Boat Performance Update
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant

Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)

You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant
Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)
You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)




Uh...

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?
Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)


Go ahead...make my day! I'll watch while you lift my Yamaha off the
transom and put your etec on it. We can do this at the local hospital,
which you will need after your heavy lifting. It's a damned fine little
hospital, too.


Half, eh? So etecs aren't constrained by the rule of 10, eh?

Boat Performance Update
 

Boat Performance Update
 

Calif Bill wrote:


You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?

As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels. ;)

Boat Performance Update
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Boat Performance Update
 

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Well, here's the way I look at it.

I don't give a flying rats a$$ about it.

How's that?

Further, unless I see an image of your boat, I'll assume that you
don't have one either. You seem intent on phantom boats, prove you
own one.

Otherwise, drop it - it's stupid and silly.