Re: [bolger] A case for Electric Propulsion - Simpler
Entropy has an electric auxilary, "ubiquitous Wal-Mart 28 - 29 lb thrust
motor". It works great for all the reasons you quote.
When I was toying with the idea of putting on a gas motor, I realized I had
never sailed so far the trolling motor would not get me back.
I just wish I could get a higher pitch prop for the thing, could easily add
another knot to the "trolling" speed...
motor". It works great for all the reasons you quote.
When I was toying with the idea of putting on a gas motor, I realized I had
never sailed so far the trolling motor would not get me back.
I just wish I could get a higher pitch prop for the thing, could easily add
another knot to the "trolling" speed...
----- Original Message -----
From: "T Webber" <tbertw@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] A case for Electric Propulsion - Simpler
> List,
>
> >http://www.freshwaterseas.com/V02N04Apr99/Story1.asp
>
> The following link is a real gem. Might take me several readings to absorb
> enuff info to be beneficial. As the owner of a JuneBug, a canoe and
> contemplating a 12' Pelican variant, the argument for electric auxillary
is
> simpler.
>
> 1. In Texas, electric motors do not require registration.
> 2. My trolling motor (about 10 lbs) always starts after an offseason of
> complete neglect!
> 3. Batteries can be gotten from AutoZone, Wal-mart or Academy for $50 -
$60
> bucks and will last a couple of seasons. MUCH Cheaper maintenance than my
> Cuise'N'Carry.
> 4. Starting completely from scratch a complete system and be had for less
> than $175.
> 5. At our messabout in April, a Jonsboat was powered by the $80 - $90
> ubiquitous Wal-Mart 28 - 29 lb thrust motor and gave really delightful
> performance and range.
> 6. With minimal investment, a facility can be made to charge the battery
on
> the trips too and from the lake for each use - as well as the minimal
> battery charger - With 4 cars, we ALWAYS have a battery charger around the
> house!!!
> 7. My primary lake does not allow internal combustion engines. I normally
> use oars for auxillary on the "Lug Bug", but the trolling motor has made
> some really nice trips to the lake.
>
> The little lake in the Woodlands, TX that I frequent does not allow
> engines. Bass fisherman show up with their 150 HP Evenrudes and NO FUEL
> TANK and move comfortably about the lake on the trolling motor alone. It
is
> somewhat amazing that bass can be caught from a vessel that has not just
> completed a 70 MPH excursion across the water. It is also amazing how much
> better sailboats work if they are not subjected to power boat wakes!
>
> Tim - low tech electric for low tech boats
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
> Conference in the whole family on the same call.
> Let the fights begin! Visit Firetalk.com - Click below.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5476/10/_/3457/_/961417814/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules:
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
List,
enuff info to be beneficial. As the owner of a JuneBug, a canoe and
contemplating a 12' Pelican variant, the argument for electric auxillary is
simpler.
1. In Texas, electric motors do not require registration.
2. My trolling motor (about 10 lbs) always starts after an offseason of
complete neglect!
3. Batteries can be gotten from AutoZone, Wal-mart or Academy for $50 - $60
bucks and will last a couple of seasons. MUCH Cheaper maintenance than my
Cuise'N'Carry.
4. Starting completely from scratch a complete system and be had for less
than $175.
5. At our messabout in April, a Jonsboat was powered by the $80 - $90
ubiquitous Wal-Mart 28 - 29 lb thrust motor and gave really delightful
performance and range.
6. With minimal investment, a facility can be made to charge the battery on
the trips too and from the lake for each use - as well as the minimal
battery charger - With 4 cars, we ALWAYS have a battery charger around the
house!!!
7. My primary lake does not allow internal combustion engines. I normally
use oars for auxillary on the "Lug Bug", but the trolling motor has made
some really nice trips to the lake.
The little lake in the Woodlands, TX that I frequent does not allow
engines. Bass fisherman show up with their 150 HP Evenrudes and NO FUEL
TANK and move comfortably about the lake on the trolling motor alone. It is
somewhat amazing that bass can be caught from a vessel that has not just
completed a 70 MPH excursion across the water. It is also amazing how much
better sailboats work if they are not subjected to power boat wakes!
Tim - low tech electric for low tech boats
>http://www.freshwaterseas.com/V02N04Apr99/Story1.aspThe following link is a real gem. Might take me several readings to absorb
enuff info to be beneficial. As the owner of a JuneBug, a canoe and
contemplating a 12' Pelican variant, the argument for electric auxillary is
simpler.
1. In Texas, electric motors do not require registration.
2. My trolling motor (about 10 lbs) always starts after an offseason of
complete neglect!
3. Batteries can be gotten from AutoZone, Wal-mart or Academy for $50 - $60
bucks and will last a couple of seasons. MUCH Cheaper maintenance than my
Cuise'N'Carry.
4. Starting completely from scratch a complete system and be had for less
than $175.
5. At our messabout in April, a Jonsboat was powered by the $80 - $90
ubiquitous Wal-Mart 28 - 29 lb thrust motor and gave really delightful
performance and range.
6. With minimal investment, a facility can be made to charge the battery on
the trips too and from the lake for each use - as well as the minimal
battery charger - With 4 cars, we ALWAYS have a battery charger around the
house!!!
7. My primary lake does not allow internal combustion engines. I normally
use oars for auxillary on the "Lug Bug", but the trolling motor has made
some really nice trips to the lake.
The little lake in the Woodlands, TX that I frequent does not allow
engines. Bass fisherman show up with their 150 HP Evenrudes and NO FUEL
TANK and move comfortably about the lake on the trolling motor alone. It is
somewhat amazing that bass can be caught from a vessel that has not just
completed a 70 MPH excursion across the water. It is also amazing how much
better sailboats work if they are not subjected to power boat wakes!
Tim - low tech electric for low tech boats
Dear list,
Many of the boats discussed in this list require minimal engines, and many
owners are keen to keep the environment clean as possible. I often wonder
why so few boats use electric auxiliaries, and can only put it down to cost.
The following is from
http://www.freshwaterseas.com/V02N04Apr99/Story1.asp
I have beem warned many times that electric motor manufacturers claims
should be carefully checked.
Whilst from a self-interested party, this following argument is very
persuasive, especially with the advent of Gel batteries and the opprtunity
to use them as ballast, which effectively debunks the weight
argument.................
As a standard boat, consider the Hunter 260 : 5000 pounds displacement,
offered with either an 8 horsepower outboard or a 9 horsepower diesel. Now
consider the following variations for auxiliary propulsion:
Electric motor: Sol-Z 8 hp outboard /Inboard 9.1 hp diesel: Yanmar 1GM10.//
Outboard 9.9 hp 4-stroke gasoline motor: Honda Four-Stroke 9.9
Weight of the motor:62 pounds /168 pounds /101 pounds
Fuel: 20 gallons = 152 pounds diesel /124 pounds gasoline
Batteries:520 pounds (can be positioned as ballast): 4 Lifeline 4D's50
pounds: Seavolt 27AH40 pounds: Seavolt 24 AH
Total weight 582 pounds /370 pounds /265 pounds
Cost to refuel 30 recharges per season at $.50 per recharge = $15.00 per
season. //
Diesel 3 refills per season at $1.25 per gal =
$75.00 //
Gas 3 refills per season at $1.15 per gal =
$69.00
System cost Motor:
$5090 (elec Outboard incl batt) $6600 (Elec Saildrive with batt) // Yanmar
about $7000 installed// Honda. $1800 installed.
The additional weight works out to about the weight of two additional crew
members. Since the weight of the batteries can be positioned low in the
boat, it may in fact improve the boat's performance and reduce the amount of
"rail meat" needed. The Sol-Z unit prices include controller, cables and so
forth. It is a European model, so one would also have to figure in shipping.
Clearly, the electric systems aren't beating the outboards for pure cost. To
choose an electric over an outboard, the non-financial advantages--quiet,
cleanliness, etc.--would have to be worth the price. Compared to the diesel,
however, we're beginning to see some price equality, provided that the usage
of the boat really does match up to the realities of an electric system.
One aspect of comparing electrical systems to internal combustion propulsion
is that you may get more actual working power out of the electrical system
than comparing horsepower ratings would lead you to believe. There are
enough variables running around to make generalization difficult, but an
internal combustion engine rated at 9.9 horsepower probably does not deliver
anything like that much power in actual motive force. Electric motors can
come closer to delivering rated power because they have higher thermal
efficiency than internal combustion engines, especially at less than full
power. People who operate actual electric boats frequently comment on the
responsiveness and control of the electric systems.
Cheers
Jeff Gilbert
Many of the boats discussed in this list require minimal engines, and many
owners are keen to keep the environment clean as possible. I often wonder
why so few boats use electric auxiliaries, and can only put it down to cost.
The following is from
http://www.freshwaterseas.com/V02N04Apr99/Story1.asp
I have beem warned many times that electric motor manufacturers claims
should be carefully checked.
Whilst from a self-interested party, this following argument is very
persuasive, especially with the advent of Gel batteries and the opprtunity
to use them as ballast, which effectively debunks the weight
argument.................
As a standard boat, consider the Hunter 260 : 5000 pounds displacement,
offered with either an 8 horsepower outboard or a 9 horsepower diesel. Now
consider the following variations for auxiliary propulsion:
Electric motor: Sol-Z 8 hp outboard /Inboard 9.1 hp diesel: Yanmar 1GM10.//
Outboard 9.9 hp 4-stroke gasoline motor: Honda Four-Stroke 9.9
Weight of the motor:62 pounds /168 pounds /101 pounds
Fuel: 20 gallons = 152 pounds diesel /124 pounds gasoline
Batteries:520 pounds (can be positioned as ballast): 4 Lifeline 4D's50
pounds: Seavolt 27AH40 pounds: Seavolt 24 AH
Total weight 582 pounds /370 pounds /265 pounds
Cost to refuel 30 recharges per season at $.50 per recharge = $15.00 per
season. //
Diesel 3 refills per season at $1.25 per gal =
$75.00 //
Gas 3 refills per season at $1.15 per gal =
$69.00
System cost Motor:
$5090 (elec Outboard incl batt) $6600 (Elec Saildrive with batt) // Yanmar
about $7000 installed// Honda. $1800 installed.
The additional weight works out to about the weight of two additional crew
members. Since the weight of the batteries can be positioned low in the
boat, it may in fact improve the boat's performance and reduce the amount of
"rail meat" needed. The Sol-Z unit prices include controller, cables and so
forth. It is a European model, so one would also have to figure in shipping.
Clearly, the electric systems aren't beating the outboards for pure cost. To
choose an electric over an outboard, the non-financial advantages--quiet,
cleanliness, etc.--would have to be worth the price. Compared to the diesel,
however, we're beginning to see some price equality, provided that the usage
of the boat really does match up to the realities of an electric system.
One aspect of comparing electrical systems to internal combustion propulsion
is that you may get more actual working power out of the electrical system
than comparing horsepower ratings would lead you to believe. There are
enough variables running around to make generalization difficult, but an
internal combustion engine rated at 9.9 horsepower probably does not deliver
anything like that much power in actual motive force. Electric motors can
come closer to delivering rated power because they have higher thermal
efficiency than internal combustion engines, especially at less than full
power. People who operate actual electric boats frequently comment on the
responsiveness and control of the electric systems.
Cheers
Jeff Gilbert