IPS? ouch...

[ QUOTE ]

, I've seen lots, with shafts gone, rudder torn off, P brackets through the bottom etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats only to be expected as there are so many shaft drive boats around.##What strikes me is there are so few IPS boats around and yet I am seeing lots on the hard with holes in, hearing about loads of problems, everyone I speak to who has IPS hates it or has been off the water for extended periods with issues.

the only two people I have come across who say it is marvellous is you ( who have boats for sale)and one other person who said how wonderful it was and then admitted to trying to sell the pup.

I used to post how unreliable Volvo penta were compared to Mercruiser

then it was pointed out to me that there were far more Volvo pentas around so there would be far more break downs.

Here we have IPS, only a few around but loads of issues.
Shafts millions around and hardly a bad story to hear.
 
I like the simplicity and idiot proofing of shafts. I like the technowizardry of IPS, even though, save for a Lottery jackpot, I am unlikely ever to own a boat with them fitted. I'm not keen on outdrives either but the technology is established.

Regardless of everything else I suspect the running costs of the things mop up a lot of the difference in fuel costs between IPS and shafts. Having said that, if VP want to retrofit Jedi with IPS, at their expense, for demo purposes, I can arrange time for them to do so:-)
 
It's true you can break most things when you have several tons of boat and hundreds of hp driving it. Meeting anything solid will hurt and do considerable damage, but I also feel that the day you bump over a log you may be far better off with shafts than a pod, and a pod with aft facing props and a skeg that tears off easily may fair better than the foreard facing approach even though it has some user benefits.
 
The picture above not a normal "p" bracket, looks like metal work hanging down which caught the bottom and tore the lot out.

Maybee be they were going to slow to shear of the IPS. Looks like touch rather than hit hard.

Outdrives knock up, hard hit with shafts and p's will lift the back up.

But IPS, look wrong and like net catchers to start with! Hit anything and you will have major problems!




!
 
I know you have your issues with IPS Daka but it is completely unfair to say that everyone has issues, on the whole we have found IPS to be as reliable and as problematic as any other configuration. I also have customers who swear by IPS and wouldn't go back to old technology if you paid them.

And there is not just a few around there are thousands of installations at this point, sure not as many as shafts which have been around since the stone age.

Do you really think that if there was such a horrendous problem with reliability and function of IPS that nearly all the major builders would be fitting them ??. Reliability and unfit for purpose as you may claim costs builders money, builders are not in business to prop up VP, if it doesn't work or costs time and money we would bin it without a second thought but the fact remains, evidentially and through user feed back, people like them, love the trick bits, the economy , and the extra space they offer, if they didn't we would be out of business.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would never sell IPS on the basis you would come off better after an accident such as grounding against rocks, its other benefits are of far more interest...
I never believed Coca Cola was the 'Real Thing' either but I do like the taste!

[/ QUOTE ]I never said you promised miracles (btw, we all know what the three key selling points of IPS are: joystick, joystick, and joystick) but as a matter of fact VP did.

The above pics show a very clear case where both pods:
1) suffered a mostly horizontal impact (just look at the scratches);
2) neither of them sheared off;
3) both opened holes in the hull.
The stbd pod could even be used for an advertising campaign along the lines of "you'll never be able to shear this thing off, no matter how hard you try"... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Otoh, according to VP initial statements, this is a perfect example where the pods should have either sheared off or sustained the hit - both ways, without letting water flow inside the hull.

See, what happened is that VP understood very well from the beginning that the fwd facing props would have encountered a lot of skepticism, for the reasons we're now debating, among others. And they decided that the pros of assuring everyone that they tried and tested it, with no problem at all (and so forth) were far higher than the cons to be faced afterwards, when these things happen.
They could have said "gentlemen, if you hit a rock, chances are that you'll sink as nicely with IPS as with a shaft boat" - which is what you're honestly saying, if I understand correctly. But they didn't.
The "doubters" did not make this bed: VP made it, and now it has to sleep in it.

Your Coca Cola example is brilliant btw (unsurprisingly: they can write the book, when it comes to marketing): so, they pretend it to be the real thing, and you don't believe it. Fairenuff. But try to explain why it isn't and why they're wrong, if you can.
And after all you buy it, anyway.
As opposed to that, explaining why VP was telling porkies is as easy as taking a few pics and publishing them on the web.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Personally this does not look like a high speed impact into rocks, more in line with some speed but into sand or shingle but certainly not huge impact forces and perhaps not enough of an immediate torsional force to separate the drives from the hull.

Bashing into rocks or running aground sand or otherwise at speed in any vessel is not a good idea and will almost undoubtedly result in serious damage.



[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you are right (and looking at the damage I'd say you make a fair assumption) then I find myself asking, if I ran into sand or shingle, not at high speed (as you describe) with a shaft or outdrive boat, would that be likely to do enough damage to potentially sink the boat (as would have happened here if it weren't for watertight compartments).

And the answer, I suspect, is no.
 
M I am not here to defend VP at all and as you point out it (imho) was wrong to use the shearing thing as a sales tool, it may well be that it does work in certain scenarios and I have heard of a couple that this was the case and the vessel saved but the variables are too great to use it as a cast iron example.

Common sense would state whatever the configuration, you have lots of whizzy bits spinning at high speed, dangly brackets and rudders hung off the bottom of your mobo, you wallop them into rocks or what ever its going to be damage limitation all round, forward facing, rearward facing, hanging off the back its gonna hurt your boat and your pocket.

I don't really subscribe to the theory either that forward facing props are really any worse at getting tangled up in ropes, nets, mesh bags etc, in fact now that I think about it so far I haven't had a diver in for ropes round props etc on any IPS boat yet but last couple of seasons had mesh bag round an out drive and a net around a shaft drive, pure luck maybe but I honestly think neither is fairing any better than the other, I bet everyone on here has had encounters with ropes and nets, shaft drive or otherwise, doesn't make a hill of beans difference if you run into 10m of nice 14mm poly rope, you are tangled up.

as far as Outdrives are concerned , I have a 45 with DPH legs that hit rocks near St Trop , both legs flew up, one dangling buy its innards, transom plate came away about an inch and flooded the engine room and the other drive punched a huge hole through the integrated swim platform. Point being is doesn't really matter where huge impact loads are concerned or what drive system you have.

Do I think IPS or others are a disaster area and putting peoples lives at risk or conning the public with false claims ? , No, but I think in their eagerness to show what they have done and promote new technology they have been somewhat naive or at worst misleading about the shearing of the pods and if they have to pay a price for that with unfavourable publicity then that's their problem.

However, do I think IPS offers better use of the internal space of a mobo, better fuel economy, quieter running, joystick control, less smoke ? absolutely yes and long may VP or whoever keep refining and developing the system further, whether I, you, me or the gate post thinks otherwise its here to stay.

Contrary to what we here in the UK may feel, IPS sells boats rightly or wrongly depending which side of the fence you sit on but I can guarantee for a majority of buyers med based given the choice of a 47' shaft drive SC or an IPS one of similar age and value the IPS wins out nearly every time or you get hit with a stick trying to shift the shaft drive one..... 'yeah but I want more discount on the Shaft drive one cus is not IPS is it? ' absolutely no question IPS has affected the second hand values of bigger engined SC on shafts, I hasten to add though that is Euroland rather than here though.

The 'Real Thing' , yes, it rots my teeth faster than anything else /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Anyone know why Zeus didn't really take off in the same way IPS has? I know IPS came out first but you rarely hear about Zeus yet it seems to have all the advantages of IPS but a bit more protection (from smaller logs etc)
 
[ QUOTE ]
The above pics show a very clear case where both pods:
1) suffered a mostly horizontal impact (just look at the scratches);
2) neither of them sheared off;
3) both opened holes in the hull.
The stbd pod could even be used for an advertising campaign along the lines of "you'll never be able to shear this thing off, no matter how hard you try"... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Otoh, according to VP initial statements, this is a perfect example where the pods should have either sheared off or sustained the hit - both ways, without letting water flow inside the hull.[ QUOTE ]


Hi Mapis

No pics visible to me - or perhaps I missed the original post? Any chance you could email them to me at tonywjones@clara.co.uk.?

Cheers
TJ
 
Mapis

Please ignore my request for pics. For some reason my browser joined the thread halfway through! I've now found 'em.

Best wishes
TJ
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know why Zeus didn't really take off in the same way IPS has? I know IPS came out first but you rarely hear about Zeus yet it seems to have all the advantages of IPS but a bit more protection (from smaller logs etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect because they're teamed up with Mercruiser engines and Mercruiser diesels are generally much less popular than Volvos.

Ergo, anything linked to a Volvo engine is going to be more common.
 
Bigger the holes you cut in the hull for shafts. ips. legs, saildrive etc.



More likely and quicker you will sink if they fail!
 
Zeus is really a ZF product, German company Italian enginnerred aparently

yes Zeus was esclusice to CMD (Cummins Mercruiser Diesel)
but now that agreement fell
so Zeus is available with Yanmar, VW, Cummins and Caterpillar to name a few
in the future I think Zeus will win the game of Pods
1) it is independant
2) many of today hulls with deep vees can have this easily and just gain speed and efficency with lesser costs
3) many not so commercial builders dont like Volvo much especially in the bigger HP
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think in their eagerness to show what they have done and promote new technology they have been somewhat naive or at worst misleading about the shearing of the pods and if they have to pay a price for that with unfavourable publicity then that's their problem.

[/ QUOTE ]Spot on.
That's all I wanted to point out actually, when I replied to your comment about the doubters waiting for this to happen.

But I agree that overall pods are here to stay, if nothing else because:
1) there are indeed boaters who place a high value in the joystick, not being able (or willing) to learn proper maneuvering skills;
2) there's another big advantage which I forgot in my previous post (and you also don't mention, though you're surely aware of it /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif): easier and quicker (=cheaper) installation for builders, once the hulls have been purposely designed.

Actually, 'fiuaskme, nothing can beat surface drives for a proper sportcruiser, and shafts for a proper flybridge. And as weird as it might seem, I see more sense in azimuthing pods for trawlers than for any other kind of boat.
But in spite of my personal preferences, I have nothing against VP and IPS.
I just don't like, as you said, "naive or at worst misleading" messages, regardless of where they come from.
 
agree with the last sentence about misleading marketing

I also see pods having high value in semi displacement, I think there first use started in this area propelling first a big Cruise Liner about 10 years, which now apparently dominates that market
I dont know if this will work for a full displacement hull as some of these a protected, covered shaft propulsion but for the rest it can do
 
>>>
agree with the last sentence about misleading marketing
>>>

ISTR that The Shipbuilder described her as "virtually unsinkable" in about 1911, and the press (and maybe marketing men) lost the word "virtually". The rest, as they say, is history, and several films.
 
P-brackets, rudders through grp, or IPS big hole? Hmmm! Fears confirmed. Never liked the forward facing element of the design unlike cummins rear facing which should suffer less leverage forces in a high energy impact.

It's early days yet, the Jury requires 10 years of IPS TCO history and experience as evidence!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

C
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - EIAPP CERTIFICATION
Replies
8
Views
343
Tranona
T
E
Nimbus 305 or Marex 330
Replies
19
Views
708
Time Out
T
boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
259
Bouba
Bouba

Share this page

Top