|
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
Calif Bill wrote: 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. Warning: Do not look at the Lexus Hybrid. Especially do not drive one. The Toyota, which is a very nice car, compares to a Lexus like a Chevy compares to a Cadillac so the Lexus will spoil the Toyota and you will get to write a check for about $10,000 more. Talk about acceleration, wow. I thought hybrids would be sluggish, and the drive trains on the Highlander and the Lexus combine the electric motors and the gas engine to respond very quickly from a standing start or when merging into freeway traffic.(Actually, the four cylinder Ford and Mercury hybrids were fairly sluggish). Your observation that the hybrid only gets several more MPG than a straight petrol V6 is pretty accurate, but IMO it makes more sense to compare the mpg of the hybrid to that of the V8 models (based on similar performance) and in that case the hybrid stacks up very well. Still not sure what we'll do, but right now the Lexus is the front runner and would probably be in the wife's parking spot aleady if it didn't take a bit of mental adjustment to write a check north of 50 big'uns for a darned car. We'd go the hybrid before we'd go with a standard V6, but only partially due to being "green" or trying to save the planet- I just love the way the rig accelerates and runs. It would be cheaper to just buy a V6 and accept the reduced gas mileage- but the V6 is too underpowered compared to the hybrid. And that's the difference between the automotive industry and the boating industry. Toyota will sell more new product in any one month, probably, than the combined sales of the entire boating industry for an entire year. The hybrid technology seen in the Toyota, Lexus, Ford, and Mercury vehicles obviously won't work on a boat, but it is an example of how thinking outside the box takes us closer to solutions to difficult problems. Too bad there isn't the same kind of R&D money avaialable to boat builders- because if there were somebody would devise a way to improve fuel economy without entirely foregoing speed. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: 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. Warning: Do not look at the Lexus Hybrid. Especially do not drive one. The Toyota, which is a very nice car, compares to a Lexus like a Chevy compares to a Cadillac so the Lexus will spoil the Toyota and you will get to write a check for about $10,000 more. Talk about acceleration, wow. I thought hybrids would be sluggish, and the drive trains on the Highlander and the Lexus combine the electric motors and the gas engine to respond very quickly from a standing start or when merging into freeway traffic.(Actually, the four cylinder Ford and Mercury hybrids were fairly sluggish). Your observation that the hybrid only gets several more MPG than a straight petrol V6 is pretty accurate, but IMO it makes more sense to compare the mpg of the hybrid to that of the V8 models (based on similar performance) and in that case the hybrid stacks up very well. Still not sure what we'll do, but right now the Lexus is the front runner and would probably be in the wife's parking spot aleady if it didn't take a bit of mental adjustment to write a check north of 50 big'uns for a darned car. We'd go the hybrid before we'd go with a standard V6, but only partially due to being "green" or trying to save the planet- I just love the way the rig accelerates and runs. It would be cheaper to just buy a V6 and accept the reduced gas mileage- but the V6 is too underpowered compared to the hybrid. And that's the difference between the automotive industry and the boating industry. Toyota will sell more new product in any one month, probably, than the combined sales of the entire boating industry for an entire year. The hybrid technology seen in the Toyota, Lexus, Ford, and Mercury vehicles obviously won't work on a boat, but it is an example of how thinking outside the box takes us closer to solutions to difficult problems. Too bad there isn't the same kind of R&D money avaialable to boat builders- because if there were somebody would devise a way to improve fuel economy without entirely foregoing speed. True, but the hybrids rate poor on long distance highway driving. They just do not regenerate enough energy. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
|
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... True, but the hybrids rate poor on long distance highway driving. They just do not regenerate enough energy. How do the hybrids fair in cold weather? Assume you park it outside overnight without being "plugged in" in subfreezing temps. Do the batteries lose capacity and affect drivability until they warm up again? RCE |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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 |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
|
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:33:53 -0500, wrote: On 31 Jan 2006 10:48:48 -0800, wrote: 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. The biggest thing I have done to save fuel is to SLOW DOWN. My new motor was 10HP smaller than my old one, EFI 4 stroke vs 90's technology 2 stroke. I seldom ever get over 3400 RPM and I spend most of my time around 1100 (legally "slow" speed) I usually average about 1 GPH over my normal daily cruise. I simply found interesting things to do that did not require a lot of speed. cruise is a good option for any boat to increase mileage. on my boats, wot open throttle is only efficient on the carbed 25 johnson on the princecraft. The gauge I watch closest is the fuel-flow meter. I surely know what GPH means in terms of my wallet. Harry, Have you figured out what your next ideal boat would have to allow you sufficient speed at the lowest possible gas consumption? Since we don't have any hybrid engines, on a boat gas consumption seems directly correlated to size and weight. My guess is you will see more fisherman using the smallest boat that will do the job. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:12:08 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 31 Jan 2006 10:48:48 -0800, wrote: 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. diesel electric - the only way to go for cars and boats. A locomotive in every garage. im absolutely serious. I understand the use of diesel electric in locomotives - the electric motor drives have immense amounts of torque. But what's the advantage in a boat or car? RCE |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
RCE wrote:
I understand the use of diesel electric in locomotives - the electric motor drives have immense amounts of torque. But what's the advantage in a boat or car? Until they get the bugs worked out of lobe-type engines (similar to the Wankel), the diesel gives the most bang for the buck *if* it can be kept within a fairly narrow power band. Using a diesel to drive a car or truck suffers because it has to put out varying amounts of torque, up to full rating, at widely varying RPMs. Even so it can get better fuel economy than a gasoline engine in the same service. If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel with an electric transmission. Regards Doug King |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly
run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel with an electric transmission. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: what he said. Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've heard this before) I forgot to add a few details about why it makes particular sense for cars right now. The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised and has origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used such plants, and as advances in diesel engine design (along with metallurgy & casting) allow us to make diesel engines that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than were practical just a few years ago. AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have big-ass diesel plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now. Small diesels have made similar... or even greater... advances. Small diesel generators are almost magic! It's possible that somebody will be able to make something along the lines of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more muscle from a gallon of fuel, but I'm betting it will be a fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel cells will probably be the workaday power source. DSK |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"DSK" wrote in message .. . If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel with an electric transmission. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: what he said. Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've heard this before) I forgot to add a few details about why it makes particular sense for cars right now. The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised and has origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used such plants, and as advances in diesel engine design (along with metallurgy & casting) allow us to make diesel engines that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than were practical just a few years ago. AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have big-ass diesel plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now. Small diesels have made similar... or even greater... advances. Small diesel generators are almost magic! It's possible that somebody will be able to make something along the lines of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more muscle from a gallon of fuel, but I'm betting it will be a fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel cells will probably be the workaday power source. DSK Makes sense now. Thanks, both Tom and DSK. Wanna start up a business building diesel electric drives? RCE |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"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 |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... True, but the hybrids rate poor on long distance highway driving. They just do not regenerate enough energy. How do the hybrids fair in cold weather? Assume you park it outside overnight without being "plugged in" in subfreezing temps. Do the batteries lose capacity and affect drivability until they warm up again? RCE I live in California. We do not know what cold is. You have to ask those people in the Northeast. ;) |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message . .. Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:33:53 -0500, wrote: On 31 Jan 2006 10:48:48 -0800, wrote: 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. The biggest thing I have done to save fuel is to SLOW DOWN. My new motor was 10HP smaller than my old one, EFI 4 stroke vs 90's technology 2 stroke. I seldom ever get over 3400 RPM and I spend most of my time around 1100 (legally "slow" speed) I usually average about 1 GPH over my normal daily cruise. I simply found interesting things to do that did not require a lot of speed. cruise is a good option for any boat to increase mileage. on my boats, wot open throttle is only efficient on the carbed 25 johnson on the princecraft. The gauge I watch closest is the fuel-flow meter. I surely know what GPH means in terms of my wallet. Harry, Have you figured out what your next ideal boat would have to allow you sufficient speed at the lowest possible gas consumption? Since we don't have any hybrid engines, on a boat gas consumption seems directly correlated to size and weight. My guess is you will see more fisherman using the smallest boat that will do the job. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* Nope, the fisherman with a larger boat, wants safety and comfort. May not go as much, or take more friends along to chip in. If you are paying $50k+ for a boat, you most likely can afford a couple hundred a month in fuel bills. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"DSK" wrote in message .. . If you couple a diesel to a generator, so it can constantly run at it's most efficient RPM & throttle setting, then use the electricity to drive the car, you basically have a locomotive only with tires for road use. Adding tricks like high-density permanent magnet motors (or the still-expesnive cobalt motors) & advanced tech battery banks & regenerative braking & solar panels & bulk/trickle chargers boosts the efficienct higher yet, but basically it's still a constant-load diesel with an electric transmission. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: what he said. Thanks Tom- while I was pontificating (stop me if you've heard this before) I forgot to add a few details about why it makes particular sense for cars right now. The basic technology is the most efficent load-mover devised and has origins before WW1. Battleships & trains have used such plants, and as advances in diesel engine design (along with metallurgy & casting) allow us to make diesel engines that are both MUCH bigger and much smaller than were practical just a few years ago. AFAIK all big commercial ships, tankers & the like, have big-ass diesel plants (direct drive, no reduction gear) now. Small diesels have made similar... or even greater... advances. Small diesel generators are almost magic! It's possible that somebody will be able to make something along the lines of a carbon fiber Wankel that will get more muscle from a gallon of fuel, but I'm betting it will be a fair bit of time from now, by which time fuel cells will probably be the workaday power source. DSK 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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
wrote in message oups.com... 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. Bingo! 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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
|
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"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. |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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 |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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- |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
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 |
(non-political) comments on fuel economy and technology
"DSK" wrote in message ... 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com