
Based on these hours, I'd conclude that the life of a diesel should be 2X to 5X that of a gasoline (petrol) engine. It seams to me that even if you only put 100 hours on your engine per year the resale value of a well maintained diesel would be significantly better.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
In general, it is a bad idea to compare efficiency at maximum speed because the power : speed curve is so steep. It is better to compare power levels at a common speed near cruise speed. Most diesels are optimized for maximum efficiency at cruise (as opposed to gas engines that are optimized for maximum speed) and since the inboards thrust angle can not be trimmed their performance suffers at maximum speed.
Many manufacturers design their boat around a certain engine and then offer alternate engines as options. The boat is rarely redesigned and re-optimized for the optional engines which makes the optional engine appear to under perform.
In the case of O-1 it is best to compare drive efficiency at 22 to 24 knots as you pointed out in the case of surface drives.
Here is an interesting FAQ from http://www.powerboatguide.com/FAQ/faq.htm "Why is a 27-foot boat with twin 200-hp outboards faster than the same boat with 200-hp inboard engines?
Simple. You can trim outboard engines to gain maximum prop efficiency for speed and conditions. Inboards have fixed shaft angles regardless of speed or sea conditions. Trimming outboards lifts the hull farther out of the water, reducing the wetted surface and drag considerably.
Also, two-stroke outboards are designed for cruising at a higher percentage of maximum rated rpm than the four-stroke gas inboard, and the outboard's horsepower-to-weight ratio is better. It should be said that in rough-water conditions inboard models are generally better designs, as the centralized weight of the engines allows the boat to stay on plane and handle better at much lower speeds than outboard designs."
And another quote from the same FAQ, "I know that engine hours are important, but what constitutes a lot of hours on a particular set of motors?
This is always a hard question to answer, so we'll just offer up some general guidelines. When it comes to gas engines (inboards and I/Os), most dealers and brokers figure those with over 1,000 hours are probably tired. With turbocharged diesels 3,500 hours is a lot of running time, and with naturally aspirated diesels it's not uncommon to pile up 5,000 hours before an overhaul is required.
Unfortunately, a good many of today's ultra-high-performance diesels never see 2,000 hours before an overhaul is required. Sometimes this is a manufacturer problem, but premature marine diesel death usually results from improper owner care and maintenance. ..."
Based on these hours, I'd conclude that the life of a diesel should be 2X to 5X that of a gasoline (petrol) engine. It seams to me that even if you only put 100 hours on your engine per year the resale value of a well maintained diesel would be significantly better.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
duluthboats
07-02-2002, 01:34 AM
Now what? The poll is closed and we have no winner. Do we call the surface drive vote as an inboard vote? Or do we allow this voter to be the tie breaker? We need a call here from a higher authority.
Gary:?: :confused:
Gary:?: :confused:
Portager
07-02-2002, 01:53 AM
It appears to me that diesels won :D but the drive choice is undetermined.
I think the market is just as divided as this forum and we aren't going to settle that question here. To maximize market appeal, I think O-1 should have a gas and a diesel option. To keep the entry level cost low, I think the base model should be gas and the diesel should be optional.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
I think the market is just as divided as this forum and we aren't going to settle that question here. To maximize market appeal, I think O-1 should have a gas and a diesel option. To keep the entry level cost low, I think the base model should be gas and the diesel should be optional.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
duluthboats
07-02-2002, 02:02 AM
What time is it in Barcelona? We need Paul to make a ruling.
Jeff
07-02-2002, 02:25 AM
Uh oh - I'm in trouble :(
I am the one who voted for the surface drive switching my vote from inboard. The truth is I am torn between inboard and outboard if I can't have a surface drive. My head says outboard but my heart says inboard.
I am the one who voted for the surface drive switching my vote from inboard. The truth is I am torn between inboard and outboard if I can't have a surface drive. My head says outboard but my heart says inboard.
Willallison
07-02-2002, 03:24 AM
Ok 1st up to Mike's very good rebuttle of my inboard / sterndrive comparisons. And it is true that the Duoprop is responsible for at least some of the efficiency gain over the inboard. But consider this. I the Sealine example I described, there is a third set of performance figures to take into account. Same boat with a pair of 300hp D-tronic Mercruisers, with Bravo 2 legs (single prop) runs a top speed of just over 30 knots - 1 knot slower than the duoprop with 80hp less, and still only 2 knots slower than the 420hp inboards can manage.
'Tis true that one should probably compare the efficiencies at cruise - at around 28 knots both Bravo 2 and Duoprop consume about 15% less fuel than the inboards. Not as great a difference as one might expect, probably because the smaller diesels in Sealines sterndrive versions would have to work harder.
I would suggest that the difference would be greater in a lighter, more easily pushed hullform (such as O-1)
Now, as for engine life. I would agree that older generation outboards have a "1st life" expectancy of around 1000hrs. But the newer technology 4-strokes and dfi 2-strokes are generally lasting around twice as long. This (at 100 hrs per yr) is at worst 10 years of use and more likely around 20. I think that effectively takes the concerns about engine life out of the equation.
I also don't believe that petrol engines (inboard or outboard) are optimized for maximum (top speed) performance. Most outboards run best at around 4000rpm, with a max of about 6000, or 66%. My 5.7L sterndrive drinks fuel at an increasingly alarming rate when run much over 3600rpm (most economical at 3400) and has a max of about 4400rpm - 77%. Most diesel manufacturers suggest you run at around 75% max rpm - all about the same.
But, as you say - this is somewhat of a moot point, given that our poll has closed without a clear winner!:eek:
There seems only two sensible options - we either vote again and hope for a clearer outcome, given that many voted before much debate had been done. Or, with six votes to five, we adopt the inboard (gas or diesel) and then reconsider the driveline options.......
'Tis true that one should probably compare the efficiencies at cruise - at around 28 knots both Bravo 2 and Duoprop consume about 15% less fuel than the inboards. Not as great a difference as one might expect, probably because the smaller diesels in Sealines sterndrive versions would have to work harder.
I would suggest that the difference would be greater in a lighter, more easily pushed hullform (such as O-1)
Now, as for engine life. I would agree that older generation outboards have a "1st life" expectancy of around 1000hrs. But the newer technology 4-strokes and dfi 2-strokes are generally lasting around twice as long. This (at 100 hrs per yr) is at worst 10 years of use and more likely around 20. I think that effectively takes the concerns about engine life out of the equation.
I also don't believe that petrol engines (inboard or outboard) are optimized for maximum (top speed) performance. Most outboards run best at around 4000rpm, with a max of about 6000, or 66%. My 5.7L sterndrive drinks fuel at an increasingly alarming rate when run much over 3600rpm (most economical at 3400) and has a max of about 4400rpm - 77%. Most diesel manufacturers suggest you run at around 75% max rpm - all about the same.
But, as you say - this is somewhat of a moot point, given that our poll has closed without a clear winner!:eek:
There seems only two sensible options - we either vote again and hope for a clearer outcome, given that many voted before much debate had been done. Or, with six votes to five, we adopt the inboard (gas or diesel) and then reconsider the driveline options.......
Polarity
07-02-2002, 04:25 AM
Hi all
How about we do a quick re-vote. This time with 2 options
1)Inboard propulsion
2)Outboard propulsion
Any objections?
Paul
How about we do a quick re-vote. This time with 2 options
1)Inboard propulsion
2)Outboard propulsion
Any objections?
Paul
tom28571
07-02-2002, 08:58 AM
One thing just struck me as I read this mornings posts on the power poll. One of the last projects I worked on before I retired had a similar problem with reaching design decisions. The project leader decided to do what we have been doing, that is, take a vote on the various elements of the design.
We sat around a conference table and took up the elements one by one and kept score of the votes on a blackboard. I was in the minority in the voting many times.
The product failed miserably, both technically and in the marketplace. I have reviewed this failure several times to try to find why it went so wrong. There were people in these meetings from engineering, field representative, management, manufacturing, packaging, and marketing.
I think one of the crucial problems is that everyone got an equal vote on each item regardless of whether it was in or outside their field of expertise. It also demonstrates the classic committee design scenario.
In the current debate, I voted for outboards. I think they are best suited to the O-1 project AS I VIEW IT. I admit to having far less experience or knowlege of inboards and drive systems than several of you who have provided a wealth of information on these. My vote is intended to keep the boat lighter, more easily trailerable, simpler for the home builder and less expensive.
Perhaps one way out is to make a fundamental decision between the above goals and inboards. That is, use inboards and drop the easily trailerable, simple and less costly objectives -- or--- go with outboards and go to the smaller lighter simpler end of the range. Perhaps the original concept got driven to the high end and is no longer ideal for either power plant.
Anyway I think we are stuck with the committee vote process by the medium we work in. We are learning a great deal and it is very useful but we should not take the end product too seriously.
We sat around a conference table and took up the elements one by one and kept score of the votes on a blackboard. I was in the minority in the voting many times.
The product failed miserably, both technically and in the marketplace. I have reviewed this failure several times to try to find why it went so wrong. There were people in these meetings from engineering, field representative, management, manufacturing, packaging, and marketing.
I think one of the crucial problems is that everyone got an equal vote on each item regardless of whether it was in or outside their field of expertise. It also demonstrates the classic committee design scenario.
In the current debate, I voted for outboards. I think they are best suited to the O-1 project AS I VIEW IT. I admit to having far less experience or knowlege of inboards and drive systems than several of you who have provided a wealth of information on these. My vote is intended to keep the boat lighter, more easily trailerable, simpler for the home builder and less expensive.
Perhaps one way out is to make a fundamental decision between the above goals and inboards. That is, use inboards and drop the easily trailerable, simple and less costly objectives -- or--- go with outboards and go to the smaller lighter simpler end of the range. Perhaps the original concept got driven to the high end and is no longer ideal for either power plant.
Anyway I think we are stuck with the committee vote process by the medium we work in. We are learning a great deal and it is very useful but we should not take the end product too seriously.
Portager
07-02-2002, 10:36 AM
Will;
My point on the speed of gas versus diesel is not the speed of the engine, but the design speed of the boat. Most diesel customers are interested in fuel economy and range, so builders tend to prop and trim the diesel configuration for efficient cruise speed. OTOH most gas customers make their comparisons based on maximum speed, so builders prop and trim the boat for that.
At a boat show I stopped to look at a boat with gas or diesel engines. My first question was what is the range. The sales rep immediately assumed I was interested in the diesel engine option. When I asked how he knew I wanted diesel he said, "because you asked for range and not how fast will it go."
Although this is a lot of fun and I am learning a lot, I think we are splitting hairs. There is no best option because the best choice depends on the customers application.
I think the design committee process often fails because there are certain decisions that tend to go together and certain decisions that just don't. Some decisions need to be made as a group, or based on their impact on the rest of the system. Like a hot shower and an outboard, you need to add in a water heater and a expand the battery bank and add an inverter. If the committee doesn't have strong leadership and insight the process is destined to fail.
I see the propulsion choice as two interrelated decisions. First is engine choice; gas, gas or diesel or diesel only. Of course the diesel options eliminates outboards. The other choice is drive; outboard, stern drive, inboard, surface drive or jet. Maybe we should have two separate parallel polls, one for engine and one for the drive. OTOH we would probably choose diesel and outboard. :D
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
My point on the speed of gas versus diesel is not the speed of the engine, but the design speed of the boat. Most diesel customers are interested in fuel economy and range, so builders tend to prop and trim the diesel configuration for efficient cruise speed. OTOH most gas customers make their comparisons based on maximum speed, so builders prop and trim the boat for that.
At a boat show I stopped to look at a boat with gas or diesel engines. My first question was what is the range. The sales rep immediately assumed I was interested in the diesel engine option. When I asked how he knew I wanted diesel he said, "because you asked for range and not how fast will it go."
Although this is a lot of fun and I am learning a lot, I think we are splitting hairs. There is no best option because the best choice depends on the customers application.
I think the design committee process often fails because there are certain decisions that tend to go together and certain decisions that just don't. Some decisions need to be made as a group, or based on their impact on the rest of the system. Like a hot shower and an outboard, you need to add in a water heater and a expand the battery bank and add an inverter. If the committee doesn't have strong leadership and insight the process is destined to fail.
I see the propulsion choice as two interrelated decisions. First is engine choice; gas, gas or diesel or diesel only. Of course the diesel options eliminates outboards. The other choice is drive; outboard, stern drive, inboard, surface drive or jet. Maybe we should have two separate parallel polls, one for engine and one for the drive. OTOH we would probably choose diesel and outboard. :D
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
07-02-2002, 12:35 PM
If this is the cheap version then it should have the cheaper power. I was for diesel but that should be for the higher priced one. Right?
Portager
07-02-2002, 12:54 PM
Yes, but you need to design around the heavier weight option. Since diesel is generally heavier I think we should design to that and then putting a lighter weight gas engine in would be easy.
The main think is to keep the diesel option open. If O-1 can only accommodate gas engines then you loose the diesel market.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
The main think is to keep the diesel option open. If O-1 can only accommodate gas engines then you loose the diesel market.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
07-02-2002, 01:09 PM
So you want to have two power types for the boat right?
Portager
07-02-2002, 01:22 PM
:D
Nomad
07-02-2002, 03:06 PM
I never thought about it, doesn't sound like a bad idea. With one execption I didn't think about it first! ;) :D
Willallison
07-02-2002, 06:43 PM
One thing we are most certainly all in agreement with (by the sound of it...) is that design by committee has its shortcomings, compromises - and a few plusses as well. We are all learning new and interesting stuff here, which can only be a good thing.
I think Mike and Tom have made a very good point - perhaps we need to have made some firmer decisions on exactly what type of boat we want to end up with: a bare-bones ultralight which makes do without most of the luxury items, or a more upmarket version, which favours the inclusion of the luxuries at the probable expense of lightweight and cost.
(Personally I believe that outboard propulsion can be suitable for both applications, but lets leave that out of it for now)
I suggest that we set aside this debate - for the 2nd time!:( and run a short poll to decide the overall direction of O-1. Either that or go with the re-vote on this issue.
I think Mike and Tom have made a very good point - perhaps we need to have made some firmer decisions on exactly what type of boat we want to end up with: a bare-bones ultralight which makes do without most of the luxury items, or a more upmarket version, which favours the inclusion of the luxuries at the probable expense of lightweight and cost.
(Personally I believe that outboard propulsion can be suitable for both applications, but lets leave that out of it for now)
I suggest that we set aside this debate - for the 2nd time!:( and run a short poll to decide the overall direction of O-1. Either that or go with the re-vote on this issue.
Nomad
07-02-2002, 07:19 PM
Are you people from Florida to??
Portager
07-02-2002, 07:37 PM
I hate to say it but I think we need a vision statement.
i.e.
Economical Classic Cruiser - designed to provide the accommodations and convince of an Express Cruiser but with less speed, an affordable price and classic looks. :D
For Classic Express Cruiser - designed to beat the pants off "Bleach Bottle Express Cruisers" and look good doing it! AKA Damn the price full speed ahead! :p
Once we all have a better understanding of the objective we will be better able to make decisions that allow us to reach that objective. At least that is the theory. ;)
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
i.e.
Economical Classic Cruiser - designed to provide the accommodations and convince of an Express Cruiser but with less speed, an affordable price and classic looks. :D
For Classic Express Cruiser - designed to beat the pants off "Bleach Bottle Express Cruisers" and look good doing it! AKA Damn the price full speed ahead! :p
Once we all have a better understanding of the objective we will be better able to make decisions that allow us to reach that objective. At least that is the theory. ;)
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
07-02-2002, 08:04 PM
Another good idea Mike! :)
Willallison
07-02-2002, 08:30 PM
Yep - I think we may have found a way forward - though I favour a bare-bones ultralight vs an all-out luxury express poll. That way we can leave styling out of it for now - we have enough trouble agreeing without bringing that one into it!:D
Portager
07-02-2002, 10:03 PM
OK, so what is unique about O-1?
I suggest that everyone submit their vision. I suggest a format that starts with it is similar to a ___________ ____________ except it...
I'll go first. O-1 is similar to a trailerable express cruiser expect it's lighter weight and lower speed make it more economical to build and operate i.e. an "Economy Cruiser". O-1 will be legally trailerable, without special permits in the USA, Canada, Mexico and TBD.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
I suggest that everyone submit their vision. I suggest a format that starts with it is similar to a ___________ ____________ except it...
I'll go first. O-1 is similar to a trailerable express cruiser expect it's lighter weight and lower speed make it more economical to build and operate i.e. an "Economy Cruiser". O-1 will be legally trailerable, without special permits in the USA, Canada, Mexico and TBD.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
duluthboats
07-02-2002, 10:20 PM
Mike Ill go along with your Vision Statement, as long as we dont make a Paradigm Shift. LOL!!!!!:D Sorry I couldn't help myself. I'll work on something. This should move us forward I hope.
Gary
Gary
Willallison
07-05-2002, 02:17 AM
I rather like Mike's Vision Statement too - which is somewhat of a concern given our oposing views on power systems!:confused:
Actually, if we were to go the luxury route as opposed to the ultra-light route, I could always reconsider my position.....:eek:
Anyway, not to be outdone, here's my attempt:
"O-1 is UNLIKE any other express cruiser on the market. She (Loyds may have dropped the title, but buggered if I'm going to!:D ) is a lightweight, comfortable mini-cruiser: home buildable and legally trailerable world-wide - by design, O-1 will be economical to build, own and operate."
Not as neat as Mike's wondrous effort, but it still makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!:p
Actually, if we were to go the luxury route as opposed to the ultra-light route, I could always reconsider my position.....:eek:
Anyway, not to be outdone, here's my attempt:
"O-1 is UNLIKE any other express cruiser on the market. She (Loyds may have dropped the title, but buggered if I'm going to!:D ) is a lightweight, comfortable mini-cruiser: home buildable and legally trailerable world-wide - by design, O-1 will be economical to build, own and operate."
Not as neat as Mike's wondrous effort, but it still makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!:p
Polarity
07-05-2002, 03:59 AM
Definately warm and fuzzy feelings with that one - bkind of a marketing vision statement - I like it a lot.
Well put Will ! and great idea Mike!
Paul
Well put Will ! and great idea Mike!
Paul
tom28571
07-05-2002, 09:56 AM
For the new people on this forum, my boat which was designed and built to satisfy pretty much the same ideas that we have for the "low end" O-1 can be seen, along with full specs, at:
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=341&highlight=pilothouse+cruiser
I offer this as a starting point which can be used as a dart board for people to throw slings and arrows at. What would have to be changed to suit our individual members and can all the different modifications be fitted in one boat.
If we are talking about a low end, home built,we have to be disciplined not to talk blue sky so that the project goes nowhere and everywhere. That is true no matter what direction we start out with. I don't care what direction we take but it must be a single path or we will never get anywhere. Notwithstanding that we are learning a lot about boats and systems even with the scattergun approach that we have been on.
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=341&highlight=pilothouse+cruiser
I offer this as a starting point which can be used as a dart board for people to throw slings and arrows at. What would have to be changed to suit our individual members and can all the different modifications be fitted in one boat.
If we are talking about a low end, home built,we have to be disciplined not to talk blue sky so that the project goes nowhere and everywhere. That is true no matter what direction we start out with. I don't care what direction we take but it must be a single path or we will never get anywhere. Notwithstanding that we are learning a lot about boats and systems even with the scattergun approach that we have been on.
Portager
07-06-2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Willallison
"O-1 is UNLIKE any other express cruiser on the market. She is a lightweight, comfortable mini-cruiser: home buildable and legally trailerable world-wide - by design, O-1 will be economical to build, own and operate."
Since >99% of existing Express Cruisers use stern drives/inboards and the tie breaker pool selected outboard, it seams O-1 is bucking a trend. I was looking for the explanation of the benefit of the outboard to the consumer.
So far all I can think of is; we selected an outboard because:
It appears cheaper. :?:
Its more economical unless you use it. :(
The designers took the easy way out. :eek:
It is almost as safe as a diesel. :confused:
Who needs resale value, you'll never want to sell it. ;)
It is easier to unbolt the 400 lb outboard and take it in for service than to hitch up the trailer and tow the whole boat. :D
Who needs reliability, you can buy two outboard$ and keep one in the garage as a spare. :rolleyes:
Cold showers build character. :p
This is tongue in cheek, but my point is, if your going to decide to buck a trend you need to have a really good reason for doing it.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
"O-1 is UNLIKE any other express cruiser on the market. She is a lightweight, comfortable mini-cruiser: home buildable and legally trailerable world-wide - by design, O-1 will be economical to build, own and operate."
Since >99% of existing Express Cruisers use stern drives/inboards and the tie breaker pool selected outboard, it seams O-1 is bucking a trend. I was looking for the explanation of the benefit of the outboard to the consumer.
So far all I can think of is; we selected an outboard because:
It appears cheaper. :?:
Its more economical unless you use it. :(
The designers took the easy way out. :eek:
It is almost as safe as a diesel. :confused:
Who needs resale value, you'll never want to sell it. ;)
It is easier to unbolt the 400 lb outboard and take it in for service than to hitch up the trailer and tow the whole boat. :D
Who needs reliability, you can buy two outboard$ and keep one in the garage as a spare. :rolleyes:
Cold showers build character. :p
This is tongue in cheek, but my point is, if your going to decide to buck a trend you need to have a really good reason for doing it.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
07-06-2002, 03:04 PM
Mike it's.......it's touching!
Willallison
07-07-2002, 06:45 PM
LOL!:D
Unfortunately, I think we sent ourselevs a little off track by describing O-1 as an "Express Cruiser". In market speak, that pretty much means a somewhat fat, squeeze more in, sterndrive powered styling exercise.
Go back to the original five or six design parameters that we settled on for our boat:
1 Coastal hopping
2 Trailerable
3 Range 300 miles
4 Crew, 2 minimum
5 Price range, under 50K US, for home built.
6 Must be able to carry on a normal conversation at 3/4 throttle.
we then chose a size range:
Size 29 - 32 feet.
.... and then speed:
1. Max speed 25 - 28 knots
2.Max Cruise 20 - 22
3. able to maintain planing down to 12 knots and economical to operate throughout its speed range
Later we could give consideration to the GTi Expre$$ version.
From these parameters, it is clear that whilst many of the so-called "express cruisers" currently available will fit some of them - few will fit all. My 27ft Searay Sundancer, for instance (surely one of the most successful mass produced express cruisers) won't even look at travelling 300miles on a single tankful of fuel. And whilst with leg trimmed in and tabs fully depressed, I can just remain on the plane at 12 knots, I use more fuel than a 747 in the process!
O-1 is an attempt at something new, something that does buck the trends - because currently all the trends are for bigger, fatter, heavier and less efficient boats. If we are to move forward, we must continually look back to our chosen parameters for guidance. Sure - an all-out luxury floating condo would probably be better served by an inboard of some description, but the same boat won't fit the chosen criteria, listed above.
Tom, I think the idea of using "Liz" as a starting point is an excellent one - especially since it was partly a discussion about her that started this whole thing off........
Unfortunately, I think we sent ourselevs a little off track by describing O-1 as an "Express Cruiser". In market speak, that pretty much means a somewhat fat, squeeze more in, sterndrive powered styling exercise.
Go back to the original five or six design parameters that we settled on for our boat:
1 Coastal hopping
2 Trailerable
3 Range 300 miles
4 Crew, 2 minimum
5 Price range, under 50K US, for home built.
6 Must be able to carry on a normal conversation at 3/4 throttle.
we then chose a size range:
Size 29 - 32 feet.
.... and then speed:
1. Max speed 25 - 28 knots
2.Max Cruise 20 - 22
3. able to maintain planing down to 12 knots and economical to operate throughout its speed range
Later we could give consideration to the GTi Expre$$ version.
From these parameters, it is clear that whilst many of the so-called "express cruisers" currently available will fit some of them - few will fit all. My 27ft Searay Sundancer, for instance (surely one of the most successful mass produced express cruisers) won't even look at travelling 300miles on a single tankful of fuel. And whilst with leg trimmed in and tabs fully depressed, I can just remain on the plane at 12 knots, I use more fuel than a 747 in the process!
O-1 is an attempt at something new, something that does buck the trends - because currently all the trends are for bigger, fatter, heavier and less efficient boats. If we are to move forward, we must continually look back to our chosen parameters for guidance. Sure - an all-out luxury floating condo would probably be better served by an inboard of some description, but the same boat won't fit the chosen criteria, listed above.
Tom, I think the idea of using "Liz" as a starting point is an excellent one - especially since it was partly a discussion about her that started this whole thing off........
Portager
07-07-2002, 08:22 PM
Good job Will!
I still disagree with the decision to use an outboard. If O-1 didn't have a shower I'd feel different, but that propane water heater is going to be PAIN! O well. Time to move on!
I think the "C-Dory 22' Cruiser" http://www.c-dory.com/C-Dory%2022.htm model is the closest production boat to O-1 I know of. If you look at the pricing page http://www.c-dory.com/22%20pricing.htm we will see they price the C-Dory very competitively. This price does not include Motor(s), Battery(s), & Trailer, shipping and any applicable taxes.
One thing about the C-Dory that always bothered me was they use outboard engines (gasoline) and a diesel stove/heater. I understand a diesel stove/heater on a diesel boat but why on a gasoline boat?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
I still disagree with the decision to use an outboard. If O-1 didn't have a shower I'd feel different, but that propane water heater is going to be PAIN! O well. Time to move on!
I think the "C-Dory 22' Cruiser" http://www.c-dory.com/C-Dory%2022.htm model is the closest production boat to O-1 I know of. If you look at the pricing page http://www.c-dory.com/22%20pricing.htm we will see they price the C-Dory very competitively. This price does not include Motor(s), Battery(s), & Trailer, shipping and any applicable taxes.
One thing about the C-Dory that always bothered me was they use outboard engines (gasoline) and a diesel stove/heater. I understand a diesel stove/heater on a diesel boat but why on a gasoline boat?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
07-07-2002, 11:02 PM
I think the hot water / shower thing might come down to personal choice. Tom, for instance, I would think would happily forego the hw system in favour of avoiding the weight and complexity that comes with it, and so would leave it out. I admire that single-minded persuit of lightweight and simplicity - me, I'd sacrifice a little of both in order to have hot water on board.
As far as the C-Dory goes, they seem to capture the general idea - but to my eye at least - by God they're ugly!:eek:
It's interesting to look at the performance figures, though. I'm surprised that they manage better fuel economy with a pair of 40's than with a single 75......
As far as the C-Dory goes, they seem to capture the general idea - but to my eye at least - by God they're ugly!:eek:
It's interesting to look at the performance figures, though. I'm surprised that they manage better fuel economy with a pair of 40's than with a single 75......
Portager
07-08-2002, 12:24 AM
If I couldn't afford a boat with a shower I might make due with a "Sun Shower", but for $50K I expect a HOT shower.
Maybe that is our answer? Maybe we could design a hot water solar collector into the roof?
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The factory built C-Dory meets most of the performance requirements we set for O-1 at a fraction of the cost. They also have amazing resale value. Looks pretty good to ME. :D The performance of the C-Dory is very close to the goals of O-1.
The fuel economy of the twin 40 HP versus the 75 HP is a mystery.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Maybe that is our answer? Maybe we could design a hot water solar collector into the roof?
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The factory built C-Dory meets most of the performance requirements we set for O-1 at a fraction of the cost. They also have amazing resale value. Looks pretty good to ME. :D The performance of the C-Dory is very close to the goals of O-1.
The fuel economy of the twin 40 HP versus the 75 HP is a mystery.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
duluthboats
07-08-2002, 12:33 AM
This is a few things that crossed my mind over the weekend, mostly related to O-1.
:D A 4 day weekend for me and I still have no vision. I should say more correctly that I cant narrow it down to just one. Using Blue Jacket as a starting point is an excellent idea.
The other day at Tads suggestion I picked up a copy of PassageMaker. I seldom look at it because they deal with larger boats then Im interested in. I was surprised to see in the Trawler Talk section, the head line, Readers Prefer Propane Galleys. They also had an article on Twin vs Single with a bow thruster. I might have to read this magazine more often.
Where I boat, cabin heat is more important than hot water, but I would like both on any boat that I would spend a week on. I spent the first 5 years of my life in a house where the hot water came from a kettle on the stove. So we can get heat and hot water even from a solid fuel stove. LP is I believe a much easier fuel to transport and to use than many of the alternatives. I know about the safety concerns, I pulled a camper trailer around for many years. It used LP for everything, refrigeration, lights, heat, cooking, and hot water. This baby had gas lines everywhere. 3or 4 times a year it would take me about an hour to leak check the entire system. Occasionally a leak was found and repairs made. Not to much hassle for the convenience of not plugging in. I want that same convenience on my boat.
I do like the C-Dory, I just hate when a glass boat tries to look like a wood one.
Tad, I will get to your article in another thread, it deserves the space. :)
Gary
:D A 4 day weekend for me and I still have no vision. I should say more correctly that I cant narrow it down to just one. Using Blue Jacket as a starting point is an excellent idea.
The other day at Tads suggestion I picked up a copy of PassageMaker. I seldom look at it because they deal with larger boats then Im interested in. I was surprised to see in the Trawler Talk section, the head line, Readers Prefer Propane Galleys. They also had an article on Twin vs Single with a bow thruster. I might have to read this magazine more often.
Where I boat, cabin heat is more important than hot water, but I would like both on any boat that I would spend a week on. I spent the first 5 years of my life in a house where the hot water came from a kettle on the stove. So we can get heat and hot water even from a solid fuel stove. LP is I believe a much easier fuel to transport and to use than many of the alternatives. I know about the safety concerns, I pulled a camper trailer around for many years. It used LP for everything, refrigeration, lights, heat, cooking, and hot water. This baby had gas lines everywhere. 3or 4 times a year it would take me about an hour to leak check the entire system. Occasionally a leak was found and repairs made. Not to much hassle for the convenience of not plugging in. I want that same convenience on my boat.
I do like the C-Dory, I just hate when a glass boat tries to look like a wood one.
Tad, I will get to your article in another thread, it deserves the space. :)
Gary
Portager
07-08-2002, 01:05 AM
Propane is not something to take lightly on a boat, mainly because it is heavier than air.
Here is a quote from http://www.boatus.com/boattech/propane.htm
"Liquefied petroleum gas-usually propane-is the most convenient cooking fuel for a boat. It is available almost everywhere. It requires no pumping or preheating-just turn the knob and light the burner. The heat is adjustable by lowering the flame. Ovens have a "ring" burner, and can even be equipped with a broiler. And a gas stove, as every chef knows-is a joy to cook on.
On a boat, LPG is also-by far-the most dangerous cooking fuel. Propane and butane are heavier than air, so they "spill" like water. Leaking propane in a house falls to the floor, usually dispersing harmlessly on air currents, but a boat is like a bowl, and leaking gas accumulates in the bottom of it. One spark and KABOOM!-bits of boat rain down like a ticker-tape parade."
The propane leaks in your travel trailer were a minor nuisance because it wasted gas, but the gas leaked away harmlessly. In a boat it is a much bigger problem because it collects dangerously.
Propane is the most popular cooking fuel, but it requires a properly designed and vented locker. It also requires propane sniffers and solenoid shut-off valves. It can be done safely, but don't cut corners. Another question is what about product liability. If we design O-1 and one blows up due to a design flaw. Who gets sued.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Here is a quote from http://www.boatus.com/boattech/propane.htm
"Liquefied petroleum gas-usually propane-is the most convenient cooking fuel for a boat. It is available almost everywhere. It requires no pumping or preheating-just turn the knob and light the burner. The heat is adjustable by lowering the flame. Ovens have a "ring" burner, and can even be equipped with a broiler. And a gas stove, as every chef knows-is a joy to cook on.
On a boat, LPG is also-by far-the most dangerous cooking fuel. Propane and butane are heavier than air, so they "spill" like water. Leaking propane in a house falls to the floor, usually dispersing harmlessly on air currents, but a boat is like a bowl, and leaking gas accumulates in the bottom of it. One spark and KABOOM!-bits of boat rain down like a ticker-tape parade."
The propane leaks in your travel trailer were a minor nuisance because it wasted gas, but the gas leaked away harmlessly. In a boat it is a much bigger problem because it collects dangerously.
Propane is the most popular cooking fuel, but it requires a properly designed and vented locker. It also requires propane sniffers and solenoid shut-off valves. It can be done safely, but don't cut corners. Another question is what about product liability. If we design O-1 and one blows up due to a design flaw. Who gets sued.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
07-08-2002, 01:43 AM
Mike is right about the dangers involved in using propane / lpg on a boat - more so one with petrol engines - hence my search (in vain so far) for a suitable alternative.
The only other feasible option I have managed to come up with is to install a relatively small, petrol-engined generator and use an immersion style water heater. I've not done the sums yet, but I suspect that by the time you take into account the weight of gas cylinder(s) etc, it wouldn't result in too huge a weight penalty. It would however allow a whole host of other possibilities - including hot air (no smart remarks necessary, thankyou:p ). It may prove to be unsuitable, but its worth considering.
p.s. Gary, Passagemaker is one of the few mags that I still buy - their articles are excellent - informative and not simply longer advertisements. I can't afford any of them either, but hey - who says a guy can't dream?:D
The only other feasible option I have managed to come up with is to install a relatively small, petrol-engined generator and use an immersion style water heater. I've not done the sums yet, but I suspect that by the time you take into account the weight of gas cylinder(s) etc, it wouldn't result in too huge a weight penalty. It would however allow a whole host of other possibilities - including hot air (no smart remarks necessary, thankyou:p ). It may prove to be unsuitable, but its worth considering.
p.s. Gary, Passagemaker is one of the few mags that I still buy - their articles are excellent - informative and not simply longer advertisements. I can't afford any of them either, but hey - who says a guy can't dream?:D
Portager
07-08-2002, 09:39 AM
The engineering department's plan was to put a "Zena" 200 amp alternator on the engine http://www.zena.net/htdocs/alternators/mar_alt.shtml#Top with a 4:1 pulley ratio. This would provide 60 amps at idle and 200 amps at cruise. They would add an A/C compressor for air-conditioning. The heat from the water jacket would provide hot water for showers and space heating. Gary could add an exhaust heat exchanger to augment space heating.
We have decided to make installation simpler and to reduce cost and weight by using an outboard. So we also need a generator to run the water heater, space heaters, A/C and a battery charger. :confused: Maybe this is why Cruisers use inboards? :?: I am starting to see why the C-Dory uses a diesel stove/heater on a gas boat. I wonder how the C-Dory's recharge their battery bank?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
We have decided to make installation simpler and to reduce cost and weight by using an outboard. So we also need a generator to run the water heater, space heaters, A/C and a battery charger. :confused: Maybe this is why Cruisers use inboards? :?: I am starting to see why the C-Dory uses a diesel stove/heater on a gas boat. I wonder how the C-Dory's recharge their battery bank?
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Willallison
07-08-2002, 06:34 PM
I'm not suggesting that the installation of a generator is the best solution - indeed I seem to recall saying in one of my earlier posts that "all systems should be 12 volt. Generators have no place on a boat the size of O-1, where lightweight and simplicity are paramount". It is merely an option worth investigating....
I can see why C-Dory would include the diesel cooker etc as an option for their boats. It would probably appeal to the type of person who would consider such a vessel. And whilst having two different fuel supplies aboard does seem a little strange, I guess it's no different to having petrol and LPG......
I can see why C-Dory would include the diesel cooker etc as an option for their boats. It would probably appeal to the type of person who would consider such a vessel. And whilst having two different fuel supplies aboard does seem a little strange, I guess it's no different to having petrol and LPG......
ErikG
07-11-2002, 10:21 AM
Well this is my first shot at the stove n heater issue so dont kick me to hard :)
Here in scandinavia the preferred stoves are either LPG or Alcohol with diesel on a distant third. LPG is by far the most used, a well installed LPG system works fine but personally I don't like it that much.
Alcohol as on the Origo stoves (http://www.origo-sweden.com/default.htm) is a nice alternative currently only used for stoves and mostly onboard smaller boats.
I'm thinking about an idea to use an "Origo like" heater for water heating, that could be used for either hotwater as such or cabin heat.
So far I have yet to find anyone that uses alcohol heaters for this purpose. There might be a perfectly good answer to why, but it ought to work...
Smelly alcohol stoves is a thing of the past, a modern fuel container with modern fuel does not give any smell at all. Not in my boat at least :)
But alcohol is a lot more expensive than LPG or diesel but is quite usable in limited quantites. It might not be the best for heating up a cabin during longer periods.
Any comments?
Here in scandinavia the preferred stoves are either LPG or Alcohol with diesel on a distant third. LPG is by far the most used, a well installed LPG system works fine but personally I don't like it that much.
Alcohol as on the Origo stoves (http://www.origo-sweden.com/default.htm) is a nice alternative currently only used for stoves and mostly onboard smaller boats.
I'm thinking about an idea to use an "Origo like" heater for water heating, that could be used for either hotwater as such or cabin heat.
So far I have yet to find anyone that uses alcohol heaters for this purpose. There might be a perfectly good answer to why, but it ought to work...
Smelly alcohol stoves is a thing of the past, a modern fuel container with modern fuel does not give any smell at all. Not in my boat at least :)
But alcohol is a lot more expensive than LPG or diesel but is quite usable in limited quantites. It might not be the best for heating up a cabin during longer periods.
Any comments?
Willallison
07-11-2002, 07:00 PM
I use alcohol (methylated spirits actually) for both my cooking and heating. It is good for both. I don't think it would be suitable for hot water however, as it can't produce anything like the amount of energy (heat) as things like LPG
Incidentally, I've given this topic its own thread given the interest it has sparked ('scuse the pun...):p
Incidentally, I've given this topic its own thread given the interest it has sparked ('scuse the pun...):p
Portager
07-12-2002, 01:06 AM
Please see reply at http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3508#post3508 for response to Heaters and Cookers.
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Cheers;
Mike Schooley
Nomad
07-12-2002, 07:59 PM
Do I have to Mike or is it a suggestion? ;) :D
Guest
07-16-2003, 11:43 AM
need someone to build me a custoom houseboat
Dim
07-16-2003, 02:23 PM
Look gallery EmilSB and contact to him. You can find him e-mail at this forum.
Dim
Dim
wet-foot
09-07-2003, 11:56 PM
Great for water sports. lots of lowend torque and very safe too!!!!!
Willallison
09-08-2003, 06:59 PM
love the waterjets produced by Mercury, wet-foot, but they won't really conform to our low build-cost and economy aims....
maarten221
01-06-2005, 03:41 PM
Well, I'm back from my break, and I see I missed quite a bit!
First off, I'm not what you would call an expert, but I have seen this done before.
Since Price, performace and economy are major concerns, the following setup can be considered:
Diesel Electric
I saw a boat like this in cape town a few years back...
a 30' Trimaran with 2 small honda generators (The size/capacity specs elude me at this time) attached to 2 8" Advance DC Motors - one in each pontoon. As far as I understood the builder (I think it was one of the bacyard type jobs that we all love so much) the motors allowed him to steer the boat more or less like a tank - by increasing or reducing power to each of the motors. I didn't get a chance to board the boat to see the system in operation, but seeing the props on the pontoons intrigued me. Grante O-1 is not a trimaran, but would some similar hybrid setup not make more sense.
I checked at the local walmart and a generator capable of running the 120V DC motor runs about $500 max, while the 8" DC Advance DC motors can be had for around $1500 each. Now I know corrosion might be a factor here and I would love to be able to get in touch with the owner of the boat described to find out how long it lasted.
First off, I'm not what you would call an expert, but I have seen this done before.
Since Price, performace and economy are major concerns, the following setup can be considered:
Diesel Electric
I saw a boat like this in cape town a few years back...
a 30' Trimaran with 2 small honda generators (The size/capacity specs elude me at this time) attached to 2 8" Advance DC Motors - one in each pontoon. As far as I understood the builder (I think it was one of the bacyard type jobs that we all love so much) the motors allowed him to steer the boat more or less like a tank - by increasing or reducing power to each of the motors. I didn't get a chance to board the boat to see the system in operation, but seeing the props on the pontoons intrigued me. Grante O-1 is not a trimaran, but would some similar hybrid setup not make more sense.
I checked at the local walmart and a generator capable of running the 120V DC motor runs about $500 max, while the 8" DC Advance DC motors can be had for around $1500 each. Now I know corrosion might be a factor here and I would love to be able to get in touch with the owner of the boat described to find out how long it lasted.
wet-foot
01-07-2005, 12:54 AM
One thing I would consider for this application would be a pair of gas jetdrives.
Perhaps you could find a matched set of used jet skis and rob them of there propulsion systems. One per side. Should not be a major chore to setup a steering system either. Most skis come with taches etc. plus saltwater would not be a major issue. With a 30' LOA you could have a nice set of tanks for ultra long range cruising too!!!! Small jetskis 75hp can be had for under $1,000. :D
Perhaps you could find a matched set of used jet skis and rob them of there propulsion systems. One per side. Should not be a major chore to setup a steering system either. Most skis come with taches etc. plus saltwater would not be a major issue. With a 30' LOA you could have a nice set of tanks for ultra long range cruising too!!!! Small jetskis 75hp can be had for under $1,000. :D
lakerunner
01-09-2005, 12:41 AM
Dead heat....... lets start.... I will look for cost comparisons between the tie.
but need to know the power Lets let the cost and efficiency determine use .
but need to know the power Lets let the cost and efficiency determine use .
bg1361
04-11-2005, 06:21 PM
I'm considering buying a pre-owned 2-4 year old fishing boat. I'm considering a twin outboard in a 30'-33' like a Grady White or a twin inboard open diesel like a Luhr's 33' or Topaz 32' or an Albermarle 33'. My problem is, I'm new to saltwater boating and I may be fshing alone alot of the time. Other times my wife and kids would like an easy cruise on the ICW. What would be a good choice in something I could handle and still be able to fish alone?
Do you have a preference of outboard vs inboard diesel in boats of the size? I would love your opinion and would like to research the pros and cons of these motors, but where should I look for more info? Please advise.
Thank you for your help. e-mail: Saveway5110@aol.com
Do you have a preference of outboard vs inboard diesel in boats of the size? I would love your opinion and would like to research the pros and cons of these motors, but where should I look for more info? Please advise.
Thank you for your help. e-mail: Saveway5110@aol.com
maarten221
04-11-2005, 06:34 PM
One thing I would consider for this application would be a pair of gas jetdrives.
Perhaps you could find a matched set of used jet skis and rob them of there propulsion systems. One per side. Should not be a major chore to setup a steering system either. Most skis come with taches etc. plus saltwater would not be a major issue. With a 30' LOA you could have a nice set of tanks for ultra long range cruising too!!!! Small jetskis 75hp can be had for under $1,000. :D
You can look at the Kawasaki JS550's. The hulls are usually pretty tired, but the jet drives are sturdy. I've seen JS550's go for as little as $400 - in good running condition. You are correct. These coupled with a low drag, light weight tri will really be economical and should be pretty speedy. What kinda speeds are we looking at here?
Perhaps you could find a matched set of used jet skis and rob them of there propulsion systems. One per side. Should not be a major chore to setup a steering system either. Most skis come with taches etc. plus saltwater would not be a major issue. With a 30' LOA you could have a nice set of tanks for ultra long range cruising too!!!! Small jetskis 75hp can be had for under $1,000. :D
You can look at the Kawasaki JS550's. The hulls are usually pretty tired, but the jet drives are sturdy. I've seen JS550's go for as little as $400 - in good running condition. You are correct. These coupled with a low drag, light weight tri will really be economical and should be pretty speedy. What kinda speeds are we looking at here?
mackid068
04-12-2005, 07:54 PM
The ultimate method of propulsion is diesel waterjets, but otherwise, a diesel inboard would serve just right.
maarten221
04-12-2005, 10:16 PM
I've been thinking more and more about the diesel waterjets. Imagine a Trimaran of around 40' with a large (meaning something like a cat) diesel in the main hull, driving a jet and a generator, and 2 electric motors driving smaller jets in the ama's. With a light enough boat and enough power, it should be an absolute hoot! I can smell a 50kt project a brewin'!
wet-foot
04-13-2005, 01:31 AM
As long as you are happy with the rig when complete!!!!!!!!
are you really going to do this or?
are you really going to do this or?
maarten221
04-13-2005, 04:15 PM
I'm thinking about it. I mean for an amateur boat builder, it would be quite a challenge! It will probably take a few years and the construciton methods will defenitely not be conventional. My main concern is the propulsion. What size waterjets and diesel engine?
The main problem with diesel engines are that they become quite heavy the larger you go. This will require some extensive "outside the box" thinking. I guess ferrocement is out of the question...hehehehe
The main problem with diesel engines are that they become quite heavy the larger you go. This will require some extensive "outside the box" thinking. I guess ferrocement is out of the question...hehehehe
mackid068
04-13-2005, 04:42 PM
Sure, why the hell not? 50 kts!!! YEAH!!
maarten221
04-13-2005, 05:08 PM
The slender hull trimaran seem best suited to this design. (keeping in mind total cost and ease of constructions) What materials would you suggest for building such a creature? Plywood, FG, Aluminum or ferro cement?
wet-foot
04-13-2005, 09:22 PM
If I was building a one off trimaran my construction method would be cedar covered in glass and epoxy. westsystem is very helpful when it comes to working with their product. Sort of like building large cedar stip canoes. Would sure be easy to build and upkeep would be a breeze. I've seen VW diesel marine engines in Europe don't know if they are available here? I still think adapting jet ski engines would offer the best performance for the buck. Would look at the yamaha 1200 series skis .......... 155hp. these Yamaha models are everywhere and cheap too. Where else can you get a twin jetdrive system "310hp" fo 6k or so!!!!!!!
PowerTech
04-13-2005, 09:47 PM
VW rabit diesels were marinized by a company called pathfinder not to bad a motor very high RPM It buzzes alittle much.It's a odd ball I yould try to sell you a yanmar.I found one if you like, here you go. http://lists.samurai.com/pipermail/trawler-buy-sell-trade/2004-April/003646.html
maarten221
04-14-2005, 11:46 AM
Thanks Powertech - but I think a yanmar in the size I'm interested in, is a bit out of my range, greenback wise...
Wet Foot. I agree with the yamaha idea - only problem is, at the current prices for regular gasonline, it would be almost impossible to do any real trips in this boat without breaking the bank. My idea is a little more complex than merely diesel. I've been doing a lot of reading (and some work) on SVO conversions for diesel engines. Basically, you would be able to call this boat a waffle house powered diesel boat. This will allow me to power the boat on a fuel that is essentially free and pollutes MUCH less than regular diesel or gas.
Wet Foot. I agree with the yamaha idea - only problem is, at the current prices for regular gasonline, it would be almost impossible to do any real trips in this boat without breaking the bank. My idea is a little more complex than merely diesel. I've been doing a lot of reading (and some work) on SVO conversions for diesel engines. Basically, you would be able to call this boat a waffle house powered diesel boat. This will allow me to power the boat on a fuel that is essentially free and pollutes MUCH less than regular diesel or gas.
wet-foot
04-14-2005, 12:24 PM
Not sure what this is but I know lots of folks are going with bio diesel so the engine starts and stops on regular diesel fuel but runs on vegie oil. most folks are using the grease from restaurant french fry makers. so yes the think smells like french fries when running .......... might make for a great fish catching machine. there is stuff all over the internet on bio diesels. good luck.
maarten221
04-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Yeah, Bio Diesel works just like regular diesel. You put it in our tank and cracnk the engine. The recycled oil and Veggie oil is different - you need to start off with regular diesel or bio diesel and then switch to veggie and back again about a minute befire shutting down the engine.
Tried, tested and proven methods.
so here's the general idea....we'll call it "Option 1 million" (just kidding!)
- 40' Trimaran
- Cedar strip with west system
- 3 water jets powered
- 2 Kawa JS550 jets(one in each ama) powered by DC motors (power from small
veggie oil generator)
- 1 jet drive in main hull, powered by a 150HP diesel (not sure of make)
- Steering via main nozzle manipulation
- 1 main berth (for me and wife), 2 smaller berths (kids, guests
- All cooking and dining will be on deck with convertable top
- comfy lounge/family area down below - when things get rough outside
- Batteries to power DC motors - each AMA will have enough batts stored to
power the motor in said ama.
- Wind/solar panels to charge batts and run small appliances (on slow cruise
days, you run off the batts/wind/sun instead of fuel.
- No autosteer and other fancy things.Small commercial radar set and GPS
- Decent radio set with a backup.
Sound good?
Tried, tested and proven methods.
so here's the general idea....we'll call it "Option 1 million" (just kidding!)
- 40' Trimaran
- Cedar strip with west system
- 3 water jets powered
- 2 Kawa JS550 jets(one in each ama) powered by DC motors (power from small
veggie oil generator)
- 1 jet drive in main hull, powered by a 150HP diesel (not sure of make)
- Steering via main nozzle manipulation
- 1 main berth (for me and wife), 2 smaller berths (kids, guests
- All cooking and dining will be on deck with convertable top
- comfy lounge/family area down below - when things get rough outside
- Batteries to power DC motors - each AMA will have enough batts stored to
power the motor in said ama.
- Wind/solar panels to charge batts and run small appliances (on slow cruise
days, you run off the batts/wind/sun instead of fuel.
- No autosteer and other fancy things.Small commercial radar set and GPS
- Decent radio set with a backup.
Sound good?
wet-foot
04-16-2005, 12:19 AM
let me know when she's done, will meet you at the dock for the launch!!!!!!
Will bring a couple hundred gallons ........ make that a truck bed full of veggie fat ...... can cut it into bricks and load it up for balast until the need for speed arises.
"Dream Of Me Boat"
I've been dreamin',
Of a randy, dandy clipper with her tops'ls set,
Pitchin' heavy down the westin' with the leeches wet.
Billy Newland, the old skipper, from his high bridge head,
Shoutin' to us packet rats -- an' these the words he said:
"Hop along, now! Loose them 'gallants! Skip aloft, now! Jump along!"
Oh, them packet rats were swearin' an' a-breakin' into song!
Packet rats a-roarin', "Ranzo," rats a-singin', "Roll an' Go,"
Haulin' on them 'gallant braces, cryin', "Blow, boys blow!"
Let her blow for Frisco city!
Let the dandy clipper race!
For them swingin' feet and pretty
Of the gals at Tony's place.
Soon we'll see old Tony smilin',
Hear his gals begin to sing,
Hear old Billy Dick beguilin'
Music from a fiddle-string!
Oh, there's drowned an' perished clippers
An' there's rats that died --
But there's gals wi' flowered slippers
An' their skirts flung wide!
Did you say there ain't no clippers? Did you say them days is done?
Days of packet rats an' packets, an' stars an' moon an' sun?
O' lights upon the water, a-shinin' on the sea?
My God, but I'm a packet rat!
What will become of me?
I've got to see tall clippers, I've got to sing an' shout
When the 'gallants are mastheaded and the jibs are runnin' out.
I've got to roar of "Ranzo," an' "Blow, my bullies, blow!"
When the ice-cakes heap a-cracklin', an' the Horn is lost in snow.
I wants them lights by Frisco, an' lights by Salem too,
And dandy skippers swearin' at the signin' of the crew.
Red Jacket's gone? And Dancin' Wave? Guidin' Star as well?
Then what of Golden Era?... God help me! This is hell!
Good-by, farewell, kedge anchor! The shoals lie deep about;
The packet rats are singin', an' their chorus dyin' out.
The clippers lie a-westin' where the westin' sun burns red,
An' the packet rats are restin' in the havens of the dead.
Good-by to Dame Romancing an' her dainty feathered frock!
Good-by to all the laughter at the swingin' of the lock!
Good-by to capstan payments, good-by to ships at sea--
If the packets rest a-westin'--ah--westin's right for me!
Will bring a couple hundred gallons ........ make that a truck bed full of veggie fat ...... can cut it into bricks and load it up for balast until the need for speed arises.
"Dream Of Me Boat"
I've been dreamin',
Of a randy, dandy clipper with her tops'ls set,
Pitchin' heavy down the westin' with the leeches wet.
Billy Newland, the old skipper, from his high bridge head,
Shoutin' to us packet rats -- an' these the words he said:
"Hop along, now! Loose them 'gallants! Skip aloft, now! Jump along!"
Oh, them packet rats were swearin' an' a-breakin' into song!
Packet rats a-roarin', "Ranzo," rats a-singin', "Roll an' Go,"
Haulin' on them 'gallant braces, cryin', "Blow, boys blow!"
Let her blow for Frisco city!
Let the dandy clipper race!
For them swingin' feet and pretty
Of the gals at Tony's place.
Soon we'll see old Tony smilin',
Hear his gals begin to sing,
Hear old Billy Dick beguilin'
Music from a fiddle-string!
Oh, there's drowned an' perished clippers
An' there's rats that died --
But there's gals wi' flowered slippers
An' their skirts flung wide!
Did you say there ain't no clippers? Did you say them days is done?
Days of packet rats an' packets, an' stars an' moon an' sun?
O' lights upon the water, a-shinin' on the sea?
My God, but I'm a packet rat!
What will become of me?
I've got to see tall clippers, I've got to sing an' shout
When the 'gallants are mastheaded and the jibs are runnin' out.
I've got to roar of "Ranzo," an' "Blow, my bullies, blow!"
When the ice-cakes heap a-cracklin', an' the Horn is lost in snow.
I wants them lights by Frisco, an' lights by Salem too,
And dandy skippers swearin' at the signin' of the crew.
Red Jacket's gone? And Dancin' Wave? Guidin' Star as well?
Then what of Golden Era?... God help me! This is hell!
Good-by, farewell, kedge anchor! The shoals lie deep about;
The packet rats are singin', an' their chorus dyin' out.
The clippers lie a-westin' where the westin' sun burns red,
An' the packet rats are restin' in the havens of the dead.
Good-by to Dame Romancing an' her dainty feathered frock!
Good-by to all the laughter at the swingin' of the lock!
Good-by to capstan payments, good-by to ships at sea--
If the packets rest a-westin'--ah--westin's right for me!
mackid068
04-16-2005, 12:53 PM
Bravo!
maarten221
04-18-2005, 12:34 PM
Wet-Foot,
Thanks for the motivation! I loved the art work. Should have it framed and placed above the workshop door!
Now I only need 'n large enough workshop - or the back yard! Ha Ha
On a side note. A friend asked me why I wouldn't attempt this out of Ferro cement (I've built with ferro cement before, but not a boat (it was a land based structure). any reason why ferro cement wouldn't work? Maybe a bit slower and less effecient?
Thanks for the motivation! I loved the art work. Should have it framed and placed above the workshop door!
Now I only need 'n large enough workshop - or the back yard! Ha Ha
On a side note. A friend asked me why I wouldn't attempt this out of Ferro cement (I've built with ferro cement before, but not a boat (it was a land based structure). any reason why ferro cement wouldn't work? Maybe a bit slower and less effecient?
wet-foot
04-19-2005, 12:39 AM
2 Things to watch out 4;
1. Pholus Dactylus; Will bore holes in your boat ........
A relatively minor drawbacks of ferro-cement is that it has been known to be vulnerable to attack by an intriguing boring bivalve mollusc called the common piddock or, to give it its scientific name, pholus dactylus. The animal is approximately elliptical in outline with a beaked anterior end. It is up to 12 cm long and bores into sandstone and other soft rocks. The shell is dull white or grey in colour and is surprisingly fragile considering it is used to perform the boring process. It has a sculpture of concentric ridges and radiating lines The siphons are joined and can be up to twice the length of the shell and are white to light ivory in colour. The periostracum is usually yellowish but is often discoloured. Pholas dactylus also has phosphorescent properties, the outlines of the animal glowing with a green blue light in the dark. In suitable substrates it is often found at considerable densities and is widespread throughout the world, especially SW Britain and Ireland. It can do serious damage to a ferro-cement hull even though it contains lime and other chemicals which are inimical to the animal's life.
2. Much more serious is the possibility of a lightning strike.
Any boat at sea in an electric storm is vulnerable to a strike by lightning. In most types of vessel this, although very dangerous, usually results only in the loss of all electronic equipment. In a ferro-cement boat it can be catastrophic particularly is the vessel is fitted with a metal mast or railings. The lightning travels down the mast and/or the steel wire standing rigging and through the chain plates or other hull connections to the armature. From there it cannot escape causing the armature to have a very rapid rise in temperature. The resulting shock and expansion of the steel can 'blow off' the cement cover causing the vessel to sink like a stone. At least one case is known where this has happened to a ferro-cement boat of a slipway in Australia where the armature was left standing on the cradle surrounded by heaps of broken cement on the slipway. One is left speechless at what might have happened had this occurred at sea. Because of this possibility ferro-cement boats must be fitted with proper lightning conductors and earthing plates (grounding plates if you are an American). These earthing plates should be long and narrow and securely bolted to the hull and properly electrically connected to the chain plates and the armature. The surface area of the plate need not exceed about one square foot but the plate should be arranged to give the maximum possible edge length. Side strikes from the lightning can also cause devastation particularly to electronic equipment.
For the sake of humanity - stick to wood and epoxy
1. Pholus Dactylus; Will bore holes in your boat ........
A relatively minor drawbacks of ferro-cement is that it has been known to be vulnerable to attack by an intriguing boring bivalve mollusc called the common piddock or, to give it its scientific name, pholus dactylus. The animal is approximately elliptical in outline with a beaked anterior end. It is up to 12 cm long and bores into sandstone and other soft rocks. The shell is dull white or grey in colour and is surprisingly fragile considering it is used to perform the boring process. It has a sculpture of concentric ridges and radiating lines The siphons are joined and can be up to twice the length of the shell and are white to light ivory in colour. The periostracum is usually yellowish but is often discoloured. Pholas dactylus also has phosphorescent properties, the outlines of the animal glowing with a green blue light in the dark. In suitable substrates it is often found at considerable densities and is widespread throughout the world, especially SW Britain and Ireland. It can do serious damage to a ferro-cement hull even though it contains lime and other chemicals which are inimical to the animal's life.
2. Much more serious is the possibility of a lightning strike.
Any boat at sea in an electric storm is vulnerable to a strike by lightning. In most types of vessel this, although very dangerous, usually results only in the loss of all electronic equipment. In a ferro-cement boat it can be catastrophic particularly is the vessel is fitted with a metal mast or railings. The lightning travels down the mast and/or the steel wire standing rigging and through the chain plates or other hull connections to the armature. From there it cannot escape causing the armature to have a very rapid rise in temperature. The resulting shock and expansion of the steel can 'blow off' the cement cover causing the vessel to sink like a stone. At least one case is known where this has happened to a ferro-cement boat of a slipway in Australia where the armature was left standing on the cradle surrounded by heaps of broken cement on the slipway. One is left speechless at what might have happened had this occurred at sea. Because of this possibility ferro-cement boats must be fitted with proper lightning conductors and earthing plates (grounding plates if you are an American). These earthing plates should be long and narrow and securely bolted to the hull and properly electrically connected to the chain plates and the armature. The surface area of the plate need not exceed about one square foot but the plate should be arranged to give the maximum possible edge length. Side strikes from the lightning can also cause devastation particularly to electronic equipment.
For the sake of humanity - stick to wood and epoxy
maarten221
04-19-2005, 11:34 AM
hehehe you conviced me....wood and epoxy it is!
I don't want monster molluscs and exploding boats under my boots, thank you very much!
I'll relay this info to the gent that suggested I go with ferrocement...should be a nice wake up call!
Should start this project within a month or two of me returning from south africa... The key would be to keep the boat light weight and strong enough to allow the water jets to propel it to decent speeds. Somehow, I think that I am going to need more than just 2 jetski jets...
I don't want monster molluscs and exploding boats under my boots, thank you very much!
I'll relay this info to the gent that suggested I go with ferrocement...should be a nice wake up call!
Should start this project within a month or two of me returning from south africa... The key would be to keep the boat light weight and strong enough to allow the water jets to propel it to decent speeds. Somehow, I think that I am going to need more than just 2 jetski jets...
wet-foot
04-20-2005, 12:41 AM
I think you could do OK with a couple 155hp Yamaha jetdrives. Might have to get into kevlar carbonfiber to get the weight way down .......... of course with epoxy resin with cedar as the base material. This project could probably be done in 3 months, ya think?
maarten221
04-20-2005, 01:09 PM
Hmmmm, I'm thinking 2 of the mentioned yamaha jet drives in the main hull and 1 Kawa 550 jet drive in each of the ama's. I would really like to avoid the kevlar/carbon route. It is really expensive and a pain to work with. The cedar/resin option looks like the one. I would rather invest a bit more in power units and have some redundency than invest a million in exotic hulls and be SOL when the engine breaks down.
While I've dablled in the laying of glass, kevlar and carbon as well as some other techniques, I have not been too involved with wood. Any kind of basic guidelines, so that I know where to start researching before I take the plunge?
While I've dablled in the laying of glass, kevlar and carbon as well as some other techniques, I have not been too involved with wood. Any kind of basic guidelines, so that I know where to start researching before I take the plunge?
wet-foot
04-20-2005, 03:05 PM
Do a search for cedar strip canoes .......... these folks can provide all kinds of helpful info. Sure they can give you some ideas on what to look for as far as the cedar goes. There are tons of great epoxy suppliers out there but my preference is west systems. They can provide you with building techniques, construction ideas and stress ratings for their epoxy. One thing you could consider is to leave the exterior in natural wood with the clear epoxy as a top coat. I know there's no UV protection but the yellowing of the epoxy actually enhances the wood grain. I've done cedar canoes this way. They always recommend a spar varnish on top for protection but the stuff always peels after a year or 2 and the whole thing has to be refinished. I only did the varnish stripping once, that was it for me ....... Now it's straight epoxy!!!!! Any blemishes or cracks in the wood I fill in with epoxy paste tinted black with regular resin colour agent. For me, black filler looks a hundred times better than trying to match the natural wood colour. After brushing on a top top give it a light sanding then trowel a really thin coat on to smooth it out. repeat the light sanding troweling 2 or 3 times and you'll end up with a beautiful high gloss finish after polishing it out. Navy blue or marine green would look great for colour accents.
maarten221
04-20-2005, 03:31 PM
Funny enough, that is what I was thinking of doing. I've been reading on Cedar strip construction. It looks like it is not that difficult to do-except the method by which you connect the cedar strips to the basic fram seems to be a little, well....personal preference. I think I may have to start off building a scale model - and test it out a bit. I'm a strong beleiver in the build&test method - like Burt Rutan of scaled composites.
Just reading the different posts on this forum has helped me qiute a bit so far.
Now for the kicker. The final goal is to be able to power all the way down to southern Africa (after extensive cruising around our own coast of course. Only a fool would take on such a trip with no prior experience). With the boat being a 40 to 50 footer, would this seem crazy? I've been looking at the AdvanceDC motors for the jets in the AMA's and they may need some form of protection from corrosion and heat, but should otherwise be fine. The easiest comparison in terms of power, is about 100HP for each of them. Max RPM's are in the 3000 range. This should be plenty for a Jet drive from a kawa JS550. The main engines are a concern as well, since I would really prefer to stick to diesel, but don't want a 5000 lb monster in my hull. The cost is an issue as wel. I've heard nightmares about the VW automotive conversions, so that is not an option. A yanmar JH series maybe?
Just reading the different posts on this forum has helped me qiute a bit so far.
Now for the kicker. The final goal is to be able to power all the way down to southern Africa (after extensive cruising around our own coast of course. Only a fool would take on such a trip with no prior experience). With the boat being a 40 to 50 footer, would this seem crazy? I've been looking at the AdvanceDC motors for the jets in the AMA's and they may need some form of protection from corrosion and heat, but should otherwise be fine. The easiest comparison in terms of power, is about 100HP for each of them. Max RPM's are in the 3000 range. This should be plenty for a Jet drive from a kawa JS550. The main engines are a concern as well, since I would really prefer to stick to diesel, but don't want a 5000 lb monster in my hull. The cost is an issue as wel. I've heard nightmares about the VW automotive conversions, so that is not an option. A yanmar JH series maybe?
wet-foot
04-20-2005, 11:50 PM
Experience, the more you learn the further you go!!!!!!!! Tons of people do ocean crossing with little time logged aboard. Know your boat - know the weather - know your ability - notify next of kin .......... and away ya go!!!!!!
Always nice when you sail into port 5 years later and swee that surprised look on all the faces of those that stood to inherite .... A@ SH~@
I would go all gas or all diesel .......... figure out the cost difference for setup and fuel cost for the life of the boat and pick a or b. I bet you'd have to log a million miles to beat out the affordable gas jetdrives. If low fuel consumption becomes a big deal I'd add a sail before all this other stuff. A big cat sail boat with jetdrives would be one nifty machine. Now you can go global and get into real skinny water too!!!!! Lots of guys out there to help pull this one off.
Always nice when you sail into port 5 years later and swee that surprised look on all the faces of those that stood to inherite .... A@ SH~@
I would go all gas or all diesel .......... figure out the cost difference for setup and fuel cost for the life of the boat and pick a or b. I bet you'd have to log a million miles to beat out the affordable gas jetdrives. If low fuel consumption becomes a big deal I'd add a sail before all this other stuff. A big cat sail boat with jetdrives would be one nifty machine. Now you can go global and get into real skinny water too!!!!! Lots of guys out there to help pull this one off.
maarten221
04-21-2005, 12:09 PM
Thanks for the support, WetFoot. My wife thinks I've lost my marbles!
I would go with Diesel, since gas prces in the ports that I would lkike to visit are a bit on the rough side. Another reason I prefer diesel is because I'm familiar with the process of making biodiesel and wouldn't hesitate to run the engines on veggie oil from the local McD's (of course only after being filtered and de-watered).
This is going to be a huge experiment for me. The design will be very simple and because it is a trimaran, I don't have to focus quite as much on issues such as ballast and such. I think it will be a real thrill to see how much speed I can wind out of it without making too much noise (a lot of time will go into extensive exhaust tuning). The sails are a good idea, but I am a bit inexperienced at sailing. I have lots of time on power boats though. I lived in Cape Town for some time and got to do the whole rough seas deal more than a dozen times (mostly not out of my own free will! :) )
I would go with Diesel, since gas prces in the ports that I would lkike to visit are a bit on the rough side. Another reason I prefer diesel is because I'm familiar with the process of making biodiesel and wouldn't hesitate to run the engines on veggie oil from the local McD's (of course only after being filtered and de-watered).
This is going to be a huge experiment for me. The design will be very simple and because it is a trimaran, I don't have to focus quite as much on issues such as ballast and such. I think it will be a real thrill to see how much speed I can wind out of it without making too much noise (a lot of time will go into extensive exhaust tuning). The sails are a good idea, but I am a bit inexperienced at sailing. I have lots of time on power boats though. I lived in Cape Town for some time and got to do the whole rough seas deal more than a dozen times (mostly not out of my own free will! :) )
wet-foot
04-21-2005, 01:33 PM
If you are going to do the bio diesel deal then some of your original ideas are probably the way to go. How about one big diesel gen-set in the main hull powering 3 electric motors hooked to waterjets. All of this would be rather straight forward with a little fab work to hook the electric motors to the jets . Bet it would be really easy to regulate the speed. A big diesel in good shape converts to bio real welltoo!!!!!!! could have a second small diesel gen-set for back-up. Going with a marine quality gen-set would solve your noise issue ........ This craft would be ultra quiet. Let me know how the planning is going.
maarten221
04-21-2005, 01:46 PM
That is another option. It is easier to run an electrical motor since no transmission is needed. Absolutely flat torque curve. These motors are being used in electric car conversions all day long, so I can't see it being much of a stretch to use them to power a water jet.
The main Genset idea sounds good. There are "relatively" cheap gensets available. If I go used (which is ok with diesel, cause they last forever), I could further cut costs and just keep a small commercial generator as backup.
The only problem I foresee is that the motors may end up overheating because of extensive use. That is one reason why I wanted to keep one of the jets powered by the diesel engine itself.
The final goal is a boat that can power me down to South Africa at minimum fuel costs without having to resort to sails.
For electric motors, see:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/advdc.html
Please keep in mind that an electric motor's HP rating is vastly different form that of a conventional engine. The 8 inch motor may only be listed as 55 HP, but it puts out the same power and torque accross the range - and is thuss more versatile than a ICE engine.
The main Genset idea sounds good. There are "relatively" cheap gensets available. If I go used (which is ok with diesel, cause they last forever), I could further cut costs and just keep a small commercial generator as backup.
The only problem I foresee is that the motors may end up overheating because of extensive use. That is one reason why I wanted to keep one of the jets powered by the diesel engine itself.
The final goal is a boat that can power me down to South Africa at minimum fuel costs without having to resort to sails.
For electric motors, see:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/advdc.html
Please keep in mind that an electric motor's HP rating is vastly different form that of a conventional engine. The 8 inch motor may only be listed as 55 HP, but it puts out the same power and torque accross the range - and is thuss more versatile than a ICE engine.
wet-foot
04-22-2005, 12:34 PM
You have discovered the direction to take now just a little research and it's off to the races ........... upload some photos as you progress
maarten221
04-22-2005, 12:40 PM
Will do! Look for first "test" boats out of plywood in about 3 months.
Thanks for all the advice!
Thanks for all the advice!
wet-foot
04-25-2005, 11:42 AM
A powerful grinder and good belt sander will do wonders for your project ....... good luck!
maarten221
04-25-2005, 12:47 PM
Got the sander, but need to go get a macha-macha grinder - SEARS IS YOUR FRIEND....
wet-foot
04-29-2005, 01:14 AM
macha-macha grinder ........... this is slang for?
Un boat related, I have a oak wood floor to level ......... byuilding it up with cedar and beveling the whole thing ......... 70 square feet. there is a 1.5 inch drop from one end to the other. Only want to do this once ........ hope I don't burn out another belt sander!!!!!!!
Un boat related, I have a oak wood floor to level ......... byuilding it up with cedar and beveling the whole thing ......... 70 square feet. there is a 1.5 inch drop from one end to the other. Only want to do this once ........ hope I don't burn out another belt sander!!!!!!!
maarten221
04-29-2005, 12:03 PM
the Macha Macha comes from an old B-movie called Cavemen where anything huge and powerful is Macha Macha (including T-rex). That's about the size grinder I need to get everything cut just right - with a decent mitre box as well.
As for the sander, I don't know what to tell you. 70 square feet - all I can recommend is DON'T go electric. You really will need some decent air-tools and a compressor for a job like that.
An electric sander will fry within an hour (I used to strip and paint lifting cranes while working in a open pit mine in South Africa).
As for the sander, I don't know what to tell you. 70 square feet - all I can recommend is DON'T go electric. You really will need some decent air-tools and a compressor for a job like that.
An electric sander will fry within an hour (I used to strip and paint lifting cranes while working in a open pit mine in South Africa).
wet-foot
04-29-2005, 11:07 PM
As far as the floor leveling goes I picked up a 13/16" dado set to run on the radial arm saw so there will be minor sanding after that.
Any plans finalized on the tri-hull yet?
Any plans finalized on the tri-hull yet?
maarten221
05-01-2005, 05:34 PM
nope, still waiting to get the cash and space together. I should be ready to start a mockup of a small test unti by beginning of June.
Congrats on the radial saw....will make the project go much faster!
Congrats on the radial saw....will make the project go much faster!
wet-foot
05-02-2005, 12:06 PM
yes the dado set really helps, I have a 2 foot high pile of wood chips on the floor. Sure the tri hull will come together nicely. Will you be doing all the engineering or will you have to run the final design by a engineer?
maarten221
05-02-2005, 12:43 PM
I'm going to do it all by myself. That's the main reason for building the scale model. Once done, I will take pictures and post it here for comment.
The steering is going to be a bit "unusual" in that it will use the jets in the ama's to steer - almost like a tank locking up a track on the inside of the turning circle.
The steering is going to be a bit "unusual" in that it will use the jets in the ama's to steer - almost like a tank locking up a track on the inside of the turning circle.
wet-foot
05-03-2005, 11:21 AM
reverse and forward opposite jets will allow for good steering ........ look forward to seeing pics of the scale model.
wet-foot
05-06-2005, 11:59 PM
With the cost of fuel rising and looking like it will just keep going up does anyone have alternative power plans or wish they had gone with a more fuel efficient propulsion system? I know I'm starting to rethink my next power choice, probably less HP !!!!!!!!!
maarten221
05-08-2005, 05:36 PM
Definitely, Wetfoot! I'm even thinking of selling my car and getting a VW jetta. The crown vi and taurus just guzzle too damn much!
I think the future lies in diesel and electric motivation - combos or on their own. I don't think the whole "Hydrogen Fuel Cell" will go anywhere, but then again, I have been known to be wrong before!
I think the future lies in diesel and electric motivation - combos or on their own. I don't think the whole "Hydrogen Fuel Cell" will go anywhere, but then again, I have been known to be wrong before!
mackid068
05-08-2005, 06:38 PM
I can understand where you're coming from with the diesel/electric, this could be true for subs if nuclear was not needed in cases like shoreline patrol and in shallower, coastal waters.
wet-foot
05-08-2005, 11:22 PM
Yes sir, I just backed away from a big SUV inorder to avoid the high fuel cost. A more relaxed pace on the water would be a good thing! With the demand in China and India for fuel I can't see prices ever coming down.
maarten221
05-09-2005, 12:11 AM
Mackid - very true. Look at the German 209 series subs.
I thought about a new HEMI powered truck, but backed off - even if the Hemi is one of the more effecient V8's!
I thought about a new HEMI powered truck, but backed off - even if the Hemi is one of the more effecient V8's!
mackid068
05-09-2005, 03:54 PM
BRAVO! Good job, Wet-Foot.
wet-foot
05-10-2005, 01:11 AM
Yes indeed, somtimes one must sacrifice the little things in life such as lodging, food and transportation inorder to allow for more time on the water. So good for the soul!!!!!!!!
mackid068
05-10-2005, 03:24 PM
I hear you there! Food is something I wouldn't sacrafice, neither education nor books, but transportation...that's what a good bike is for.
wet-foot
05-14-2005, 10:53 PM
Guess Theys Knows Nothin Nos Better!!!!!!!
One night came on a hurricane,
The sea was mountains rolling,
When Barney Buntline turned his quid,
And said to Billy Bowline:
"A strong nor'wester's blowing, Bill.
Hark! Don't you hear it roar now?
Lord help them! How I pities all
Unlucky folks on shore now.
"Foolhardy chaps that live in towns;
What dangers they are all in,
And now lie shaking in their beds
For fear the roof should fall in.
Poor creatures, how they envy us
And wishes, I've a notion,
For our good luck in such a storm
To be upon the ocean.
"And often, Bill, I have been told
How folks are killed, and undone,
By overturns of carriages,
By fogs and fires in London.
We know what risks all landsmen run,
From noblemen to tailors,
Then, Bill, let us thank Providence
That you and me are sailors."
One night came on a hurricane,
The sea was mountains rolling,
When Barney Buntline turned his quid,
And said to Billy Bowline:
"A strong nor'wester's blowing, Bill.
Hark! Don't you hear it roar now?
Lord help them! How I pities all
Unlucky folks on shore now.
"Foolhardy chaps that live in towns;
What dangers they are all in,
And now lie shaking in their beds
For fear the roof should fall in.
Poor creatures, how they envy us
And wishes, I've a notion,
For our good luck in such a storm
To be upon the ocean.
"And often, Bill, I have been told
How folks are killed, and undone,
By overturns of carriages,
By fogs and fires in London.
We know what risks all landsmen run,
From noblemen to tailors,
Then, Bill, let us thank Providence
That you and me are sailors."
mackid068
05-15-2005, 01:36 PM
And so we say: w00t and LOL!
PowerTech
05-18-2005, 07:52 PM
the smell of a live abord is enough to knock a man out
wet-foot
05-19-2005, 12:43 AM
To be upon the ocean ........... stink and all, is but a small price to pay for the joy of the freedom it brings, I think???????
mackid068
05-20-2005, 09:55 PM
Especially a live-aboard bachelor pad.
wet-foot
05-24-2005, 01:52 AM
Anyone know of any sailboats with solar panels woven into the actual sails?
With such a large area there could be some serious power potential here!!!!!
With such a large area there could be some serious power potential here!!!!!
mackid068
05-24-2005, 03:16 PM
Never heard about it, but sounds interesting. Still, what if the sail rips/damaged? It's going to be costly to fix. Also, are there panels THAT flexible?
PowerTech
05-24-2005, 10:14 PM
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002137.html Ain't that the way it goes you think you invent something and they allready have a whole team on it.
wet-foot
05-25-2005, 02:59 PM
Photovoltaic materials will allow for the integration of solar power into sails for sailboats. Will be interesting to see if the positives outweigh the negetives.
maarten221
06-30-2005, 12:38 PM
The solar cells will be a great benefit to sailors with said sails installed on their craft. Imagine just using that to charge a few batteries on board. Hoe often would 'n sail boat use the aux motor except to generate electricity?
I think it is a Brilliant idea.
Oh yeah, as far as the super fast hybrid trimaran is concerned, I just got back from South Africa and will start working on a scale model soon - that I will have to go test at the local lake. The scale model will more than likely be around 10' with a single jet from a Kawa jetski.
I'm trying to find the jet drives seperately, since this would save some expense, but this is almost impossible! Anyone know where I can purchase jet pumps alone, without attached motors?
I think it is a Brilliant idea.
Oh yeah, as far as the super fast hybrid trimaran is concerned, I just got back from South Africa and will start working on a scale model soon - that I will have to go test at the local lake. The scale model will more than likely be around 10' with a single jet from a Kawa jetski.
I'm trying to find the jet drives seperately, since this would save some expense, but this is almost impossible! Anyone know where I can purchase jet pumps alone, without attached motors?
wet-foot
07-03-2005, 01:21 AM
search the jetski classifieds .......... or better yet post a wanted ad.
There's thousands of young folk out there with cooked engines etc. that
I'm sure would be happy to unload the jet-pump for a few bucks.
just a few to try;
http://www.jetskinews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PN_zClassifieds&file=index&cat=2
http://www.sbtontheweb.com
http://www.ozpwc.com/ozpwc/partners/jetsport/
http://www.jetski.com
http://www.watercraftworld.com
good luck with your search
There's thousands of young folk out there with cooked engines etc. that
I'm sure would be happy to unload the jet-pump for a few bucks.
just a few to try;
http://www.jetskinews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PN_zClassifieds&file=index&cat=2
http://www.sbtontheweb.com
http://www.ozpwc.com/ozpwc/partners/jetsport/
http://www.jetski.com
http://www.watercraftworld.com
good luck with your search
maarten221
07-03-2005, 01:33 PM
Web-Foot,
Thank you very much for the info. Will start the search next week. Clearing out space in the garage right now. Cars will have to sleep outside for a few years :rolleyes:
Thank you very much for the info. Will start the search next week. Clearing out space in the garage right now. Cars will have to sleep outside for a few years :rolleyes:
wet-foot
07-04-2005, 01:13 AM
Is it possible to post some pics so we can follow your progress? :D
maarten221
07-05-2005, 01:08 AM
hehehe I would be to ashamed of the garage in its current shape to post a pic, but I will post a picture of the basie frame as soon as I have it set up.
wet-foot
07-05-2005, 06:14 PM
sounds good will watch for it
wet-foot
07-18-2005, 02:24 PM
Perhaps some of the little guys can snag some ideas here,
Roughly 14,000 years after the ancient Egyptians began using sails to navigate reed boats along the Nile, an Oceanic transport giant from Sweden is betting that the future of modern-day shipping rests on a return to good old-fashioned wind power.
But with a high-tech twist.
Stockholm-based Wallenius Wilhelmsen, citing rising prices for diesel fuel and stiffer environmental regulations on the high seas, has designed a concept cargo vessel that could theoretically carry 10,000 cars between continents without the need for fossil fuels.
Called the Orcelle named after an endangered species of dolphin the vessel would be partly powered by three massive sails constructed of lightweight composite material. Each sail, however, would be lined with photovoltaic panels that would generate electricity when the sun is shining.
Energy would also be captured from ocean waves through a system of 12 fins able to transform the natural movements of the seas into electricity. Excess energy from the wave and solar systems would be stored in batteries for later use, or used to create hydrogen for an electric propulsion system powered by advanced fuel cells.
"When I first saw it I thought it looked like Star Trek Voyager," said Robert Minton-Taylor, a spokesperson for Wallenius Wilhelmsen, which today operates 60 ocean transport vessels, mostly for carrying vehicles for the automotive industry. "But what it really does is take us back to the shipping days of old."
Despite handling an estimated 80 per cent of the world's trade, the shipping industry is often overlooked as a major source of greenhouse gases and pollution. Yet environmental regulation both national and international has in recent years forced the industry to do more serious "naval" gazing about its impact on the environment.
In response, innovative companies have turned their attention to this potentially massive market opportunity:
#
Montreal-based Pyrogenesis Inc. has built a garbage-destruction system for ships based on plasma torch technology. On-board waste on aircraft carriers, cruise ships and other large vessels are heated to such extreme temperatures most common pollutants are burned away.
#
EnSolve Biosystems Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., has developed an on-board system for treating oily bilge water so it can be released in the ocean without risk of fine. Called the PetroLiminator, the system uses "freeze-dried bugs" that literally eat away at the oil.
#
Also on the radar are shipping pallets, which consume enormous amounts of wood and are often tossed into landfills after a single use. EcoDuro Inc. of Ann Arbor, Mich., has engineered a new generation of pallet made from corrugated cardboard and recycled paper. It is lighter, 100 per cent recyclable, and resistant to wood-boring foreign insects, meaning it meets tough export sanitation standards.
In many ways, the Orcelle is the ultimate vision of where the shipping industry could be in 20 years, assuming a concerted effort on the part of transport and shipbuilding companies to get there.
Capable of carrying 13,000 tons of cargo, the massive vessel would have eight decks equivalent in area to 14 football fields. It would be 250 metres long, twice the length of the Preussen, the largest clipper ship of a century ago, but would need far fewer crew to operate.
As for speed, at up to 20 knots it would travel only slightly faster than the Preussen but would be capable of carrying 50 per cent more cargo.
Minton-Taylor said the concept ship was designed with a team of seasoned naval architects, environmental experts and industrial designers. The final design was unveiled at the World Expo 2005 in Aichi, Japan, and while the company says there are no hard plans to build such a ship today, it believes it could be accomplished by 2025 with solar, wind, wave and fuel-cell technologies already under development.
"We took the view that in 20 years' time fossil fuels will be in short supply," said Minton-Taylor, adding that an increasing number of shipping and transportation companies are looking at this issue at the boardroom level. "We hope one day it will be developed, and that there will be a shipyard to develop this sort of vessel."
`We took the view that in 20 years' time fossil fuels will be in short supply. We hope one day it will be developed'
Robert Minton-Taylor, for Swedish shipping company Wallenius Wilhelmsen
Peter Bryant, deputy director of the global marine program at WWF International, said it's encouraging to see a major shipping company sparking industry discussion of renewable "clean" technologies, whether out of concern for rising fuel prices or the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding marine protection.
He said the high seas is often a forgotten area of the world's oceans, because nobody owns it and everybody has an opportunity to use it as a common resource.
"We're trying to improve ocean governance globally, and that means working within the United Nations political process to reform laws that will hopefully encourage greater stewardship of the high seas," said Bryant.
The Orcelle, he added, completely does away with the idea of being dependent on diesel for modern-day ocean transport. "It's revolutionary in a lot of ways, but it strikes me that the approach they're taking is based on common sense, and on what materials are available."
Indeed, elements of the Orcelle already exist in working vessels today, on a smaller scale. An Australian company called Solar Sailor Holdings has built a gas-electric hybrid ferry that uses solar energy to help recharge its batteries.
The ferry's eight, individually moveable solar "wings" can turn the sun's rays into electricity but also double as sails, allowing them to harness wind power and reduce the boat's dependence on propane fuel.
The 100-passenger ferry, called the Sydney Solar Sailor, has been quietly operating in Sydney harbour for five years and is profitable, according to the company. It can hit 5 knots just on solar power enough solar energy, in fact, to power six homes and with wind assistance the ferry is capable of reaching 8 knots.
Solar Sailor's founder, physician Dr. Robert Dane, was inspired by the evolutionary biology of insects. Apparently early insects developed wings not just for flying, but first as solar collectors to regulate their body heat.
"Ninety per cent of insects fly and the way insects evolved wings originally was as solar collectors and then they used them to fly," Dane told an industry magazine when the ferry was launched. "So boats can evolve wings and use them for solar collectors and use them to sail."
Applying that idea to a ferry design was intriguing enough to attract Robert Hawke, former prime minister of Australia, as company chairman. Both Dane and Hawke have been travelling the world pitching the technology, not just for ferries, but also for much larger cargo ships.
China is reportedly negotiating to get several Solar Sailor ferries in time for the Beijing Olympics. There has also been interest in bringing the green ferries to San Francisco Bay, a tourist zone where boats are under increasing pressure to operate cleanly and quietly. Ditto for high-traffic ports in the Caribbean and other sunny, highly regulated vacation spots.
One project Solar Sailor is hoping to win would involve the construction of solar- and wind-powered tanker vessels that would transport 200 billion litres of water each year from the north of Western Australia to the water-starved city of Perth.
If the firm got the contract, the end product in terms of size and carrying capacity would be remarkably close to the vision embodied in Orcelle.
MacMurray Whale, an alternative energy analyst with Sprott Securities in Toronto, said even if wind and solar power are left out of the equation, the shipping and ocean transport industry could benefit significantly from hybrid-electric designs, not unlike technology in the Toyota Prius or hybrid locomotive technology from Vancouver-based Railpower Inc.
He said tugboats, ferries, and even cranes used in shipping-container ports are all candidates for hybrid technology, because their stop-start work cycles allow energy to be recaptured and stored in batteries.
"Container ports, in general, have a lot of intermittent devices with intermittent duty cycles," said Whale.
Bryant at WWF International said any approach that reduces the consumption of dirty fuels is a step in the right direction. "With the cost of oil going up all over the world, I think it's smart thinking."
Roughly 14,000 years after the ancient Egyptians began using sails to navigate reed boats along the Nile, an Oceanic transport giant from Sweden is betting that the future of modern-day shipping rests on a return to good old-fashioned wind power.
But with a high-tech twist.
Stockholm-based Wallenius Wilhelmsen, citing rising prices for diesel fuel and stiffer environmental regulations on the high seas, has designed a concept cargo vessel that could theoretically carry 10,000 cars between continents without the need for fossil fuels.
Called the Orcelle named after an endangered species of dolphin the vessel would be partly powered by three massive sails constructed of lightweight composite material. Each sail, however, would be lined with photovoltaic panels that would generate electricity when the sun is shining.
Energy would also be captured from ocean waves through a system of 12 fins able to transform the natural movements of the seas into electricity. Excess energy from the wave and solar systems would be stored in batteries for later use, or used to create hydrogen for an electric propulsion system powered by advanced fuel cells.
"When I first saw it I thought it looked like Star Trek Voyager," said Robert Minton-Taylor, a spokesperson for Wallenius Wilhelmsen, which today operates 60 ocean transport vessels, mostly for carrying vehicles for the automotive industry. "But what it really does is take us back to the shipping days of old."
Despite handling an estimated 80 per cent of the world's trade, the shipping industry is often overlooked as a major source of greenhouse gases and pollution. Yet environmental regulation both national and international has in recent years forced the industry to do more serious "naval" gazing about its impact on the environment.
In response, innovative companies have turned their attention to this potentially massive market opportunity:
#
Montreal-based Pyrogenesis Inc. has built a garbage-destruction system for ships based on plasma torch technology. On-board waste on aircraft carriers, cruise ships and other large vessels are heated to such extreme temperatures most common pollutants are burned away.
#
EnSolve Biosystems Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., has developed an on-board system for treating oily bilge water so it can be released in the ocean without risk of fine. Called the PetroLiminator, the system uses "freeze-dried bugs" that literally eat away at the oil.
#
Also on the radar are shipping pallets, which consume enormous amounts of wood and are often tossed into landfills after a single use. EcoDuro Inc. of Ann Arbor, Mich., has engineered a new generation of pallet made from corrugated cardboard and recycled paper. It is lighter, 100 per cent recyclable, and resistant to wood-boring foreign insects, meaning it meets tough export sanitation standards.
In many ways, the Orcelle is the ultimate vision of where the shipping industry could be in 20 years, assuming a concerted effort on the part of transport and shipbuilding companies to get there.
Capable of carrying 13,000 tons of cargo, the massive vessel would have eight decks equivalent in area to 14 football fields. It would be 250 metres long, twice the length of the Preussen, the largest clipper ship of a century ago, but would need far fewer crew to operate.
As for speed, at up to 20 knots it would travel only slightly faster than the Preussen but would be capable of carrying 50 per cent more cargo.
Minton-Taylor said the concept ship was designed with a team of seasoned naval architects, environmental experts and industrial designers. The final design was unveiled at the World Expo 2005 in Aichi, Japan, and while the company says there are no hard plans to build such a ship today, it believes it could be accomplished by 2025 with solar, wind, wave and fuel-cell technologies already under development.
"We took the view that in 20 years' time fossil fuels will be in short supply," said Minton-Taylor, adding that an increasing number of shipping and transportation companies are looking at this issue at the boardroom level. "We hope one day it will be developed, and that there will be a shipyard to develop this sort of vessel."
`We took the view that in 20 years' time fossil fuels will be in short supply. We hope one day it will be developed'
Robert Minton-Taylor, for Swedish shipping company Wallenius Wilhelmsen
Peter Bryant, deputy director of the global marine program at WWF International, said it's encouraging to see a major shipping company sparking industry discussion of renewable "clean" technologies, whether out of concern for rising fuel prices or the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding marine protection.
He said the high seas is often a forgotten area of the world's oceans, because nobody owns it and everybody has an opportunity to use it as a common resource.
"We're trying to improve ocean governance globally, and that means working within the United Nations political process to reform laws that will hopefully encourage greater stewardship of the high seas," said Bryant.
The Orcelle, he added, completely does away with the idea of being dependent on diesel for modern-day ocean transport. "It's revolutionary in a lot of ways, but it strikes me that the approach they're taking is based on common sense, and on what materials are available."
Indeed, elements of the Orcelle already exist in working vessels today, on a smaller scale. An Australian company called Solar Sailor Holdings has built a gas-electric hybrid ferry that uses solar energy to help recharge its batteries.
The ferry's eight, individually moveable solar "wings" can turn the sun's rays into electricity but also double as sails, allowing them to harness wind power and reduce the boat's dependence on propane fuel.
The 100-passenger ferry, called the Sydney Solar Sailor, has been quietly operating in Sydney harbour for five years and is profitable, according to the company. It can hit 5 knots just on solar power enough solar energy, in fact, to power six homes and with wind assistance the ferry is capable of reaching 8 knots.
Solar Sailor's founder, physician Dr. Robert Dane, was inspired by the evolutionary biology of insects. Apparently early insects developed wings not just for flying, but first as solar collectors to regulate their body heat.
"Ninety per cent of insects fly and the way insects evolved wings originally was as solar collectors and then they used them to fly," Dane told an industry magazine when the ferry was launched. "So boats can evolve wings and use them for solar collectors and use them to sail."
Applying that idea to a ferry design was intriguing enough to attract Robert Hawke, former prime minister of Australia, as company chairman. Both Dane and Hawke have been travelling the world pitching the technology, not just for ferries, but also for much larger cargo ships.
China is reportedly negotiating to get several Solar Sailor ferries in time for the Beijing Olympics. There has also been interest in bringing the green ferries to San Francisco Bay, a tourist zone where boats are under increasing pressure to operate cleanly and quietly. Ditto for high-traffic ports in the Caribbean and other sunny, highly regulated vacation spots.
One project Solar Sailor is hoping to win would involve the construction of solar- and wind-powered tanker vessels that would transport 200 billion litres of water each year from the north of Western Australia to the water-starved city of Perth.
If the firm got the contract, the end product in terms of size and carrying capacity would be remarkably close to the vision embodied in Orcelle.
MacMurray Whale, an alternative energy analyst with Sprott Securities in Toronto, said even if wind and solar power are left out of the equation, the shipping and ocean transport industry could benefit significantly from hybrid-electric designs, not unlike technology in the Toyota Prius or hybrid locomotive technology from Vancouver-based Railpower Inc.
He said tugboats, ferries, and even cranes used in shipping-container ports are all candidates for hybrid technology, because their stop-start work cycles allow energy to be recaptured and stored in batteries.
"Container ports, in general, have a lot of intermittent devices with intermittent duty cycles," said Whale.
Bryant at WWF International said any approach that reduces the consumption of dirty fuels is a step in the right direction. "With the cost of oil going up all over the world, I think it's smart thinking."
View Full Version : Power choice Poll
Legal
Boat Design Forums
Gallery
Directory
Boat Design & Boatbuilding Bookstore
Powerboat Ads
Sailboat Ads
powered by vBulletin which is copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999-2008 Boat Design Net
powered by vBulletin which is copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999-2008 Boat Design Net