Transmogrification and an opinion

Posted on 16. Jan, 2009 by Rich Lazzara in Lazzara Yachts

Some days you read things and you can’t help but wonder, what was that person thinking? That’s how I felt after reading “Pods and PMY” (Feb 09’) by Richard Thiel, the Editor-in-Chief of Power and Motoryacht magazine. In his latest op-ed piece he try’s to explain the “exploding popularity of pod drives”. Unfortunately several of his conclusions are just plain wrong. Now I would consider Richard one of the more knowledgeable people in our industry and in fact he and I recently spent the day cruising around on our new LSX92, which has pod drives. However when it comes to this op-ed piece I’m afraid he has it all wrong. The article starts off,

Unless you’ve been marooned on a desert island for the last two years (Welcome back! Now about your 401k.. )you’re well aware of the exploding popularity of pod drives. You many even have concluded, as have I, that within a very few years they’ll render the straight-inboard propulsion system not only obsolete but extinct.

So far so good, couldn’t have said it better myself

Considering the relatively short existence of IPS and the even shorter one of Zeus, this constitutes warp-speed change, at least in the boatbuilding world. But have you ever wondered why this transmogrification is taking place so quickly?

Note to self: use of 18 letter words is very impressive, must try.

Conventional wisdom says that boaters are flocking to pods because of their performance and efficiency advantages. But even if you take the advertising claims at face value, such improvements feel comparatively minor to the average boater.

The efficiency gains are more than just minor. This is a quote from Richard in an article he did on the Lazzara LSX92 “At 2000 rpm, the 92 burns 84 gph at better than 25 knots. The most similar boat we’ve tested may be the Pershing 88 we did in August 2001 (“Mega-Sport Import”). Powered by two 1,830-hp MTU 16V2000s and Arneson drives, she made 25.2 knots at 1800 rpm and burned 120 gph.” That’s a 36 gal/hr difference! Now the average Lazzara runs 300 hrs/year. Lets say of that 300hrs you run at 25 kts. 1/3^rd the time or 100hours. That’s 3,600 gallons less per year. At today’s fuel prices of $4/gal that’s a savings of $14,400! And that’s only accounting for the savings of 1/3^rd the running hours. The improvements are more than minor. More after the link,

How about maneuverability? After all, just about any human who can fog a mirror can dock a pod boat. But he or she can do nearly the same thing on plenty of straight-inboard and stern drive boats equipped with joysticks, albeit with the aid of bow and stern thrusters.

Not quite. I will put a novice in a pod drive boat and using a single joystick, within a short period of time, they will dock the boat themselves. That same person wouldn’t stand a chance trying to operate levers the conventional way, port and stbd. engine, bow and stern thruster, even if you run the thrusters through a single joystick it is still more difficult. Maybe I can simplify this, the difference between the conventional method mentioned and the pod drive systems is like the difference between trying to navigate your computer using only a keyboard, right/left/up/down arrows and enter key or just pointing and clicking with your mouse. Sure it can be done but it’s not as easy. He continues,

No, the real reasons why pods will soon replace inboards in new boats are space and money. When a builder chooses pod drives, he can basically move the engine room bulkhead aft by four feet, which means he can add a cabin. To you that means a boat that’s roomier and more comfortable. To him it’s about charging more for that cabin without incurring additional manufacturing costs.

Part of this is true. One of the huge selling features is the added room that you get by using pod systems. On our 92 it’s nearly 8 feet extra. However the theory that you can charge more is wishful thinking. Boats have been and always will be priced on length. So while a pod boat of 92 feet has the interior volume of a 100’ conventionally powered boat, we can’t get the price of 100’. That’s just the way it works. What we do sell over our competition is volume. For the same price our boat has more volume, one more room, bigger rooms, etc. Its not about charging more, ultimately the market determines the price anyways, it’s about doing more than the competition which makes our product more appealing to the customer.

Pod boats are also way less expensive to build. Lamination time is about the same as and inboard boat, but installing pods is much faster because the exhaust and steering systems are integral and there’s no prop-shaft alignment. Installing inboards is a job measured in days; pods it’s hours.

This is the one bothers me, “way less expensive to build”. Lets look at that on our yachts. It takes two guys one day (16 hrs) to install the pod drives on our LSX75. On our 74 motor yacht it takes three guys 6 days (144 hrs). Now lets use $100/hr (that’s really high but it proves my point even better). Using the pod system would save us $12,800 (128 hrs x $100). For context, we spend way more in shipping cost to get the parts delivered from around the world to be used on one LSX75. Is it less expensive? Yes. Way less expensive? No.

Efficiency and simplicity of operation are decided pod advantages but at the end of the day, this is one change that is being driven not by boaters but by builders.

The very essence of a free market is that the consumer ultimately determines what the builder will make. We build what we can sell and our customer tells us. To suggest that the customer isn’t behind this change is ludicrous. As if the customer is a mindless zombie capable of being manipulated into buying something that only benefits the builder, it’s just not the case. Here are some other major advantages of pod systems that were missed.

1. Quieter– another quote from Richard in the PMY test on our LSX92 “At 2150 rpm, I took decibel readings in every habitable space, and not one hit exceeded 68 dB-A, just over the level of normal conversation. What sound I did measure was water impacting the hull. “ A conventional powered boat would never hit those low dB-A numbers everywhere throughout the boat.

2. No exhaust fumes – with the underwater exhaust designed the way it is there is never any diesel fumes or hint of a smell when you start the boat or are running at sea

3. Repair cost – Ever ding a prop on a conventional boat of our size? Everyone has and it’s a mistake that costs thousands and takes weeks to repair. On a pod system its hundreds of dollars and you can change them in minutes effortlessly diving under the boat to do it yourself.

4. Draft – A pod system boat has a shallower draft than its conventional drive counterpart. Huge advantage and one that helps avoid #3.

5. Running angle – Ever see those boats that have the bow pointed to the sky when they’re trying to get on plain? Not in a pod drive boat; again PMY said about the LSX92, “Revealing no lag, no hump, and no hesitation at any point, the 92’s acceleration curve is about as flawless as we’ve ever gotten.”

I respect Richard a lot and he has probably been on more boats than I am days old (maybe not that many). However in this case he is wrong. I won’t argue that the pod system was introduced to the public by builders, because it was. Why? We experienced something that is the greatest revolution boating has seen in the last 50 years (the last great one being fiberglass which my grandfather helped pioneer). Don’t believe me? Go out and try it for yourself. I guarantee you will want a pod system after you use it. That’s the real people that are driving this change, the ones that have driven them.

Popularity: 9% [?]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

12 Responses to “Transmogrification and an opinion”

David Tomen CPYB

16. Jan, 2009

trans·mog·ri·fy (trāns-mŏg’rə-fī’, trānz-) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. trans·mog·ri·fied, trans·mog·ri·fy·ing, trans·mog·ri·fies
To change into a different shape or form, especially one that is fantastic or bizarre. See Synonyms at convert.

[Origin unknown.]
trans·mog’ri·fi·ca’tion (-fĭ-kā’shən) n. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Thanks for this article and once again your vision shines through. We are not the first nor will we be the last to find new uses for the Volvo IPS pod drives. For example the sportfishing crowd talked Volvo into coming up with a sportfishing mode. You can read more about the IPS system on the 34 Rampage by going to http://oasisyachts.com which features a video of the sportfishing mode in action.

This is the latest and most significant new advance in sportfishing since Earnest Hemingway put a steering wheel on the top of his boat to make the first flybridge.

Keep up the great and well thought out articles. I’ll take a shot at coming up with a name for your new line at Lazzara over the weekend!
Andrew

17. Jan, 2009

Pod drives are a natural evolution from the straight-inboard method of propulsion and the benefits are so clear that it is obvious which the customer would prefer if given the choice.

Also, let’s not forget about the cruising industry. For years now, more and more cruise lines have been designing their ships with Azipods rather than the traditional propulsion method. While reading the Captain’s posts on Holland America Line’s blog for their new ship, Eurodam, it is astonishing the number of docking maneuvers the ship experiences that would otherwise have been nearly impossible without Azipods.

If pod drives are good enough for the cruise lines to use in their significantly more expensive ships, why shouldn’t yacht owners expect a smaller version for their yachts?
Marc

17. Jan, 2009

Hello Rich,

True, an 18 letter word is quite impressive, but then you can have replied along these lines:

” The new IPS pod drives financial savings of over 14,000 dollars in a comparably equipped Pershing with same hour usage is truly supercalifragilisticexpealadocious in every way one could imagine”

transmogrification: 18 letters
supercalifragilisticexpealadocious: 35 letters
savings: 14,000 for 300 year hours

Lazzara’s win over editor’s commentary: Priceless
No offense taken « richlazzara

20. Jan, 2009

[...] 01 2009 Some people have asked me if Richard Thiel, Editor of PMY magazine would be angry about this article that I wrote last week. I decided to drop him an email making sure he wasn’t. His reply [...]
Rick

28. Jan, 2009

Rich,

I think another point missed was the extra accomodations come at a cost to you builders as well. Besides the obvious cost of the interior accomodations, there is the added weight that must be offset with the use of more exotic fabrics and resins to lighten the structure of the hull and deck. Weight control is essential to the performance you have been able to achieve.
Very well done indeed with both the 75 and the 92 LSX models!
Rich

28. Jan, 2009

Thank you. The combination of your Volvo IPS and the LSX building techniques make for an incredible performing machine.
Top 10 LSX92 Features (#6) « richlazzara

29. Jan, 2009

[...] you follow this blog you know my feeling on the pod systems, however if you missed it I wrote a rebuttal to an op-ed piece that the editor of Power and Motoryacht Magazine did and it really highlights many of the [...]
william

06. Feb, 2009

ok I agree pods are good and so forth tough I prefare the ZF version over Volvos IPS
but comparing the 92 with a Pershing 88 produced from 1999 till 2006 is wrong
another mistake in this comparison not mentioned here too is the Pershing is equipped with Arneson Surface Drives, which normally develop better efficceny abover 30 knots…
for example once I sea trialled a Baia 80 Panther and her best MPG was at full throotle doing about 50 knots
I think the comparison does not hold well too when you compare that the Pershing 88 needs also 25 knots to plane unless equipped with the latest S surface drives which also give a low planning speed in mids 10s or even lower
Rick

06. Feb, 2009

William,

Please explain what is it about the ZEUS that makes you prefer it over Volvo’s IPS? Very curious.

Odd choice perhaps for Richard Thiel to use the Pershing, but a 92′ at 25knts, well below 100GPH is still amazing, right?
William - PowerYacht

07. Feb, 2009

Hello Rick,
I agree both the LSX 75 and 92 are wonderfully economic sport yachts….
well done to you and Volvo IPS for this..
Prefare ZF Zeus to IPS for the following but I think both have there advantages in real terms:
1. rear facing props are safer, IMO I still imagine those forward facing props to get into something
2. the ZF Zeus is also fit for most of todays hull shapes and they can handle any deep vee really aft being fitted in tunnel pockets as similar shafts installations, as you are aware IPS on the other hand needs flatter vees aft on the 1/3 or 1/4 of the boat with less then 15 degrees of deadrise in this section if possible

on the other hand I heard also but I cannot confirm this really that IPS planes with lower RPM and speeds a big advantage with rough seas this, and also are more efficent in minus 30 knots speeds, on the other hand IPS seems to have a limit going over 40 knots with ZF seeming more efficient over 30 knots and also can go easily over the 40 knots limit altough still limited by drag, I think all this comes with rear facing props really
I never helmed a ZF Zeus so far but I did an IPS boat, I like its efficency that is a fact altough its ride is less solid then a shaft boat
Rick

11. Feb, 2009

Thanks William for the reply. The forward facing props seem to always be a concern. I have run many thousands of miles with IPS and it has never been a problem. I have unintentionally cut crab pot lines, chopped some pretty big submerged branches coming back from Canada and so on. The efficiency of having undisturbed water flow to the props and the ability to have such a large exhaust outlet aft (because the props are not there) I think outweigh the concern in my opinion. Tunnels sacrifice bouancy and create drag.
By the way, the IPS patent covers the forward facing and aft exhaust, so the CMD team work hard on putting the right marketing spin on it.
Just my 2 cents.
Chuck Husick

17. Jul, 2009

I know and respect Richard Thiel, however I find his comments about the use of pod drives, whether tractor or pusher prop configuration rather amazing. The advantages of a horizontal prop shaft are obvious under all maneuvering and cruising conditions and include elimination of the “P” factor that inevitably accompanies the use of an inclined prop shaft (ask anyone who flies a propeller driven aircraft to explain it to you). Regardless of any other advantages the use of pod drives may provide there is no arguing with the low speed maneuvering advantage of vectored thrust (as opposed to aft directed thrust that is then forced off line by a deflected, drag creating rudder. When we consider that the purpose for owning a large yacht it to have a large amount of usable interior space we have no choice other than the use of pod drives, even resorting to vee drives won’t do the job. Concerns about prop damage, whether forward or aft facing are actually of less concern with a pod drive than with a shaft drive. The only explanation I can come up with for Richard’s negative attitude about the use of pod drives is that he has to be sensitive to the companies whose products are most often seen in his publication. And as of now most of them have not caught-on and moved to pod drives. It’s also worth pointing out that the people who make money running things that float; from tug boats to cruise liners are using pod drives and some who build boats intended to run into things – ice breakers are doing the same.