Electric outboard - my expensive mistake

[lustyd]

It's a good question and I have no idea at all. Would you like me to find out for you?

Piers

If there's a reason it would be nice to know. I suspect they will say something about managing power consumption or something but this is the sort of thing which will make me wait for a couple of generations (and use old 2strokes where possible!)

 

[mainsail1]

Just heard from John (Torqeedo Supremo) who tells me,

1) The error message is a software bug which arises on occasions when going from reverse to forward and vis versa, and there's a software upgrade solution for this. It's nothing to do with the motor itself.

2) John is sending suitable packaging so there's no need to be concerned about damage in transit. The software upgrade will be done at Torqeedo's Cambridge Centre.

3) The work will, of course, be done free of charge.

A succesful outcom? Another feather in the cap for the forum?

Piers

Thanks very much Piers. You seem to have a direct line to 'the Supremo' as I am not up to date with much of what you have just said.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for a while longer! Incidentally, in reply to your previous question, I reported the latest problem in May to their main repair centre in Great Yarmouth who had already repaired the beast after the water ingress.

 

[Piers]

Thanks very much Piers. You seem to have a direct line to 'the Supremo' as I am not up to date with much of what you have just said.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for a while longer! Incidentally, in reply to your previous question, I reported the latest problem in May to their main repair centre in Great Yarmouth who had already repaired the beast after the water ingress.

I've known John for a few years so I'm pleased to be able to help. Can I ask if it was it a UK Dealer you bought your Torqeedo from?

Piers

 

[Piers]

If there's a reason it would be nice to know. I suspect they will say something about managing power consumption or something but this is the sort of thing which will make me wait for a couple of generations (and use old 2strokes where possible!)

Hi Lustyd,

I have an answer for you - "We use a very sophisticated and very efficient high revving brushless AC motor. It is all digitally controlled by software. It is not like the old, inefficient brushed dc motors of the past."

So it seems that progress means software is in control - as in so many cases such as engines, aircraft, etc.

Piers

 

[mainsail1]

I've known John for a few years so I'm pleased to be able to help. Can I ask if it was it a UK Dealer you bought your Torqeedo from?

Piers

Yes, I purchased it from Barnet Marine. Never went to their shop. Just looked at the Torqeedo video, saw that it was waterproof (ha,ha!) and rang various suppliers. They happened to offer the best price.

 

[Piers]

Yes, I purchased it from Barnet Marine. Never went to their shop. Just looked at the Torqeedo video, saw that it was waterproof (ha,ha!) and rang various suppliers. They happened to offer the best price.

Yes, I purchased it from Barnet Marine. Never went to their shop. Just looked at the Torqeedo video, saw that it was waterproof (ha,ha!) and rang various suppliers. They happened to offer the best price.

Hi Mainsail1,

To be fair, the website shows the 1003 is waterproof to IP67. The definition (as far as I can see) of IP 67 is,

The first digit refers to 'the level of protection that the enclosure provides against access to hazardous parts (e.g., electrical conductors, moving parts) and the ingress of solid foreign objects.

In this case, the '6' stands for 'No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact'.

The second digit indicates the level of protection that the enclosure provides against harmful ingress of water.

In this case, the '7' stands for 'Immersion up to 1m', and 'Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1m of submersion)', and 'Test duration: 30 minutes. Immersion at depth of at least 1m measured at bottom of device, and at least 15cm measured at top of device'.

Given you say your Torqeedo was immersed to 2m and that you waited until the tide was out, it appears you exeeded the design limits in two ways.....so in answer to your previous comment, yes, I think you are being a tad unfair to Torqeedo.

However, still more than happy to help, and you now have John's contact details to make all the arrangements direct with him for the s/w upgrade.

 

[Greenheart]

Given you say your Torqeedo was immersed to 2m and that you waited until the tide was out, it appears you exeeded the design limits in two ways.....so in answer to your previous comment, yes, I think you are being a tad unfair to Torqeedo.

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of the w'proofing standard - although, as you specify the maximum actual depth the motor can safely sink to, and the brief timespan it will be okay there, the boast Torqeedo make about its waterproofing seem irrelevant to probable incidents and accidents.

 

[FWB]

The boast Torqeedo make about its waterproofing seem irrelevant to probable incidents and accidents.

You are correct but I am happy that my electronic outboard can be rained on and splashed. I will try not to drop it in the drink......hope that's not inviting trouble

 

[FishyInverness]

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of the w'proofing standard - although, as you specify the maximum actual depth the motor can safely sink to, and the brief timespan it will be okay there, the boast Torqeedo make about its waterproofing seem irrelevant to probable incidents and accidents.

Really? I'd say it's pretty good if you consider it's almost top of the scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

If you think about it, IP67 for the electric is better than a standard 4-stroke petrol outboard which would only score around IP46 (and that's being generous in the second, waterproofing digit!)

 

[glashen]

You are correct but I am happy that my electronic outboard can be rained on and splashed. I will try not to drop it in the drink......hope that's not inviting trouble

In my experience it is a good idea if anything on the boat is "waterproof" If you intend to take it swimming with you "totally waterproof" would be a reasonable definition not sure what the certification is but I would make sure before I bought anything intended or likely to be totally immersed.

 

[glashen]

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of the w'proofing standard - although, as you specify the maximum actual depth the motor can safely sink to, and the brief timespan it will be okay there, the boast Torqeedo make about its waterproofing seem irrelevant to probable incidents and accidents.

Not really I have always thought it was a good idea to tie any outboard on to the dinghy with a safety line that should limit both its time in the water and the depth to which it sinks.

 

[Greenheart]

Not really I have always thought it was a good idea to tie any outboard on to the dinghy with a safety line that should limit both its time in the water and the depth to which it sinks.

Excellent point. And I can see why a powerful bit of electric kit needs to have a fair degree of water-resistance, even excluding overboard accidents.

 

[mainsail1]

The dictionary definition of waterproof is: Impervious to or unaffected by water.

Everybody knows that ingress of water to a an electrical item means disaster. Torqeedo should make their product waterproof in the true sense of the word as water ingress spells disaster. I have an electrical pond pump that has worked underwater in our pond for ten years with no problem. The manufacturer has enclosed the electrics in resin because he knows he must keep water out at all costs.

Mechanical outboards can usually be fixed quite easily if it is found that they are not waterproof.

 

[FWB]

This is unfair to Torqeedo.
Your expensive mistake was not in buying the unit but in exceeding the stated design parameters.
I hope it is fixed soon, I think they are excellent motors.

 

[Greenheart]

I have an electrical pond pump that has worked underwater in our pond for ten years with no problem. The manufacturer has enclosed the electrics in resin because he knows he must keep water out at all costs.

That's another good point. I had a sump-pump in a well in France for five years...it was 240 volts AC, and designed to be permanently immersed. That said, I can't believe Torqeedo, who otherwise seem to be fairly state-of-the-art, would be slack about waterproofing if a workable solution was possible.

 

[FishyInverness]

This is unfair to Torqeedo.
Your expensive mistake was not in buying the unit but in exceeding the stated design parameters.
I hope it is fixed soon, I think they are excellent motors.

+1

You will find a plethora of marine kit which describes itself as waterproof and has only an IP67 rating - if someone's going to start picking on one, they might as well go for them all!

Having worked for a main Yamaha dealer and servicing agent in the past, I will also have to disagree with your opinion that mechanical outboards which have been submerged can be fixed quite easily - having seen two 60hp engines which had been fully immersed for a short period and the resulting repair bill!

(Ok, to be fair, it wasn't exactly a difficult job for the mechanic, so "quite easily" is probably applicable - but BL***DY expensive would also be! )

 

[AntarcticPilot]

+1

You will find a plethora of marine kit which describes itself as waterproof and has only an IP67 rating - if someone's going to start picking on one, they might as well go for them all!

Watch manufacturers no longer put "Waterproof" on watches; they are "Water Resistant" - with usually a specification of the depth to which they can be immersed. And unless battery changes or other work are done by a certified agent, they don't usually guarantee the water resistance after the case has been opened.

Saying something is "waterproof" is giving hostages to fortune; the reason the watch manufacturers changed is because they were getting too many claims when "waterproof" watches failed after immersion, no matter how unresonable the degree of immersion was. "Waterproof" is held to be an absolute thing; so "water resistant" is much safer!

Waterproof to IP?? is an oxymoron combining an absolute claim with limitations on that claim; you should say water resistant to IP?? But if you do say "Waterproof", most people will assume that it means what it says!

 

[glashen]

Watch manufacturers no longer put "Waterproof" on watches; they are "Water Resistant" - with usually a specification of the depth to which they can be immersed. And unless battery changes or other work are done by a certified agent, they don't usually guarantee the water resistance after the case has been opened.

Saying something is "waterproof" is giving hostages to fortune; the reason the watch manufacturers changed is because they were getting too many claims when "waterproof" watches failed after immersion, no matter how unresonable the degree of immersion was. "Waterproof" is held to be an absolute thing; so "water resistant" is much safer!

It would be more accurate to say water resistant but apart from watches no one appears to and even then you can find plenty of "waterproof watches" with a google search, it is only when you check the specifications you find "water resistant" to ????. Although I have a lot of sympathy with the desire for linguistic accuracy it does seem to be that the specification of what is meant is the essential thing, before the IP rating system we really had no idea what was meant by these terms at least now you should be able to find out if it is suitable for what you intend. I remember in the 1990s reading an article about a crossing of the Irish sea in a Wayfarer using an early "waterproof" Hand held GPS. in testing the author had units fail and eventually tested one by dropping it in a bucket of water, it failed. I hope the kit we buy now can be expected to fare better.

The amount of research we do before making any purchase is interesting and I must admit mine can vary quite a lot. I am contemplating buying a TV at present and am getting a headache reading specifications. Surely reasonable though when making a substantial purchase to fully read the manufacturers specifications.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It would be more accurate to say water resistant but apart from watches no one appears to and even then you can find plenty of "waterproof watches" with a google search, it is only when you check the specifications you find "water resistant" to ????. Although I have a lot of sympathy with the desire for linguistic accuracy it does seem to be that the specification of what is meant is the essential thing, before the IP rating system we really had no idea what was meant by these terms at least now you should be able to find out if it is suitable for what you intend. I remember in the 1990s reading an article about a crossing of the Irish sea in a Wayfarer using an early "waterproof" Hand held GPS. in testing the author had units fail and eventually tested one by dropping it in a bucket of water, it failed. I hope the kit we buy now can be expected to fare better.

The amount of research we do before making any purchase is interesting and I must admit mine can vary quite a lot. I am contemplating buying a TV at present and am getting a headache reading specifications. Surely reasonable though when making a substantial purchase to fully read the manufacturers specifications.

It's not just linguistic accuracy - watchmakers were losing money because trading standards people interpreted "Waterproof" as an absolute thing. It would be interesting to see if Trading Standards would take up a test case to see if "Waterproof" trumped IP coding - precedent may well be that it should!

 

[Piers]

It's not just linguistic accuracy - watchmakers were losing money because trading standards people interpreted "Waterproof" as an absolute thing. It would be interesting to see if Trading Standards would take up a test case to see if "Waterproof" trumped IP coding - precedent may well be that it should!

Waterproof IP67 v Water Resistant IP67 - misleading implications?

I've checked the site again, and the Features and Benefits page for the 1003 states 'completely waterproof (IP 67)', and in the video, the words used by Torqeedo's MD are the same whilst the words 'waterproof IP67' are shown on screen.

I suspect they will have checked to ensure they were not mis-leading in the eyes of the law, but I'm going to ask my Supremo contact to see what Torqeedo thinks about any potential mis-understanding and whether a more detailed explanation should be stated to reduce mis-interpretation without leaving it to the reader to find out what IP67 means.

Makes sense?