|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 2, 2018 9:06:19 GMT
HP is just a convenient measurement to quote. Comparing the HP of an engine with humungous torque at low revs and a corresponding low peak HP due to the max power band being at low revs, with engines designed to produce peak power at higher revs is a nonsense, chaps.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jan 2, 2018 9:15:07 GMT
In the mid 1930's Harland & Wolff at North Woolwich and Yarwoods at Northwich turned out a largish number of motor narrowboats, capable of towing another similar but unpowered vessel and with a combined payload of up to almost 70 tons on the two, at 6 knots on adequately deep water with engines producing a mere 18 bhp. Today's piss poor imitations, with well under half the total displacement of a pair of fully loaded narrowboats, need around twice that horsepower to drag themselves along at somewhere near to similar speeds in similar depths. Do you really think that's something the creators of these so-called 'narrowboats' should be proud of, and is it what you're referring to when you say that "things have moved on" ? ............ or to be more accurate, '.. need an engine rated at twice that horsepower, but running at low speed and only producing about 8 bhp .....'.
|
|
|
Post by quaysider on Jan 2, 2018 9:25:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 9:27:58 GMT
It will be fine π Don't forget to rubber up as used engine oil is a bit rank
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2018 9:29:27 GMT
HP is just a convenient measurement to quote. Comparing the HP of an engine with humungous torque at low revs and a corresponding low peak HP due to the max power band being at low revs, with engines designed to produce peak power at higher revs is a nonsense, chaps. Only if you're considering bhp and torque at the engine flywheel, . . . reduction gearing multiplies the torque, but not the bhp, available at the tailshaft.
|
|
|
Post by quaysider on Jan 2, 2018 9:37:04 GMT
It will be fine π Don't forget to rubber up as used engine oil is a bit rank safe sex all the way :-0
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2018 9:40:07 GMT
As Gazza say's, it'll be fine. As I pointed out earlier, it's not what Engines Plus are recommending now (10W-30 or 40 is the latest approval for your engine model), but don't lose any sleep over that. Recommendations from people who keep changing their minds should NOT be taken too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 2, 2018 9:46:35 GMT
HP is just a convenient measurement to quote. Comparing the HP of an engine with humungous torque at low revs and a corresponding low peak HP due to the max power band being at low revs, with engines designed to produce peak power at higher revs is a nonsense, chaps. Only if you're considering bhp and torque at the engine flywheel, . . . reduction gearing multiplies the torque, but not the bhp, available at the tailshaft. I'm on your side of the arquement really. If my "new" boat is anything to go by, newer boats tend to be under propped rather than geared down. Both my boats have had around 40Hp. The old one had a big prop and a 3 cylinder Perkins and was a joy to drive. The new one, beta43, makes a load of froth and needs three or four times the revs to ... chuck froth about. The blades of the prop just don't stick out far enough for the hull design. Going forwards, putting in reverse stops it quite well, going backwards, put in forward gear and next to bugger all is the result without revving the nuts off it. It's a cake mixer attached to a skip.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2018 9:49:39 GMT
In the mid 1930's Harland & Wolff at North Woolwich and Yarwoods at Northwich turned out a largish number of motor narrowboats, capable of towing another similar but unpowered vessel and with a combined payload of up to almost 70 tons on the two, at 6 knots on adequately deep water with engines producing a mere 18 bhp. Today's piss poor imitations, with well under half the total displacement of a pair of fully loaded narrowboats, need around twice that horsepower to drag themselves along at somewhere near to similar speeds in similar depths. Do you really think that's something the creators of these so-called 'narrowboats' should be proud of, and is it what you're referring to when you say that "things have moved on" ? ............ or to be more accurate, '.. need an engine rated at twice that horsepower, but running at low speed and only producing about 8 bhp .....'. Really, . . . and how many modern day so-called 'narrowboats' can you point to that can achieve 6 knots on a river. It won't be many, and you won't be able to point to any at all that can do that with only around 8 bhp available at the tailshaft (shp).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 10:04:23 GMT
When I first bought Paneke in 2005 (Beta bv1903) I called at the boat yard at Portland basin to try to get API CC oil for my first change which was due.
I spoke to the very helpful chap there, who enquired why I was asking for a specific oil, and what engine I had.
When I told him, he laughed, then invited me 'out back' where he was digging out an old dock. In the bottom of a muddy hole, half submerged by horrible mucky water, was a piece of plant operating a pump.
He told me it was a Kubota diesel engined genny, with a very similar engine to that in my boat, but that it's original intention was for plant equipment (genny's, dumpers etc.).
Ever since that day I have felt less concerned about the oil I put in, although try to aim for low API, but rather I ensure whatever oil I can get is changed every 250 hours.
I understand your concerns, but I guess what everyone in their own inimitable way is trying to say is, it's not that important.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 2, 2018 10:11:58 GMT
Only if you're considering bhp and torque at the engine flywheel, . . . reduction gearing multiplies the torque, but not the bhp, available at the tailshaft. I'm on your side of the arquement really. If my "new" boat is anything to go by, newer boats tend to be under propped rather than geared down. Both my boats have had around 40Hp. The old one had a big prop and a 3 cylinder Perkins and was a joy to drive. The new one, beta43, makes a load of froth and needs three or four times the revs to ... chuck froth about. The blades of the prop just don't stick out far enough for the hull design. Going forwards, putting in reverse stops it quite well, going backwards, put in forward gear and next to bugger all is the result without revving the nuts off it. It's a cake mixer attached to a skip. A very apt description of how most of newly built boats perform, if I may say so. Thing is, though, the majority of boatowners won't believe just how badly their boats perform because, first off they don't want to believe it, and then they've never had, or experienced, anything to compare a typical modern day boat's crappy performance with. Almost without exception, they're under-propped (in both diameter, pitch and blade area) and the props are all turning much too fast for even modest efficiency on heavy, displacement hull forms. By coincidence, the boat I've got as a temporary measure for living on has a 3.152 (governed down to 1800 rpm) turning a (relatively) biggish and heavy pitched prop, which although still a long way off the ideal in terms of tailshaft/propeller rpm (2:1 reduction - should be at least 3:1), diameter and pitch, enables it to piss all over almost anything of the same hull form/type it's ever come up against on canal or river. Unfortunately it can't keep it up for very long on the river because the prats that fabricated the hull built in a skin tank that's barely half the size it should be.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 2, 2018 11:21:36 GMT
I'm on your side of the arquement really. If my "new" boat is anything to go by, newer boats tend to be under propped rather than geared down. Both my boats have had around 40Hp. The old one had a big prop and a 3 cylinder Perkins and was a joy to drive. The new one, beta43, makes a load of froth and needs three or four times the revs to ... chuck froth about. The blades of the prop just don't stick out far enough for the hull design. Going forwards, putting in reverse stops it quite well, going backwards, put in forward gear and next to bugger all is the result without revving the nuts off it. It's a cake mixer attached to a skip. A very apt description of how most of newly built boats perform, if I may say so. Thing is, though, the majority of boatowners won't believe just how badly their boats perform because, first off they don't want to believe it, and then they've never had, or experienced, anything to compare a modern day boat's crappy performance with. By coincidence, the boat I've got as a temporary measure for living on has a 3.152 turning a (relatively) biggish and heavy pitched prop, and it will piss all over anything it's ever come up against on canal or river. Unfortunately it can't keep it up for very long on the river because the prats that fabricated the hull built in a skin tank that's barely half the size it should be. My mate John has a 3.152 in his 55 x 10 widebeam goes well I have a yanmar in mine which goes well but it took Woodwards to sort it out as the prop was all wrong. As for oil I have always used 5 . 30 in mine as its what we have at work its fully synthetic and the boat starts first turn of the key and used nowt between services
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 2, 2018 18:45:27 GMT
Why would I want to refrain from using my boat as a mobile laundry? And more to the point, why would you think it OK to tell me how I should use my boat? Weird! The problem of overpowered engines would equally well be fixed if we filled in the canals and kept our boats on the moon. But neither is a helpful or sensible suggestion. As I said, things have moved on. Iβm sure that your grandfather would have taken a similar view to you when his beloved horse was in danger of being replaced by a noisy, dirty, internal combustion engine. Why would anyone possibly have need for more than one horse? Clearly all modern boat builders are fools and it is such a shame that you didnβt turn your talents to building perfect boats, instead of just talking about them. Of course if you had done, you might have eventually discovered that having a smaller engine and separate genset requires much more space and much more cash, and all to fix a problem that doesnβt really exist. I'm not even going to bother replying to most of that load of rambling nonsense, but as for my opinion of modern, so-called boatbuilders, you're almost on the right lines, because I really don't think very much of them. The prize fools, however, are those buy their crappy products and then try so publicly and so hard to convince themselves that they've got something good in return for the vast sums of money they've forked out. In the mid 1930's Harland & Wolff at North Woolwich and Yarwoods at Northwich turned out a largish number of motor narrowboats, capable of towing another similar but unpowered vessel and with a combined payload of up to almost 70 tons on the two, at 6 knots on adequately deep water with engines producing a mere 18 bhp. Today's piss poor imitations, with well under half the total displacement of a pair of fully loaded narrowboats, need around twice that horsepower to drag themselves along at somewhere near to similar speeds in similar depths. Do you really think that's something the creators of these so-called 'narrowboats' should be proud of, and is it what you're referring to when you say that "things have moved on" ? You really are very pleased with yourself! However you are all talk and no action. You have never built a leisure boat, which is a good thing because you have no idea what customers want. I really donβt give a fuck if a historic boat drawing 3β or so (with corresponding big diameter prop) is more efficient in deep water. Iβm sure it probably is, but you are too thick to see that that is of no consequence for a leisure boat. I donβt want to cruise around in the aquatic equivalent of a dumper truck, and neither do most other people. You quite old and are stuck in the past. Shame, but fairly normal for old codgers I suppose. I tended to believe what you wrote about the Planet shenanigans but now wonder if itβs just all part of your dream world.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 2, 2018 19:22:18 GMT
Oh nick you are upset aren't you? Did someone not agree with what you think?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 2, 2018 20:10:52 GMT
Oh nick you are upset aren't you? Did someone not agree with what you think? No. And yes. I am all for debate but when the opponent is even more arrogant than me, it gets trying!
|
|