Inboard engine vs. outboard motor on CP23--my situation

[tmw]

It seems that Neander conquered the vibration problem with 2 counter rotating crankshafts. A very innovative design.

...requiring 175 kg of mass (385 pounds), more than 100 pounds heavier than a comparable 50 hp gas o/b.
talk about creating a stern squat... hopefully there are lighter models.

[Mas]

"I entered a CP twenty three that had a diesel inboard ... the whole inside of that hull stunk like fuel oil ... the wife said, "Your not bring that home.""


The cramped quarters of a diesel on a 23 means you either use absorbent pads when doing engine work and/or be fastidious in cleanup. Once a year, you air it out and are good to go till next season. Certainly less of a long term nuisance than the smell of 2 cycle! 4 cycle outboards rule there. Many good reasons for both outboards and diesels. Neither is better depending upon your intent. I like my diesel and actively sought one. On the 23's the resale value is significant as the law of supply and demand sets in with diesels. The one cylinder 10gm is a work horse and sips fuel. Yes it thumps more, and has less moving parts. Three cylinders are even more balanced than two, four even more, at some point you have to decide what you are seeking. I wanted simplicity, economy, small size and weight. There are always trade offs, only understanding what you seek leads you to what is best for your purpose. I recommend that one should be happy with what they have! The grass aways seems greener on the other side of the dock.

As far as a lawnmower engine goes...if my lawnmower stops i am done cutting grass. If my outboard stops it will more than likely be when i needed it and cannot simply pull over and call AAA.

A diesel outboard such as Neander makes are not for our little 23's. Truly too powerful and heavy. An ingenious design however, and should fill a nice workboat market.

There are reasons that there are hundreds of CP23's with OB's and probably less than 50 with diesels. The 23D was/is a pricey boat. There may be arguments as to the enhanced sea handling with a diesel with more weight below waterline, the prop staying in the water, longer range, better charging, safer fuel, motor out of the weather. But there is also the advantage of price, re-powering with an OB, the ability to steer with the motor, and selection. Gotta know what you seek.

With that said....diesels rule!

[moonlight]

Block corrosion is one of those sleeping gremlins that awakes with a startle...
...I had to go get a bayboat last night, stuck on the water, 1996 Yamaha 225 2-stroke.  was running great.  then wasn't.
last time it was in the shop, we did compression (as we always do) all six cylinders between 125-130.  Will check it tomorrow or Tuesday, but just basis their description I expect to find a hole in a head or the water jacket into a cylinder.
Entirely different animal; aluminum heads and such, and much higher hours on an outboard from a fishing boat (but I think this one is still less than 500?) than from a sailboat auxiliary diesel; but corrosion knows no limits and particularly if your block zinc has been neglected it's the time of corrosion doing the damage not the water flushing through.
And just for curiosity sake, I'll try to report back on the dead Yamaha later this week.

Had no idea I'd stir such a pot with creel limit math equations, but moving on from there have an update on that sick Yamaha that nobody was really worried about or caring about... but it does lead us to understand our value and longevity as sailors and how the darwinian forces will equal out.
Compression was fine (did the whole test from the back of the motor, never moving around the port side).  Had changed gear oil prior just because it was due.  Looking at good compression and new plugs, noticed on-engine fuel filter 1/2 full of air.  Couldn't get the bulb to squeeze up at all.  Fuel gauge read 1/4.  Oh, and 2-stroke oil dripping all over out of the carbs (it's oil injected at almost that point).
On a whim, hooked  her up and stopped at the gas station on the way to the ramp.  Got a nice receipt for 59.7 gallons of premium introduced into an advertised 60 gallon tank.  Amazingly, the bulb worked fine now.  So did the engine, ran like a scalded cat, except the whole thing was a bit squirrelly as they had the jackplate too high.  Lowered it for more bite, and she dug and ran.
Returned it to the customer's home and strolled back to the ramp and the truck ...

[brackish]

It can't be said that gas outboard or diesel inboard is superior as it depends on the application

The nail has been hit on the head.  It is good to hear perspectives from folks who have varied needs and applications but one size does not fit all.

I wish battery development was further along as otherwise electric propulsion has some distinct advantages.

Me too.  In fact with my current cruising profile it would work fine for me.  I need about 6-8 total miles of cruising range.  I'm on a relatively small lake so heavy seas or very high head winds would be very rare.  I have dockside power and AC already on the boat for recharge.  What would be perfect would be batteries that would take the place of ballast but in the same place and an inboard electric drive system.  I would not want an electric outboard because it would not give the advantage of less stern weight and better trim, but a silent running electric inboard would be great.  The barrier right now of course is cost.

[Potcake boy]

Is it possible to adapt an inboard drive to electric coupled directly to the drive shaft? I'm guessing that it would require a very different prop because of the motor speed. The nice thing is our displacement hull boats can carry the extra weight of batteries without much penalty. Placed appropriately the batteries could replace some of the ballast. The motor would also constitute ballast so you would have a properly ballasted boat with the weight located low and amidships just where it should be. I'd be surprised if no one has researched using batteries as ballast replacement for electric drive systems. Now I am sure an electric motor doesn't have to be expensive and lasts forever with no maintenance. So the question here may be one of the cost of batteries compared to an internal combustion engine. The only problem remains the availability of recharging these batteries when needed. So Brackish, maybe your solution isn't so elusive. A great project would be to nab one of those old neglected 16 footers and use it for a prototype electric inboard with batteries in the keel for ballast. The Com-Pac shoal keels seem to lend themselves to that purpose. You may be able to fit 4 in the keel of a 16. Has anyone examined the new electric launch for battery placement, but then it wouldn't be ballast oriented like a sail boat.

Electric propulsion is now available but is limited by battery development. As battery advances are made, electric propulsion will be suitable for a wider array of applications, and therefore should become cheap enough to compete with fossil fuel.

I like wind and electric for boats - they are the two cleanest, most reliable and renewable energy sources given to us by Mother Nature. Not to mention the quietest. Oh sorry I forgot about oars, but they aren't quiet when used to get home because the motor wouldn't start.

Ron

[moonlight]

batteries as ballast is kind of like a McGregor 25 - it's neither a speedboat, nor a sailboat.
Ballast already has an important job; leave it alone.
The batteries have an important job too, and to optimize them, don't weigh much, so they don't do the ballast job well.

Example - a customer whom we've helped fit electric propulsion.
1973 Columbia 45.  A tank that floats, really.
15KW of LiFePO4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate cells) fits in a 2'x2'x1' box; 4 cubic feet, and weighs 312#.
15KW in any version of lead battery would be over 2,000#, so there's ballast.
But the Pb (lead) batteries have a cycle life of 300-500 cycles, only 50% depth of discharge (DOD) on the best day, and a C rating of about 5 (which is how fast it can discharge or recharge, limited to about 20% in the best case of the Amp-hours (Ah) of the battery).
LiFePO4 has been run over 3,000 cycles (nominal 6x the life) to 80% DOD (60% or more usable capacity) with a C rating of 1 or even 0.5 (meaning a 100Ah cell can deliver 100~200 Ah, continuous (even if only for 30 min), and recharge just as fast).

So LiFePO4 wins hands down.  Sure, it's 3x the cost.  But 6x the life, so now it's 1/2 price compared to Pb (life-cycle).  And 60% greater capacity, even more cost savings.  And recharges relatively instantaneously, instead of over night or over the weekend...
But it doesn't weigh enough to be suitable ballast...

[brackish]

batteries as ballast is kind of like a McGregor 25 - it's neither a speedboat, nor a sailboat.
Ballast already has an important job; leave it alone.
The batteries have an important job too, and to optimize them, don't weigh much, so they don't do the ballast job well.

With all due respect, that is a pretty poor analogy.  A 23 has 1340 lbs. of ballast.  Concrete and lead mix I believe, poured into the keel box.  So 1340 minus weight of the required batteries that are located in the same keel box, locked in place on top for proper replacement and maintenance, equals the new amount of poured ballast.  No difference in the total weight or weight distribution, so no difference in the sailing performance of the boat.  If the batteries are less dense, you use more lead, less concrete in the ballast and lower the batteries to keep the center of mass the same as it is now.

You can put 312# on a Columbia 45 anywhere and not notice much difference, but add any weight to the 23 and you better be careful where it is or she don't do right.

I'm not talking about starting with an existing 23, leaving the current ballast intact and just adding batteries.  I'm talking about new production or removing ballast from an existing boat and starting over.

Com-Pac currently offers an electric drive in one of its models, and I'm sure they would adapt it to the 23 if you requested it.  Last I checked I think it was an $18,000 adder to the base boat.  At that price I can live with my $1500 Sail Pro that has been absolutely trouble free from day one.

[Mas]

Well it appears we should declare this thread officially diesel engine vs outboard motor vs electric drive on the 23! Good news is that all three can be accomplished and all three are simply auxiliary as we have SAILboats! Our first boat a CP16, (well i did rig up a canoe earlier with an old sail from a friends junked sunfish and some lee boards) and we sailed that 16 for three seasons before we got a used long shaft 4.5 Johnson. Thought i had died and gone to heaven! Wife was happier too.

It will be fun to watch the emergence of electric drives, but mostly the batteries. The weak link.

Diesel rocks my boat!

[HeaveToo]

What is really true is what I tell my power boating friends. 

A sailboat without an engine is still a sailboat; A power boat without an engine is a barge!

[Mas]

[cdflan]

I think moonlight has some bad information.  I installed a modified Torqeedo Cruise 4.0R in my Horizon Cat powered by four 214AH batteries for slightly over 10KWH and at only 500#.  Three of the batteries slid in where the engine normally would and the fourth was dropped into the keel forward of the centerboard under the sole at Gerry's suggestion (adding to the ballast with a low CG).  She will cruise at 4.5 knots for 8 hours if needed.  Don't know what the inside of the keel or any engine space looks like on the 23 but I was originally going to put all four batteries in the engine space but missed by 1/2".  The battery is an Odyssey 1800-FT and measures 5" wide, 23" deep and 12" high.  If as you indicate you only have limited requirements to get in and out, the Torqeedo 1003 outboard with selfcontained battery is said to power a boat of your displacement (if you don't have to fight strong tide or winds).  It is rated as 3HP equivalent and weighs only 30# complete with battery.  The equivalent power of the Cruise 4.0R is 9 HP but the all in price is about double a 9.9 HP gasoline outboard.  The 1003 is actually less (pricewise and power).
If you want to see the battery installation, go to   http://cpyoa.geekworkshosting.com/forum/index.php?topic=6926.0
Having owned all sorts of boats and power plants over the years, electric is by far the most elegant!

[Mas]

Electric is indeed elegant, quiet and outside of batteries and replacements, less to replace and repair than internal combustion. Right now the cruising ability of the diesel is hard to match. That is important for us. If we were not in a location that tides, currents and wave action where the HP is needed, the lower thrust motors could work, but still not for long blocks in coastal cruising. I still love the electric concept and am sure the technology will continue to improve.

Kuddos for making the jump cdfian! Keep us posted here.