Computer or no computer?

A

aquatom

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Apr 2007
Messages
615
Location
Mallorca
Visit site
It seams that today's boats are getting more and more complex. I can understand the electronics making the engines more enviromentaly friendly and the fly by wire systems being more user friendly and easier for installation.

Some of the most recent models use toutch screen computers to control almost all of the onboard systems from nav lights to anchor winches. It all looks very nice but when the computer goes wrong (like they do for no apparent reason) the boat is rendered useless.

I have seen many people turn up to use their boats only to find the computer says no! They then spend the rest of the day stuck in a marina watching some bloke from their local dealer tapping away on a laptop and pressing buttons.

Who's been here before?

Is this really a step forward?

When looking to buy a boat who would opt for the "old fashioned" way of using switches and circuit breakers over the "one computer to control the lot" aproach?

Your thoughts....
 
It depends, if you are buying a boat to impress people who are not sailors go for the computer, if you want a boat that you can confidently take offshore in any weather and not have the rescue services on standby leave the computer on the dock.
 
Don't blame the computer - it's the level of redundancy that's built in that is at fault, imho.

Having a single ECU supported by ONE of each not-very-high-quality sensor is a fragile chain just waiting to go "beep" and drop back into limp home mode.

You'll be pleased to know that fly by wire aircraft do not work this way.

dv.
 
Depends what you mean by computer. If it's a closed system then I would probably be happy with it. It's no different to a Garmin plotter really. "Computers" are all over the place, not just engine ECU's - auto trim-tab probably has a programmable chip, microwave will have, VHF (fixed and handheld, plotter, mobile phone, burglar alarm....

Touch-screens are pretty reliable if they're indoors - they can be tricky to waterproof and you've combined a display and a control so you've lost redundancy. The one downside of touch-screens is that, once the screen goes, you lost the switch capability as well. You can get so much more by having pages behind a main screen that it's worth it sometimes though. You can also change the display to give info about the device you're switching. Bilge pump switch can show time it 's been running in the 24 hours, that sort of thing.

The problem is the software nearly all the time - the more customisable you make the system the more chance there is of it going wrong because one particular combination was missed. Doesn't matter how good the programmer was, there's just too much to cover. You can't even test it unless you know what you're going to hook up to it. It's no good saying it's all NMEA 2000 'cause that still gives millions of combinations once you bung in a few devices.

I certainly wouldn't let Java or Linux, never mind Windows near a half critical system if it wasn't locked down in some way from everyone including from me.

As Aquatom says , fly-by-wire is not really comparable to most boat systems. It's written to strict specs and then tested VERY thoroughly. It's also very restricted as to what you can add in to the system - no chance of bunging in an Airmar transducer on an Airbus obviously.

Fly-by-wire doesn't just get n+1 either, it gets at least three channels, maybe four and "voting" so the consensus wins. No reason you can't do that for marine systems if you're willing to pay the price but boats don;t dropout of the sky so we can get away with less reliable systems (a real comfort near a shipping lane in a Force 7 at night when it's chucking rain down so hard you can't even see you're own nav lights never mind anything else and the radar, plotter, etc. decide they've had enough).
 
grumpy_o_g said:
The problem is the software nearly all the time
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that.

I have read about zero boats that have ended up dead in the water due to any kind of software failure.

Instead, we have:

1.) Poor quality or faulty sensors, incorrectly reporting mechanical failures
2.) ECU failures
3.) Engine control systems designed with NO redundancy
4.) Sensors correctly reporting a mechanical failure

If the majority of failures are caused by 1.) 2.) and 3.), then boat manufacturers have a bit of thinking to do with regard to designing control systems that don't have single points of failure.

dv.
 
Last edited:
FlowerPower said:
Don't blame the computer - it's the level of redundancy that's built in that is at fault, imho.

Having a single ECU supported by ONE of each not-very-high-quality sensor is a fragile chain just waiting to go "beep" and drop back into limp home mode.

You'll be pleased to know that fly by wire aircraft do not work this way.

dv.
Click to expand...

In other words once you have one computer you really need 3 computers, and 3 sensors and 3 actuators and 3 wiring circuits ..............

Now stand back and ask again ....... Computer or no computer? :)
 
used Panasonic Toughbook

A use military grade CF 29 can be purchased for for 200 pounds. Dvd, wifi, full metal case, ports on every plug in port. 1.7 speed. No operating system ( was leased for 2 years)
XP operating system cost 30 pounds

Just bought my wife one used CF 29 on Ebay.com

Works fine too!
 
As other posts have said, it is generally the software that is at fault, rather than the hardware, although the marine environment is much harsher than automotive, where much of the hardware starts.

The big issue is the ammount of test and validation done.

A typical vehicle programme costs $1 bil ish. This funds an awful lot of simulation, and prototype test and dev. The big suppliers like Bosch and Valeo additionally spend huge ammounts on R&D.

These levels of funding just do not work in the marine leisure industry. How many prototype boats are built? 1 or 2 at best. A new vehicle programme will probably have more than 100, built over 3 design phases as the product matures, and then some 50 to 100 prior to launch for final validation. These are generally scrapped at the end of their test life. Contrast this with the ongoing problem resolution on boats in their first couple of years, especially with new powertrains.

In summary, computer systems can be great, improving features and efficiency, but only where validated properly. I might be interested in an IPS powertrain when we get to the third generation. Not before thanks.
 
Appreciate Nav Aids, Auto Pilot, Radar and all that stuff...., but have also crossed the North Sea without eletronics... relying upon Planning, Charts, Tide tables, Compass and analogue log... so can do without..

Less sure about electronics controlling the engines or propulsion units... Last thing I want is that electronic controls cutting out/in and limiting the engines in any way just when I need them.... Basically I do not want engine electronics to potentially put boat and passengers at risk..... and if I risk damage to engines, I'd want to have the final say in what to do, so an override is essential if I were to accept electronic engine controls. To be blunt ... I'd wreck the engines (and want the choice to do so) without hesitation if it was to save life, avoid injury to people or cause serious damage to vessel or environment.
 
aquatom said:
It seams that today's boats are getting more and more complex. I can understand the electronics making the engines more enviromentaly friendly and the fly by wire systems being more user friendly and easier for installation.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about engine management systems, then it is irresponsible of marine engine manufacturers you simply 'lift' the same system from a road vehicle without taking extra precautions (against damp & vibration for example) and also fitting a more effective 'get you home' (limp home) mode.

Its one thing to break down on a road and have to wait 30mins for the breakdown or recovery service to show up, but quite another if you breakdown at sea and have no choice but rely on the emergency services, that's apart from the potentially greater danger you could be exposed to with no propulsion.

I'm in no hurry to re-engine my boat with a drive by wire ecu controlled engine....

I
 
Had the choice when ordering my Sealine S37 (way back in 2002) Kad43's or KAD44's. I went for the 43's purely because of the simpler engine and little electronics. I've only had one problem and that was with the only bit of electronics, the speed sensor module for the supercharger!! I resented paying £200 for a new one but I hear that a new ECU is £2500!!
 
Divemaster1 said:
Last thing I want is that electronic controls cutting out/in and limiting the engines in any way just when I need them.... Basically I do not want engine electronics to potentially put boat and passengers at risk..... and if I risk damage to engines, I'd want to have the final say in what to do, so an override is essential if I were to accept electronic engine controls. To be blunt ... I'd wreck the engines (and want the choice to do so) without hesitation if it was to save life, avoid injury to people or cause serious damage to vessel or environment.
Click to expand...

Completely agree Divemaster, and have said it on here before. I'd like a big owner-override button so that if the engine wants to "limp home" I can override it and deliberately damage the engine if I choose to

That said, I've had 2 boats >1000hrs with EVC, and 2 electronicky gensets >2000hrs, and never had a problem. And I've reaped all the benefit of ECUs in the form of higher mpg, no soot on transom, zero smoke on cold start, etc
 
Agree with comments above.

Whilst there are considerable benefits with electronic engine control (would not want to be without it on everyday cars), I think there are two key disadvantages in marine:

1. Increased complexity and failures due to sensitive electronics/sensors in marine (bilge!) environment.

2. Following on from the first point, due to the relatively small numbers of marine engines relative the car engines we are somewhat stuck for alternatives to the main dealers when the electronics go wrong. This is likely to become more of a problem a few years down the line when boats have depreciated, and the engines are becoming less reliable due to age and potentially suspect maintenance.

I think the direction of travel is clear, and in a few years time we might all be in a position to benefit, but just not yet. In some ways it is a shame that the electronic systems currently used on marine applications are (seemingly) so complex. In essence the sensors and mapping required to run a marine engine efficiently should be far simpler than a car engine - for a start the load curve should be easiser to define? I would be keen on basic electronic managment of fueling (inc common rail etc) without all the add-ons for EVC etc....
 
chrisharris said:
sensitive electronics/sensors in marine (bilge!) environment.
Click to expand...

To be fair they seem to have done a good job making waterproof connectors to join all the looms together. They're sort of deutsch (sp?) connectors with triple lip seals in silicone rubber. Very effective

I also have them on my yamaha outboard (EFI) where they're much more prone to splashing, and they seem to work perfectly so far
 
Waterproof connectors were introduced onto vehicles in the late 1980's with the introduction of the vehicle electronics, hastening the death of Lucas, "The Prince of Darkness".

Sumitomo connectors are widely used and very reliable these days, and have migrated into the marine world.
 
There's another argument (often neglected, though admittedly marginal) against electronics: in case of a major fault (i.e. lightning strike, or something comparably bad), with traditional diesels the only problem you have is that you must go to the engine room to turn them off upon arrival.
With electronically controlled engines, you're bound to issue a pan pan.
If the VHF still works, that is... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top