Trygons EcoRunner 590

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.269569849788263.62651.139725689439347&type=1

what do you think?

 

Using the prefix "eco" on something with a wide transom that planes and obviously uses a lot more of the Earth's resources (both in fuel and in the rather non-eco construction materials) than a more efficient design of boat, made from a renewable material like wood, seems a bit off and close to misrepresentation.

It seems that "eco" is now just a marketing BS term, rather than something that describes a product designed and manufactured in a way that has the least impact on our environment and its ecology.

 

I've heard the term "Green Washing" applied to such marketing techniques Jeremy.

"Buyer Beware" comes to mind...

Cheers,

 

I can't agree more that the words "eco" or "green" are used too often! But, I designed this boat with the fuel consumption as the number one enemy. When I started this project, 6 years ago, some called me crazy for using this kind of materials and technology for fuel efficiency instead of top speed.
This 6meter boat achieved a max 0,55 liters/mile consumption, at least 1/2 than equivalent size/usage boats.
Furthermore, we made one complete carbonfiber boat, 145kgr in total! With this boat, around May, we intend to do a fuel consumption record trip. Something like 100 offshore nautical miles with 25litters- the standard red outboard tank. Our first test runs, say it is possible. And all this, because we believe that for using the "eco" word, we must be able to prove it!.

Alexander Sarasitis
trygons.com

 

Sorry, but 0.55 litres of fuel per mile is totally ludicrous for any transportation device that claims to be "eco".

It's the equivalent (in US gallon terms) of a car that does just 7.3 miles to the US gallon!

This boat simply does not deserve the "eco" label in any way shape or form. It's a gas guzzling polluter that is on a par with the most polluting forms of transport on the planet, plain and simple.

 

I guess it just depends on what you are measuring, and to what you are comparing to. You need a way to trade one cost off against another to know if you actually saved any resources.

To me as an engineer, you have to look at total life cycle cost. It does you little good to greatly reduce one aspect of the cost, like lowering fuel consumption, when everything else costs twice as much to achieve it. Your life-cycle costs go up. It take labor, energy and materials to build the boat, and it takes labor, energy and materials to maintain it, and labor, energy and materials to power it over its useful life. The total consumption of resources is measure by the total life-cycle costs.

It would be a waste of resources to raise the life-cycle cost in trying to just reduce fuel cost. Typically fuel is one third or less of the total life cycle cost for most vehicles, so if you have doubled the other costs, to save say one third the fuel consumption cost, you have wasted resources. This is a completely myopic understanding of trying to reduce "impacts to the environment", to ignore all other costs other than fuel consumption. Many of the so-called "green" products actually have much higher life-cycle costs over the conventional equivalent product. So until you can demonstrate that you have actually reduced total life cycle costs, you have not accomplished anything of value, and you have certainly not saved resources.

of course, unless you are in some kind of commercial trade, no one "needs" a boat. Having a boat at all for recreational purposes is a "waste of resources". There are many where I live that drive Subarus down to the sound to paddle around their plastic sea kayaks, and they are very smug and self righteous that they do not consume any fuel when they paddle their kayaks around (often interfering with other sea traffic), yet if they stay home and watch TV, they would put less strain on the environment than using their "green" boats. So they may use less fuel than a ski boat, but not than just going swimming.

 

My gripe is using the term "eco" in the product name. This clearly implies something that causes as little damage to the ecological environment as possible.

A small, fast, power boat that does around 7 or 8 miles to the US gallon cannot possibly be described as "eco", even if the materials and construction methods are near-carbon neutral.

The name of this boat seems intended to deceive, by implying that it's in some way ecologically beneficial.

 

I hasten to agree with Jeremy and Petros. Eco is a rather presumptious label. If the boat is such that its' propulsion costs are signifigantly lower than similar boats, then the term Econo might fit.

We are chastising the OP about his label not his boat. We have been a little hard on him. Perhaps we can discuss the features of the boat that cause it to be more economical to operate. We need to know; at what speed the 0.55 liter per mile figure applies. What is the rated HP and configuration of the outboard power unit? What all up weight has been involved in the tests?

I am pretty sure that Jeremy, Petros, Tom, Messabout, and a bunch of others of us can design and build a near zero carbon imprint boat. We might use a SOF design with bamboo or at least some kind of wood for framing, animal skin, a bit of pine tar or pine resin. We would build without using any power tool, hand tools only. It would be fair to use water but not a wood, petroleum, animal dung, or coal fueled fire to ease bending of the framework. That would be an Eco friendly boat.

As soon as we clamp our 2 HP Honda on the boat, the deal is off. It is no longer a zero carbon imprint boat. Even so, we could go a lot farther than a mile with a half liter of fuel. Farther but not very fast.

Meanwhile let's find out more about the OPs boat. He may be onto something good.

 

I have seen many times "extreme" eco friendly constructions with many m2 of solar panels or made of bottles etc. But, usually, it is totally out of the questions to own. Due to price, size, etc.. I think, we as engineers, should be working more with what is helping the situation now,in real life. Like master Cenoby said: " Be mindful of the future, but not in the expense of the present"!
Of course, we are far away of having a commercial offshore planing boat, consuming the same as a car. Although, the carbon fiber edition is close to do it (0,24lt/mile). And, a boat will travel usually a straight line to destination.
But, a typical 6m game fishing boat, at this moment , will have a 175-200hp motor and spent at least 1lt/mile. So, if somebody decides to get the ecorunner instead of the other option, there will be a direct impact to the environment. A difference done today and the days following. We also, refuse to install a bigger engine to this boat, or twins, even by loosing customers sometimes. The reason is that a bigger installation is against its design,its name, and company's principles.

It is in my personal believe too, that there should be a global law with max HP and litters of gas, per person, per day. But, humanity is many miles behind that. There should also be a law, for stating the limits of what can be called "green" or "eco", but again there isn't.
And about the materials used? In the bottom end, we are talking about 400kgr of resins and fibers, against something like 200litters gasoline per week, for a 200hp pro owned boat…Or 42 tones of gas in 5 years, per boat! What if we could save half of that ? If, 100X60hp boats are operating instead of 100X200hp, who did the most "ECO": The ecorunner or a single 100.000$ solar powered project boat? Because these 100 boats will be cruising around anyways….
A wooden version of this boat will be much heavier. Per weight , wood is nothing like sandwich infused fiberglass. We are talking probably about double engine ,consumption and price.
Furthermore, by comparing low emissions of infused fiberglass/sandwich with 2ple quantity hand layup fiberglass , the infused boat wins. And, about a year now, there is also low print carbon fiber.

I believe,my design deserves the "eco" word, because in its field, it offers something very rare: The option of lowering emissions a lot, with no increased cost (economical & environmental) and for a real life boat. And I wish, that in the near future, I get huge competition in that target!

By the way, 0.55lt/mile was measured by a boating magazine, yamaha 60hp 4str, 2 men, life well, fishing gear, 100litters, 5-6bft , open sea. Since then, we did some more work, and looks like it will go down to about 0.46.

I am getting a lot of first class info from the boatdesign forum, and was hoping to get some more: I am currently looking for the lowest consumption in inboards installations. I like the idea of shaft-surface propellers, like the levi-drive. Does anyone expertise in that field? There are so many options and I hope to find something in Boot show/ Germany next week.

 

Arneson drives, surface drives, supercavitating props..... are not in the same ball park with the economical propulsion concept. Go fast; yes. Economy; not likely.

 

Just the hardware will cost you a fortune!

 

fuel economic surface drives

Some of them claim to be very economic.
I did a test, measuring consumption to the same exactly boat, by lifting its outboard by one hole every time. When it started cavitating, I installed a "semi" surface prob, and continue. Every time it was more and more fuel efficient. An average of 1,6knots/hole at 4000rpm.
So, theoreticly, if I could also get even higher, less gearing, and get all that engine part out of the water, I would get the best results. No?

 

Why not post the lines plan and some pictures.

I dont use facebook, so I cant see what you are talking about.

Youtube videos cost me a couple euros to view.

 

How does the surface drive compare in versatility? I don't really doubt that one could be setup for better fuel consumption at high cruise, but I do wonder if it can maintain the all around usability of a conventional prop. I like your boat for much the same reason. It appears you didn't design it to a single purpose/speed/condition. It looks very usable. I wouldn't give up any of the hull's versatility by putting a fussy drive on it. If you can do it in a way that doesn't short-change the hull, fine. But you would be facing a bit of a headwind perception-wise. I think it would send mixed messages at first.