| |
Bertram31.com General Bulletin Board
Re: Mercruiser Gets it righter?
Posted By: Harv In Response To: Re: Mercruiser Gets it righter? (CMP)
Date: Thursday, 16 March 2006, at 8:26 p.m.
Hopefully maybe I can ad the voice of reason to this topic. Regardless of the the advantages or disadvantages, the main concern is that on a newly built boat the cost will be absorbed in the manufacturing process as it will already be designed into the architecture of the boat. To retrofit this system to a boat already designed for shafts and rudders may be out of the range of feasability. Let alone having to create pockets for the units to be properly placed in the hull.
The technology is not new. The only thing new is the adaptation towards the recreational consumer. The principles make logical sense, no shaft angle, the thrust is parallel to the hull, which is ideal for optimum efficiency. The skeg is designed so that if it hits major obstructions, will shear off while maintaining the integrity of the hull. We all know that it is possible to send the struts through the hull on a hard grounding or obstruction, leading to a new unwanted thru-hull opening. Personally, I like the Merc version better than the Volvo for the simple reason that the skeg offers a level of protection to the props that is not available on forward facing props.
My intentions are not to promote or knock any designs, just trying to be open minded. The only way to tell if the system works will be in everyday, real world usage. Only then will we have the results to make justifiable decisions.
Harv
| |
Bertram31.com General Bulletin Board is maintained by Patrick McCrary with WebBBS 5.12.