Dare to Say No

Apex1 and Willallison, I agree. I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about.

And I certainly don't understand the dire predictions about today's designers being dinosaurs on the way to extinction. The successful ones will keep adapting to the changing times, designing boats that customers want to buy, and they'll survive. The others won't.

Isn't that the way it's always been? I don't think anyone has to swear fealty to some new Lord of Green to stay in business.....

 

How about Gerald Bull's gun? Shoot the stuff ( waste) at the sun. ( to bad we had him killed)

 

I doubt if many outside of Canada and Iraq, and maybe Germany have heard of Mr. Bull.

 

That's because he was hung-up on aluminum. If he'd gone steel, he'd have been a God I tell you... a God! Well, that and a good deal better at the discretion function.

The Mossad certainly knew of Mr. Bull and likely visited him on several occasions.

 

He was a man driven by his obsession. The Israelis should have hired him instead of killing him.

 

I just read his bio on Wikipedia; I hadn't heard of him before. Interesting guy.

 

What's "aaaargh" doing with this ?? It just how things work in the real world. Anything to do with my opinion.. or yours.. If you object my statement why just not say so instead of sending neg rep

 

You are perfectly right.

And it is not by offering them more expensive boats to buy, more expensive boats to maintain with hi tech just to save a few liter of fuel you will solve that problem.


And downsizing boats will no more solve it :

People in this thread were dreaming of the near 500hp ELLIS 36. I guess it is far beyond their boating budget. Even used : http://www.ellisboat.com/brokerage/brokerage36.php

Tad offered them the much more cheaper open 20hp outboard powered SS185, this time I guess well within their boating budget. But they do not buy it simply because it is not what they expect of a boat. And it is absolutely not mandatory for them to own a boat.

 

That's what I said.

 

Is the complaint that current boats are ugly and bad for the environment, or just that not enough are selling? Is this plea to get back to "affordable, aesthetically pleasing, practical craft" just another marketing ploy trying to tap into the nostalgic baby boomer market herd that has lately been turned and is stampeding towards the "green" side?

There's a limit to variability with practical craft, but there doesn't seem to be a limit of designers and NAs who want to make a living doing what they do, so a market has to be created. Maybe the public's desire for boats is saturated and the only way to sell boats is to dupe people into buying something they really don't need or even necessarily want.

Affordable, aesthetically pleasing, practical craft are there to be had. If expensive, wasteful, impractical boats and yachts are what sells, it is what the public has been trained to want. This isn't a problem for builders and designers to solve, it's a problem for advertising agencys to solve.

 

I think you are pretty much right about this, Sam.... up to a point.

Trends within an industry are important to market turnover. There's a limit as to how many of any given genre can be produced before the stylistic threshold is reached and the sensation of having a fresh product is needed to maintain some semblance of sales volume. You see it in every commercial product out there. It's human nature to buy into what they perceive as the newest and sportiest approach.

You are pretty much spot-on when it comes to your comment about the public having been trained. You may also be correct about the transition process as being another "fresh idea" about which the public will be, once again, trained to desire.

In the US, at least, we have long sputtered about with our full-blown idolatry of all things powerful and throaty in their performance. It has gone on for a very long time, but it really blossomed in earnest in the post WWII economy when former depression raised kids had become adults with new-found buying power. The ability to buy suddenly manifest itself as having the biggest, the most powerful, the most gadget encrusted vehicle that their money could buy. Seeing no real restrictions, Detroit responded with more and more gaudy glitz to satisfy the hunger that had been festering in the population for several decades.

In many ways, the current crop of "gin palaces" as I have heard them called, are but another, extended expression of that "got to be the biggest, glitziest and baddest" obsession. Much like the maturing automotive industry, which has long ago left the huge, full-sized cars as reasonable expressions of need, the boating industry will eventually follow suit with versions of their own. These new boats will be more like the Camrys and Accords (equivalent in other nations) we see everywhere around the world. It's rare nowadays to see a full-sized car blasting down the highway and when you do, it's usually an older dude and his blue hair wife taking in the last gasps of automotive pleasure before they die.

I'm leaving the ultra wealthy out of this description because normal descriptors do not apply to their expectations, or cash flow.

If we do recognize that this trend may be about moving the goal posts of the industry to a fresher playing field so that the industry can appear to be revitalized... well, so be it. That part of the process doesn't concern me as much as the potential of actually doing some good while this possible marketing potential is realized. There really aren't many arguments to counter the truth of smaller engines that use less fuel, more efficient designs that also use less fuel and more affordable vehicles that are more easily and affordably parked, be it in marinas or trailer storage. All of these point to the potential of reviving an industry that has long been in an ugly downward spiral.

On the opposite side of the drawing board, the industry could very well continue to produce craft for which there are no available marina slips, are not easily trailered and cost a fortune to run... in a world with acknowledged diminishing resources. To me, that is the death knell of a pile of companies and all their collected employees as well as futures in the trade for those same employees. Personally, I hope that the industry is smarter than that and that they wake-up and get their collective act together before a massive shakeout takes place.

The above, while irrespective of the current economic woes, is made considerably worse by the worldwide conditions we are experiencing at present.

There are some really powerful lessons to be learned from the US auto making industry and if the boat manufacturing business doesn’t pay heed and do it soon, they will also feel the suddenness of losing all that they worked so hard to gain. Build boats that become out of step with the interests and financial capabilities of the buying public, with quality control issues that are only designed for the next review of the bottom line and you will lose the customers that once made you great.

As I said before, this does not have to be a, lights on/lights off, kind of approach. It does need to be addressed soon, though. I’d be willing to bet that if one were to nose around and survey all the current big builders of affordably priced recreational boats (I’m talking boats in the USD$100,000 to $150,000 region. And no, that typically does not include Beneteau with their lineup of boats well up in the price range) you would discover that they already have a few efficiency oriented designs with lower price points and smaller engine packages. They are all ready to put them into play as soon as looming market conditions dictate that the time is right. I think that the time will be sooner, rather than later.

You guys, of course, can believe anything you want about this topic. Some here have their heels dug in. Some are open to the discussion, but don’t think it will happen. Some are thinking along the lines of a more responsible design idiom, but see it all in moderation and some are way far gone and don’t want to hear a word from the max horsepower crowd, no matter how it is expressed. I happen to be from the moderate, “I’m thinking along these lines, with a serious eye to the future of the industry” crowd. Not a tree hugger, not a fuel drinking dilettante, but a guy who sees things out there that are eventually going to kick us in the butt.

 

I recall members of my very conservative family criticising the appearance of cars will flowing body shapes way back in the 50's. They were used to a hood -which they called the bonnet- that opened up sideways and fenders -which they called wings- that were separate from the body, like a Ford T. They seem to have adjusted however.

Boat designers may not have a monopoly on the sense of esthetics. I think most Bubba-type boat buyers want something that reminds them of a car.

 

Consider this to continue the auto analogy just a bit. First, compare second cars to boats, boats are seldom primary transport for any number of good reasons.

What happened in 1973 when the EPA NoX emissions standards took effect? How many years did we pay for reduced emissions with poor fuel economy? As each phase of standards came in it was a gloom and doom story from the car makers. It took until about 1980 for the engineers to figure out that closed loop fuel management systems were about the only way to meet the standards. By 1990 we had engines producing more HP, using less fuel and creating fewer emissions, that trend continue to this day. We have the same or higher output engines with greatly reduced maintenance requirements and longer service lives. The bill to the customer is in higher purchase cost and more important to the marine industry fewer customer serviceable components. The huge numbers of primary transport vehicles reduced the per unit cost of this evolution. Now Bubba's second "for fun" car and his boat can take advantage of what has been learned over the last 30 years.

Our friend Bubba will have to pay MORE money for the same boat. It will have the same HP as before, it will burn less fuel (but not as much less as the automotive counterparts), and there will be no trained marine service people to keep it running. When Bubba wires in his new gizmo that Buffy got him for Christmas he will probably damage the factory wire harness. The integrity of that harness is mission critical for the computer controlled power system on Bubba's boat ... just a matter of time and Bubba will be a SAR case and Bubba won't have a clue on how to fix his boat and get home.

If you want simple and affordable, and not be a gross polluter there is a level of technology that is far from simple and far from inexpensive that goes with it.

Most of us consider energy usage for purchases in our homes. Boats are no different. Lower energy usage allows Bubba to have the "Gin Palace" features for much less fuel usage than before. Bubba can have his gizmos and the new boats make more efficient usage of the fuel burns to run the same list of **** as ten years ago.

More can be done to be sure. The first step is to rid the water of old technology power units. No more manually/mechanically controlled diesels. No carburetors and ideally no more gasoline power at all over about 50 HP. this will do two things, it will reduce emissions and reduce the fuel burned for power produced. The new designs that replace the older environmental nightmares of even 5 years ago can start a positive trend.

I think there is a limit to how simple and affordable boats can be and find a market. Very few people commute in a Escort and drive a Smart Car for fun on the weekend.

Just how efficient can you make a wake boarding tow boat?

What would be the total impact of repowering all the 26 x 8 and smaller trailer boats with modern, lower emissions and lower gallon per HP power heads?

Just what would you change on a "gin palace" and still be able to sell the boat? How are the boat builders going to compensate for the soon to be even stricter emissions standards and make a boat more affordable, much less simpler?

Just as many contractors shift from new construction to remodels with energy saving as one of the goals. Why don't boat designers to the same thing? Engineer cost effective modifications to existing boats as well as incorporating them into their new stuff?

"Mr Designer, this boat is eating me out of house and home and I can't afford a new one."

"Mr Customer, we've taken a look at this. For XX% of a replacement boat, we can increase or maintain the performance of the boat you have and you can burn 20% less fuel doing it ... and the resale value will go up."

 

"
"Our friend Bubba will have to pay MORE money for the same boat. It will have the same HP as before, it will burn less fuel (but not as much less as the automotive counterparts), and there will be no trained marine service people to keep it running."

Bubba just got screwed! He'll get more boating hours per dollar if he does nothing other than buy gas, ice, and beer. When that boat wears out he can survey the market, run the numbers and start over again.

I wouldn't be surprised if a significant percentage of the people most worried about the increasing costs of energy wouldn't be just as upset if we actually found a way to generate twice as much energy at half the current cost. The leaked emails coming out of England are indicitive of that mindset.

I myself am highly interested in minimizing my fuel burn by optimization of my existing boat. I think I could maybe half my consumption by stretching the hull to decrease bottom loading, effectively slimming her down for less resistance, running a bigger propeller with a greater reduction gear optimised to a diesel motor. Far more likely I'll buy a new carb, maybe a new wheel, play with the tuning, and concentrate on buying gas, ice and beer. Call me Bubba.

 

Quick note, Randy... (I'll offer something more comprehensive after I help my wife put up the Xmas tree)

My wife drives a Camry 4 banger to and from work. When it's nice out on weekends, we drive a Miata with the top down. It's parked in the garage in the winter.

I work out of my home for the most part and my driving has dropped to virtually nothing as a result. When I do drive, I use an 18 year old Landcruiser that has long since been paid-off and costs near zero in maintenance and yes, I fix it myself. The truck is on the block for a less of everything replacement. There are several people interested, as the model is in demand as an indestructible back country explorer. Lots of back country out here in the middle of nowhere.

My position in all this is an ideal that I am trying to shoot for personally, as well as professionally. May not get all that I seek, but I'm going to give a serious try. I believe that one guy can make a difference if it serves as an example of the possibilities.

Laters,