Lars Johansson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Where Technology is Failing Boaters
...
There seems to be no serious effort to build or design mass-market
boats that are more fuel-efficient; and in fact the current state of
the market indicates that the more HP stuffed into a hull the faster it
will sell.
...
The technology to produce the ultimete fuel efficiency for boats already
exists: sails.
/Lars J

One would think. At least up this way, the vast majority of sailboats
motor almost everywhere. Some will motor-sail, with a jib or even a
spinnaker deployed. Most of the
sailing seems to be done after reaching a general destination, as part
of an organized race, or on a sunny afternoon where the goal is just to
blow around outside the breakwater without any particular need to
actually go anywhere.

Even so, those sailboats are pretty efficient under the iron wind. A
lot of them make 5, 6, or even 7 kts on about a gallon per hour.

wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:

Chuck,
Your cost analysis of hybrid vs non hybrid shows why the start to lower
oil consumption is to increase the cost of fuel. Very few people will
make the choice to pay more for the greater good of society. As long as
it cost more to operate a hybrid it will not be the preferred choice
for the majority.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************



It probably costs less to actually operate a hybrid, up to the point
where the battery eventually needs to be replaced. Most of the systems
seem to have 100k mile warranties on all the hybrid stuff. The bump in
the road is the acquisition cost. The hybrids we have looked at cost
about $7,000 more than their gasoline counterparts. Factor in that the
hyhbrids are in short supply and *nobody* is willing to come off
MSRP.....(they simply look over your head to the lineup in the showroom
and holler "Next!" when you want to discuss a discount- let alone
invoice)... and the typical difference is probably closer to $9000.

Nobody is buying hybrids to save money. I think it would take 150,000
miles of in-city driving to break even. I guess you buy a hybrid for
the same reason you sort the recyclables from your trash or step up for
a 4 stroke outboard when a 2 stroke is cheaper.
Some things get done because they are considered by some at least to be
the right thing, not the cheapest thing.

Artificially making oil more expensive in order to drive people to
alternative resources isn't always good policy. Like so many ideas, it
would impact most those in society who have the fewest resources and
choices. If a guy pushing a broom around WalMart buys as many gallons
of gas as I do every month, it is certainly taking a bigger percentage
of his monthly income to do so than it takes from mine. (maybe just
barely). The WalMart broom jockey *has to* buy gas to get to work in
most locations, it isn't a luxury, and he isn't in the financial
position to acquire cutting edge, more economical options.

Which is the reason so few cars on the road are hybrids.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Where Technology is Failing Boaters


Less than 30 years ago, a pleasure boat was considered well equipped
with a rotary fathometer and a VHF radio. A few of the larger vessels
had radar. Until the advent of the LORAN system, some mariners would
employ radio direction finders to determine the relative bearing of
broadcast towers and would then triangulate three of these positions to
find their position on a paper chart. The average boater in the
1970's would have been hard pressed to believe that soon nearly all
boats, as well as an increasing number of cars and trucks, would be
equipped with a system that collected signals from dozens of satellites
orbiting the earth to determine position. Fewer yet would have believed
that basic access to the mega-billion dollar technology that makes the
Global Positioning System possible would be available for prices of
less than $200. Technology has completely and successfully
revolutionized navigation for most boaters.

One of the few short-term hazards to our recreational boating pastime
is the volatile price of fossil fuel. We all clearly remember when in
the aftermath of last year's Hurricane Katrina retail prices for
gasoline and diesel shot up to well over $3 a gallon at roadside
service stations and prices of $4 a gallon were not unheard of at area
fuel docks. Corporate profit reports released within the last few
months reveal that the majority of those punitive price increases went
directly to the oil companies' net profit column. "Profit"
isn't a dirty word, particularly in a free and competitive
marketplace, but in reality the oil companies seem to collude far more
than they compete. Now that the big oil producers and distributors have
discovered that Americans will indeed pay well over $3-4/gallon for gas
and diesel, pressure from Wall Street interests to sustain or increase
the recent record profits may cause another "summer run-up" of fuel
prices.

As ever, the extremely wealthy are relatively insulated from the
effects of price increases.
A yachtsman spending $10,000 a month or more to finance, moor,
maintain, and insure a high-dollar vessel is unlikely to alter his or
her boating plans if the annual cost of fuel climbs by a few, or even
several, thousand dollars. It's the family boaters of more ordinary
means, sacrificing and budgeting to spend $750-2000 a month on the
hobby, most likely to have plans altered or curtailed when the cost for
fuel on a three-day weekend climbs just a few hundred dollars. I
recently overheard someone remark, "If the middle classes can't
afford to boat, that's just tough luck for them." Such a comment is
very shortsighted. A steady or increasing volume of boaters sustains
the pleasure boating infrastructure that even the most fortunate few
depend upon.

There seems to be no serious effort to build or design mass-market
boats that are more fuel-efficient; and in fact the current state of
the market indicates that the more HP stuffed into a hull the faster it
will sell. When faced with a personal choice of cruising a few knots
slower to improve fuel economy by perhaps 50% or opting for a larger
engine that will cruise a few knots faster at the cost of perhaps 50%
more fuel consumption, the most popular choice among new boat buyers
has been the biggest available (usually least efficient) engine. This
current group of high-performing but less than optimally fuel efficient
boats will be the available used inventory within just a few years.


Other industries, with larger markets and far more research and design
money, are making some major technological advances. We've been doing
some car shopping lately, and are intrigued with the new hybrid
technology we have found on Toyota Highlanders.
(The same system is available on a Lexus, and has been licensed to Ford
for use in the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles.) The hybrid
drive technology improves fuel economy by about 60%, and reduces
exhaust emissions to a fraction of those emitted by a conventional
petroleum only system. The Toyota and the Lexus hybrid systems
incorporate 3.3 liter V6 engines, and as a result of combined petrol
and electric drives the hybrids not only outperform standard V6 models
but deliver impressive "8-cylinder" speed and acceleration while
consuming less fuel than many 4-cylinder competitors.

Unfortunately, there aren't any boat building companies with the
research and design budget of Toyota, and the comparatively tiny market
for new boats vs. new automobiles would be unable to absorb the R&D
costs for a radical overhaul of the manner in which we propel our
boats. Radar and GPS were adapted to pleasure boats from military uses,
and few of the current and pending technological advances in automotive
propulsion will transfer easily to marine applications.

Will technology radically improve the fuel efficiency of out boats
without unduly sacrificing performance? Perhaps. While a technological
solution seems unlikely at the present moment, the entire concept of
GPS would have seemed like a fantasy to some boater turning a circular
antenna to hone in on radio broadcast towers just a generation ago.

In the meantime, we can keep our boats tuned up and maintained, select
and install the correct propellers, haul off unused items to reduce
excess weight, install fuel flow meters to seek the most efficient
cruising speeds, keep the bottom clean, and pay some attention to
currents when planning a cruise. Here in the Pacific NW, there is no
good reason for fuel costs to keep a boater off the water. Regardless
of where one moors or launches, there will be dozens of interesting
parks, marinas, secluded anchorages, and charming waterfront villages
only a short distance away. We can be thankful for our unique geography
while we wait and hope for technology to help us make some dramatic
improvements in fuel efficiency.


We used to use portable radios with the bar antenna to locate the
direction of the radio towers at San francisco. As to Hybrid's, do not
work in boats, as no coasting and braking for regenerative power. We have
looked at hybrids to replace wife's car maybe next year. Overall the cost
per mile is a little higher than conventional vehicles. Milage is not
that much more than some of the same size cars, but you are looking at
$3500-5000 at 100,000 miles for a new battery.
It's even worse than that. It's 100k or three years whichever comes first.
For the driver who just goes to church and the market (My grandparents when
they were alive) who drive about 7k miles a year, the battery makes the car
a horrible investment.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business
building diesel electric drives?

im in.

I am half serious. I need something to do anyway. Thinking we buy an old
boat maybe already with a small diesel, add a battery bank, charging
system, inverter and a big old electric motor. I have access to
machining, welding and fabrication services, plus controls, electrical and
CAD design if needed. Even have some space we could use. We could build
a prototype and optimize it for proof of concept .... then .... on to Wall
Street.

Hmmmmm..... this one has caught my attention. I wonder if Mrs.E would
donate her GB?

RCE
Hybrid cars make sense in other ways too. What if we as a country decided
to equip one lane of the national interstates with a power rail that hybrid
cars could use. What if we decided NOW on a protocol for accessing a future
system and have all current hybrid and electric car designs easily
modifiable to use that system if we implement it in the future?

This could start in the major cities and spread out to semi urban areas
along interstate routes.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business
building diesel electric drives?
im in.
I am half serious. I need something to do anyway. Thinking we buy an
old boat maybe already with a small diesel, add a battery bank, charging
system, inverter and a big old electric motor. I have access to
machining, welding and fabrication services, plus controls, electrical
and CAD design if needed. Even have some space we could use. We could
build a prototype and optimize it for proof of concept .... then .... on
to Wall Street.

Hmmmmm..... this one has caught my attention. I wonder if Mrs.E would
donate her GB?

RCE
Hybrid cars make sense in other ways too. What if we as a country
decided to equip one lane of the national interstates with a power rail
that hybrid cars could use. What if we decided NOW on a protocol for
accessing a future system and have all current hybrid and electric car
designs easily modifiable to use that system if we implement it in the
future?

This could start in the major cities and spread out to semi urban areas
along interstate routes.

The days of massive infrastructure investment in this country are over. We
can't even keep what we have from crumbling.

You must live in a predominately democrat county/state.

At about (guess) 4KW/hr at 60mph at current prices that's about $0.80 per 60
miles or about .013 cents/mile compared with a
41 mpg car at current prices $2.40/gal at 6 cents a mile. ** 60 times better
** To be conservative factor in 30% transmission loss and it's still
economical. Factor in health benefits, independence from foreign oil,
factor in nuclear (more efficient less cost per kwh) and it's even more cost
effective.

While I'm against public transportation for a number of reasons, this I
could get behind. Interstates and several toll cross town expressways in
each major city would be all that would have to be modified.

My guess is based from what I remember from college (30 years ago) about a
car needing 15HP to maintain 55MPH speeds. Today we have smaller lighter
cars (the ones that get 41 MPG) that are more aerodynamic so I'm figuring
less than 10HP.

Calif Bill wrote:
As the wankel engineer told my class in university, that the Wankel is great
if you have no pollution controls. Is basically a dirty engine.


Did he say why?

Reciprocating (piston) engines have a built-in energy loss
on every stroke, when they stop & start the mass of the
piston & connectors going up & down. Reducing that mass
would give a boost in efficency, probably not as great as
the gains in combustion technology nor as great as the gains
from higher operating temps due to improved manufacturing &
metallurgy.

There are other types of positive displacement rotative
engines, the Wankel is just the best known one.

One thing I was very dissapointed that has not come up in
public discussionon energy saving: driving habits. Most
Americans have no clue how to drive for fuel efficiency.
Many don't believe their lead foot has anything to with
their car not reaching it's EPA mileage rating.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It's even worse than that. It's 100k or three years whichever comes first.
For the driver who just goes to church and the market (My grandparents when
they were alive) who drive about 7k miles a year, the battery makes the car
a horrible investment.

There are 2 Honda Insight owners in my small office. Both
are 2000 models on original batteries without problems.

-rick-

Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business
building diesel electric drives?


im in.


It's an interesting proposition. Tom you probably have more
free time to devote to something like this than I do.

RCE wrote:
I am half serious. I need something to do anyway. Thinking we buy an old
boat maybe already with a small diesel, add a battery bank, charging system,
inverter and a big old electric motor. I have access to machining, welding
and fabrication services, plus controls, electrical and CAD design if
needed. Even have some space we could use. We could build a prototype and
optimize it for proof of concept .... then .... on to Wall Street.

Hmmmmm..... this one has caught my attention. I wonder if Mrs.E would
donate her GB?


What's the goal? Greater fuel efficiency per ton/mph? IMHO
it's going to be a little hard to achieve a really
significant gain over conventional power plant. Part of the
problem is weight, the best way to save power is to make the
craft much lighter, which will not happen with refitting an
older boat. Also, is there a market for repowering old boats
with efficient new plants?

Also, it's been done. Some guys down near Harkers Island
built an energy efficient trawler a few years back, the
whole nine yards: lightweight construction, advanced hull
design, solar power augmented diesel-electric drive. It was
a cool boat, but didn't sell.

Another big advantage to a diesel-electric type drive is
that you have a big batttery bank & lots of power for
household luxuries. One more is that the weight of the power
plant can be distributed in any way desirable throughout the
boat.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Calif Bill wrote:
As the wankel engineer told my class in university, that the Wankel is
great if you have no pollution controls. Is basically a dirty engine.

Did he say why?

Reciprocating (piston) engines have a built-in energy loss on every
stroke, when they stop & start the mass of the piston & connectors going
up & down. Reducing that mass would give a boost in efficency, probably
not as great as the gains in combustion technology nor as great as the
gains from higher operating temps due to improved manufacturing &
metallurgy.

There are other types of positive displacement rotative engines, the
Wankel is just the best known one.

One thing I was very dissapointed that has not come up in public
discussionon energy saving: driving habits. Most Americans have no clue
how to drive for fuel efficiency. Many don't believe their lead foot has
anything to with their car not reaching it's EPA mileage rating.

DSK


Basically Yup. He said all the pollution controls added up to a lot of
inefficiencies. The spraying of oil inside the piston to cool it. You
could make a more effiecient and cleaner engine now, just because of the
improvement in Materials Science. Better rotor end and tip seals, etc.
Better alloys for the piston.