Gyro stabilizers

[grumpy_o_g]

One thing not mentioned yet about gyros is containment in the event of failure. In view of talk of bearings failing this becomes a bit more relevant too. The amount of kinetic energy contained in that gyro is considerable and I'd want to be pretty sure that it was contained in the event of catastrophic failure. I've seen the amount of damage even comparatively small gyros can do and, whilst it can be contained, I wouldn't be comfortable with the thought of that between the hull and my feet if I didn't know the design included that consideration.

 

[Bouba]

PS: btw, it's funny to see the "maintenance strakes", as I think Nordhavn call them, in your first pic.
They look like some sort of afterthought buoyancy appendix - you'd never guess the rationale behind them without knowing it...!

Ok I'll bite, what?

 

[TwoHooter]

Ok I'll bite, what?

The "Maintenance Strakes" are described by Nordhavn like this:
'The engine room on the Nordhavn 40 is a big improvement over other under-saloon-sole engine rooms - made possible by the use of P.A.E.'s novel maintenance strakes. These two large blisters in the hull create meaningful pockets of additional standing room on both sides of the center-mounted engine. There is almost 5 feet of headroom, which is only possible because of the maintenance strakes. Otherwise, you'd be crawling around on hands and knees, which seems pretty silly on any expensive cruising motorboat. '
I like the idea of "standing room" but the smallest Nordhavn where you can actually stand up in the engine room is the 47.
I forget which model had these blisters in the first place, but the idea was that the company was ready to accept up to half a knot speed penalty in return for the improved engine room access. Tank testing proved that for some obscure hydrological reason that I'm not sure even Nordhavn fully understand the strakes do not reduce speed at all, and I believe they patented them.
Now, back to Gyros.....

 

[Bouba]

The "Maintenance Strakes" are described by Nordhavn like this:
'The engine room on the Nordhavn 40 is a big improvement over other under-saloon-sole engine rooms - made possible by the use of P.A.E.'s novel maintenance strakes. These two large blisters in the hull create meaningful pockets of additional standing room on both sides of the center-mounted engine. There is almost 5 feet of headroom, which is only possible because of the maintenance strakes. Otherwise, you'd be crawling around on hands and knees, which seems pretty silly on any expensive cruising motorboat. '
I like the idea of "standing room" but the smallest Nordhavn where you can actually stand up in the engine room is the 47.
I forget which model had these blisters in the first place, but the idea was that the company was ready to accept up to half a knot speed penalty in return for the improved engine room access. Tank testing proved that for some obscure hydrological reason that I'm not sure even Nordhavn fully understand the strakes do not reduce speed at all, and I believe they patented them.
Now, back to Gyros.....

Look, I tried to go back to gyros, I waited till the feeling passed but it didn't. I want to talk engine room height because that is one of the best stories I've heard.

 

[TwoHooter]

Look, I tried to go back to gyros, I waited till the feeling passed but it didn't. I want to talk engine room height ......

I know a good therapist. She has had some remarkable successes in moderating the ill effects of strange obsessions. Would you like her number?

 

[Bouba]

I know a good therapist. She has had some remarkable successes in moderating the ill effects of strange obsessions. Would you like her number?

I already have a therapist

 

[MapisM]

Next killer Q for MapishM is the same as above ,but by your hawk eyed underwriters before a payout.
Referring you to a paragraph " keep in a seaworthy condition ,maintained to normal practice " or words to that effect .
Phishing for a cop out re -seals not being serviced as reccomended by manufacturer .
I can see some sleepless nights fighting them

Yawn... :ambivalence:

 

[MapisM]

I forget which model had these blisters in the first place

I'm not 100% positive, but I believe it was the 57.
Which was a great boat btw. I wouldn't mind one, if only they weren't so ridiculously overpriced...

 

[wakeup]

or call them gaybalizers.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I am thinking of fitting a gyro stabilizer to my Princess P43, Seakeeper is the well known brand but I read about the Italian MC2 Gyro which is cheaper. Anyone knows about this brand, or anything about fitting a gyro ? Advice appreciated. Thanks.

Dragging this thread back to the OP, I had a closer look at the MC2 at both LIBS and Boot. Although the MC2 is cheaper and simpler than the Seakeeper, it's also technically inferior. They both have spinning gyros, but for the MC2, that's basically it: there's a powered gyro, but there's no controlled precession of the gyro - in other words, the MC2 is just a passive gyro damper. The SK on the other hand has active precession so it actively moves the gyro to manage the anti-roll forces that it creates. So the SK is altogether a bit more sophisticated, and on the numbers it generates more anti-roll force than the MC2. Against that, it is more expensive, bigger, and has a more complicated installation with cooling etc. The chap that I spoke to at Boot was also a bit more conservative about installation numbers for the MC2 - suggesting about 80-90 units installed so far, against the 'hundreds' quoted by the LIBS chap. So, slightly disappointingly, it would seem that my Targa 40 ain't gonna get a gyro any time soon.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Dragging this thread back to the OP, I had a closer look at the MC2 at both LIBS and Boot. Although the MC2 is cheaper and simpler than the Seakeeper, it's also technically inferior. They both have spinning gyros, but for the MC2, that's basically it: there's a powered gyro, but there's no controlled precession of the gyro - in other words, the MC2 is just a passive gyro damper. The SK on the other hand has active precession so it actively moves the gyro to manage the anti-roll forces that it creates. So the SK is altogether a bit more sophisticated, and on the numbers it generates more anti-roll force than the MC2. Against that, it is more expensive, bigger, and has a more complicated installation with cooling etc. The chap that I spoke to at Boot was also a bit more conservative about installation numbers - suggesting about 80-90 units installed so far, against the 'hundreds' quoted by the LIBS chap. So, slightly disappointingly, it would seem that my Targa 40 ain't gonna get a gyro any time soon.

I too had a good look at the MC2 gyro at Boot yesterday and compare it with the Seakeeper on another stand. As Jimmy points out, the difference are that the MC2 flywheel rotates in the vertical plane, it does not operate in a vacuum like the SK, it has no water cooling and it has a passive precession control system rather than an active one. On the last point, as I understand, the natural precession of the MC2 is not managed, only controlled by a simple braking system and the braking system is only there to reduce shock forces on the mechanism. For me the biggest shock was the price. The Large version which on paper is slightly less powerful than the SK9 costs €58500 compared to $70000 for the SK9, so only 10-15% less in Sterling terms. Put simply the MC2 is a much simpler device and does not look worth anywhere near it's asking price. Comparing the 2, IMHO the Seakeeper would be a no brainer buy because of its proven capability, far superior precession control system and very likely superior performance

 

[BartW]

Dragging this thread back to the OP, I had a closer look at the MC2 at both LIBS and Boot. Although the MC2 is cheaper and simpler than the Seakeeper, it's also technically inferior. They both have spinning gyros, but for the MC2, that's basically it: there's a powered gyro, but there's no controlled precession of the gyro - in other words, the MC2 is just a passive gyro damper. The SK on the other hand has active precession so it actively moves the gyro to manage the anti-roll forces that it creates. So the SK is altogether a bit more sophisticated, and on the numbers it generates more anti-roll force than the MC2. Against that, it is more expensive, bigger, and has a more complicated installation with cooling etc. The chap that I spoke to at Boot was also a bit more conservative about installation numbers - suggesting about 80-90 units installed so far, against the 'hundreds' quoted by the LIBS chap. So, slightly disappointingly, it would seem that my Targa 40 ain't gonna get a gyro any time soon.

Jimmy, it is Obvious that you spoke first with the MC2 guy, and afterwords with the seakeeper Guy's
but I think your observation is correct, (except the last phrase )
As has been said, it would be interesting to experience the efficiency of the MC2,
and learn if its possible by installing a slightly oversized unit to achieve performance close to a seekeeper,
I like the simplyness of the MC2 units, and as soon as these are manufactured in more quantity, or more competitors come along,
prices coud drop.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Jimmy, it is Obvious that you spoke first with the MC2 guy, and afterwords with the seakeeper Guy's
but I think your observation is correct, (except the last phrase )
As has been said, it would be interesting to experience the efficiency of the MC2,
and learn if its possible by installing a slightly oversized unit to achieve performance close to a seekeeper,
I like the simplyness of the MC2 units, and as soon as these are manufactured in more quantity, or more competitors come along,
prices coud drop.

Hi Bart, nice to see you yesterday, and yes, you're right in that I went from MC2 to SK. But the SK guy that I spoke to at Boot was properly useless, he couldn't explain his way out of a paper bag. After me asking the same question about five times in the end he gave me a booklet and told me to email SK directly. Pointless.

Anyway - I do completely agree that it would be really good to get a demo on an MC2-equipped boat, to see if the simpler MC2 system was good enough - but for the time being at least, it seems that there just aren't very many out there. I wonder if Hugo could be persuaded to organise something?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

but for the time being at least, it seems that there just aren't very many out there

And there won't be many out there unless they seriously reduce their prices. It was interesting to see how many boats at Boot are being fitted with Seakeepers as OEM equipment now. As you saw even Ferretti seem to have ditched their ARG Mitsubishi gyros for Seakeeper. MC2 are going to have difficulty breaking into the OEM market because the small extra cost of a Seakeeper is peanuts when a punter is buying a million quid boat. IMHO MC2 might find a better market as a retrofit unit because of its simpler installation but again the price is going to put buyers off.

I have to agree on the lack of knowledge of the personnel on both the MC2 and Seakeeper stands. The first guy I spoke to on the MC2 stand was about as useful as a chocolate teapot although the second guy was a bit more knowledgeable. On the Seakeeper stand they hadn't even heard of the MC2 unit

 

[BartW]

......MC2 are going to have difficulty breaking into the OEM market because the small extra cost of a Seakeeper is peanuts when a punter is buying a million quid boat. IMHO MC2 might find a better market as a retrofit unit because of its simpler installation but again the price is going to put buyers off.

I have to agree on the lack of knowledge of the personnel on both the MC2 and Seakeeper stands. The first guy I spoke to on the MC2 stand was about as useful as a chocolate teapot although the second guy was a bit more knowledgeable. On the Seakeeper stand they hadn't even heard of the MC2 unit

imo there is a place for MC2, even as OEM, in the <60ft market, where pricing is very sensitive, and every penny counts.
don't forget that the MC2 is intrinsically a much simpler installation ! Brands like Beneteau might find them and offer them as a option on Monte Carlo's and or MCY
also afaik they are a newcomer, and still have to be found by the mainstream builders,
but everything depends on the perfortmance, on which we have no clue.

the lack of knowledge is a general problem on this sort of exhibitions, one needs to be Lucky to meet or speak to the right guy on a booth,
Mets exhibition is generally better for that
also the attitude from some staff sometimes puts me off ...

 

[MapisM]

I do completely agree that it would be really good to get a demo on an MC2-equipped boat, to see if the simpler MC2 system was good enough

This is the crux of the matter, I reckon.
If I were interested in a gyro (and I might, in the future), I'd actually prefer the "technically inferior" one in principle, as long as it works.
But time being, I can tell absolutely nothing about the comparative performances.
Reading what you guys are saying, I got the impression that at MC2 (well, actually also at SK, as I understand!) they are still far from being able to deal properly with their own product and its potential market.
Otoh, in this respect, for what I've been able to find on the web of Seakeeper Inc. as a company, compared to what I already knew of Quick SpA, I wouldn't doubt for a minute which is the stronger, better organized and with larger industrial capacities, between the two companies.
And believe it or not, it ain't the first, by any stretch of imagination.
Now, of course the MC2 acquisition from Quick is very recent news, so I guess that for the time being they only took over what already existed.
And what/when will they be able to do, in order to improve the technicalities/production costs/popularity/whatever of the MC2, only time will tell, of course.
But MC2 isn't the first Quick acquisition, and if the results achieved with their previous ones are anything to go by, it'll be interesting to stay tuned!

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

This is the crux of the matter, I reckon.
If I were interested in a gyro (and I might, in the future), I'd actually prefer the "technically inferior" one in principle, as long as it works.
But time being, I can tell absolutely nothing about the comparative performances.
Reading what you guys are saying, I got the impression that at MC2 (well, actually also at SK, as I understand!) they are still far from being able to deal properly with their own product and its potential market.
Otoh, in this respect, for what I've been able to find on the web of Seakeeper Inc. as a company, compared to what I already knew of Quick SpA, I wouldn't doubt for a minute which is the stronger, better organized and with larger industrial capacities, between the two companies.
And believe it or not, it ain't the first, by any stretch of imagination.
Now, of course the MC2 acquisition from Quick is very recent news, so I guess that for the time being they only took over what already existed.
And what/when will they be able to do, in order to improve the technicalities/production costs/popularity/whatever of the MC2, only time will tell, of course.
But MC2 isn't the first Quick acquisition, and if the results achieved with their previous ones are anything to go by, it'll be interesting to stay tuned!

Yep. I have read somewhere that the intention (in March, iirc) is to move the production of the MC2 into an existing Quick factory. It'll be interesting to see how things develop once they get their production properly sorted out.

 

[curiouskb]

Thanks Jimmy for the information.
The important consideration for me is just how useful and effective the MC2 is. I think if the roll reduction is say only 10 to 15% less than the SK5 for my P43, then I shall seriously consider the MC2 for its simplicity, easier installation, smaller package and fewer maintainence (hopefully) issues. Any user of the MC2 out there?
BTW what is the reputation of Quick in the marine industry?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Thanks Jimmy for the information.
The important consideration for me is just how useful and effective the MC2 is. I think if the roll reduction is say only 10 to 15% less than the SK5 for my P43, then I shall seriously consider the MC2 for its simplicity, easier installation, smaller package and fewer maintainence (hopefully) issues. Any user of the MC2 out there?
BTW what is the reputation of Quick in the marine industry?

When I spoke to the MC2 guy I asked him how many units had been supplied and like Jimmy he said 80 units last year but then when I asked him to name some boat models they had been fitted to, he wasn't able to quote one. Quick is a well known Italian manufacturer/supplier of marine equipment like anchor winches, thrusters etc and their stuff is found on many Italian production boats as OEM equipment so I have little doubt that Quick can support the MC2 product. The question is how much of a guinea pig do you want to be to save a few bob over the proven Seakeeper unit

One point to note is that on a like for like basis, the MC2 is significantly heavier than the equivalent Seakeeper which might have an effect on fitting costs. It seems that MC2 use a heavier flywheel running at much slower speeds in fresh air to achieve the required angular momentum whereas Seakeeper use a lighter flywheel running at much higher speeds in a vacuum. The latter might account for the fact that the Seakeeper appears to have a longer spool up time.

I can see advantages/disadvantages to both types but I still can't get my head around the fact that the MC2 is nearly as expensive as the equivalent Seakeeper despite being a much simpler less sophisticated unit and having zero presence in the leisure boat market. Maybe they would give a substantial discount to an early adopter?

 

[wakeup]

The MC2 is cheap though if you don't have to replace the whole enclosed gyro unit every 6 years when the bearings wear out. I guess bearing maintenance is cheap/straight forward on the MC2.