ips

[lisilou]

Well from the questions I've asked from those who own them and/or maintain them it seems the general consensus is it's a great bit of kit but bloody expensive if it goes wrong out of warranty. Also, if it needs work then it's likely to be out of action for a while. For potential owners like us who don't have the know how experience or practical skills to self maintain/fix then that could be a real issue cost wise and has to be a serious consideration. Still not discounting it tho. Really need to weigh up the comparisons cost wise more precisely.
BTW Paul...it was lovely to meet you and Kerry (and thankyou for the kind words but it was a bit of a doddle with ips wasn't it. But hey...if it made me look good then who am I to argue eh? LOL)
L

 

[[2068]]

There has to be a value associated with "Making you look REALLY good at parking".

On something like an SC42, sterndrives with a joystick are going to get close. Also, the sterndrive option gets you even more cabin space.

Swings and roundabouts!

 

[rubberduck]

Lisa you're comparing a sports cruiser with drives and a flybridge with ips. Howsabout you try a flybridge with shafts (and a sternthruster if you want one) and you'll have the same go-sideways ability as ips (though without the joystick, but ultimately better control and less white foam in the water) and all the accommodation/quietness-up-top benefits of a flybridge.

Or try this

http://www.osmotech.co.uk/marine-stabilizers/hydronautica-systems/53/

 

[lisilou]

... Also, the sterndrive option gets you even more cabin space.

I thought it was the other way round???

 

[rafiki_]

I thought it was the other way round???

Sterndrives have the engines mounted even further back in the hull than IPS, thus freeing up more space for cabins etc. Shafts are the most space hungry, and in a 40-45 ft boat, will be mounted near the middle of the hull. Great for stability and control, but means that cabins have to fit further forward. You will get a nice big lazerette under the cockpit sole though. It really depends if you need lots of cabins. If you look at the new Bavaria 42, it fits 3 cabins down below, all with reasonable space, but could not do this with shafts. The show Bavs all have sterndrives, as these accentuate the space efficiency.

Big difference is that the gearbox in a shaft boat stays dry, rather than dangling out the back or underneath, generally better for reliability.

Sorry if I am teaching Grandmothers to suck eggs.

 

[lisilou]

Sterndrives have the engines mounted even further back in the hull than IPS, thus freeing up more space for cabins etc. Shafts are the most space hungry, and in a 40-45 ft boat, will be mounted near the middle of the hull. Great for stability and control, but means that cabins have to fit further forward. You will get a nice big lazerette under the cockpit sole though. It really depends if you need lots of cabins. If you look at the new Bavaria 42, it fits 3 cabins down below, all with reasonable space, but could not do this with shafts. The show Bavs all have sterndrives, as these accentuate the space efficiency.

Big difference is that the gearbox in a shaft boat stays dry, rather than dangling out the back or underneath, generally better for reliability.

Sorry if I am teaching Grandmothers to suck eggs.

Oh God no Raf... I'm grateful for any and all advice and pointers coz you all know way more than me so thankyou. Much appreciated.
L

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

There has to be a value associated with "Making you look REALLY good at parking".

On something like an SC42, sterndrives with a joystick are going to get close. Also, the sterndrive option gets you even more cabin space.

Swings and roundabouts!

I do wonder what happens when these new fangled joysticks go computer says no and the terrified helmsman is left with just 2 throttle levers and a steering wheel to park the boat. Anybody with a joystick out there? Do you sometimes practice parking without the aid of your comfort stick or do you just hope that day never comes?

 

[lisilou]

Hang on a sec there Michael!!! I love the whole 'parking' bit whether single engine, twin engine, bow thruster or no. It used to scare the c.rap outa me tbh but now I just find the whole thing really enjoyable even when I screw it up but give me a cross wind whipping up, it makes me nervous at close quarters and then I'm more than happy to use anything that assists manoeuverability. hey...if there's a system out there to lessen the stress then it's all good. If it breaks down then that's ok...just go back to standard.
L

 

[rafiki_]

Oh God no Raf... I'm grateful for any and all advice and pointers coz you all know way more than me so thankyou. Much appreciated.
L

Lisa, I'm not sure we know that much more than you, some if us just think we do

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Hang on a sec there Michael!!! I love the whole 'parking' bit whether single engine, twin engine, bow thruster or no. It used to scare the c.rap outa me tbh but now I just find the whole thing really enjoyable even when I screw it up but give me a cross wind whipping up, it makes me nervous at close quarters and then I'm more than happy to use anything that assists manoeuverability. hey...if there's a system out there to lessen the stress then it's all good. If it breaks down then that's ok...just go back to standard.
L

lisilou, let me put it this way. The difference between manouvering a boat with a joystick and manouvering it with wheel and throttles is like the difference between having sex with another type of 'joystick' and having sex with a real man. The former may provide instant gratification without stress but the latter is more satisfying in the long run
(at least that's what I keep telling my SWMBO)

 

[lisilou]

Absolutely and personally, I'm happy with either (the boats I mean )
L

 

[benjenbav]

I struggle to get comfortable with the idea of permanently suspending delicate bits of machinery in salt water. On the "if it can go wrong, it will" principle which generally seems to apply to boats I always feel that I am increasing my chances of a relatively trouble-free time by sticking to shafts.

I can see benefits of ips over shafts: vectoring, fuel economy, freeing up of useful space to name but three. But for me these don't outweigh the simplicity of having the gearboxes inside.

That said, I haven't yet driven an ips boat. I would be interested to know if - away from the dockside - they feel as planted and predictable as an equivalent shaft driven model.

 

[benjenbav]

I struggle to get comfortable with the idea of permanently suspending delicate bits of machinery in salt water. On the "if it can go wrong, it will" principle which generally seems to apply to boats I always feel that I am increasing my chances of a relatively trouble-free time by sticking to shafts.

I can see benefits of ips over shafts: vectoring, fuel economy, freeing up of useful space to name but three. But for me these don't outweigh the simplicity of having the gearboxes inside.

That said, I haven't yet driven an ips boat. I would be interested to know if - away from the dockside - they feel as planted and predictable as an equivalent shaft driven model.

 

[Nick_H]

I struggle to get comfortable with the idea of permanently suspending delicate bits of machinery in salt water. On the "if it can go wrong, it will" principle which generally seems to apply to boats I always feel that I am increasing my chances of a relatively trouble-free time by sticking to shafts.

I can see benefits of ips over shafts: vectoring, fuel economy, freeing up of useful space to name but three. But for me these don't outweigh the simplicity of having the gearboxes inside.

That said, I haven't yet driven an ips boat. I would be interested to know if - away from the dockside - they feel as planted and predictable as an equivalent shaft driven model.

Totally agree BJB. I've had several problems with outdrives, and know many others who have. IPS seems to have potential for similar issues simply because the gearbox is in the water, not in the boat. Having enjoyed many hundreds of completely trouble free hours with shaft drive boats, it would take more than some minor fuel savings and a fancy joystick to convert me.

 

[Chris_d]

IPS seems to have potential for similar issues simply because the gearbox is in the water, not in the boat.

Isn't the gearbox inside the boat, the IPS leg only contains a few bevels and a shaft surely. Basicaly it must be a simpler setup to an outdrive, its just new unproven (read unfamiliar) technology.

 

[Nick_H]

Isn't the gearbox inside the boat, the IPS leg only contains a few bevels and a shaft surely. Basicaly it must be a simpler setup to an outdrive, its just new unproven (read unfamiliar) technology.

There's gearing in the lower leg, 45 seperate components just in that section, plus the mechanism associated with vectoring and sealing to the hull. I've no first hand experience of using IPS, and don't know personally of any problems with them, I was just agreeing with BJB's general point about the relationship between complexity and reliability.

 

[Portofino]

There's gearing in the lower leg, 45 seperate components just in that section, plus the mechanism associated with vectoring and sealing to the hull. I've no first hand experience of using IPS, and don't know personally of any problems with them, I was just agreeing with BJB's general point about the relationship between complexity and reliability.

Agree, but let's look behind the raison d être for such a contraption !
Firstly this gearbox issue - they are all inside - even outdrives - for the past 20 odd years VP have been producing outdrives or Z drives " sized" in engerneering terms to deal with ever increasing BHP . y - 2003 - 285
2005 ( D6 310-330 - 350 - pushing it on the DPH leg with 370 ) - moving up onwards in BHP terms needed a radical rethink in engineering to deal with this+ torque ( lets not go there) eg thicker drive shafts ,bigger bevel gears and not forgetting exhaust hole + larger water inlet.+ more wieght .
initially @ 425 BHP from the D6 + ( and more to come - with even bigger engines and torque nowadays )
basically it's a Z drive massively engineered . it heavey so best not to hang it on the stern .
IT - black box to do the vectoring - may as well = great marketing tool.
It not as if there was a problem of manoeuvreing to solve in the first place .
As mentioned it seems IPS was " thrust upon the conservative boat building fraternity " - most @ 45 ft + happy with shafts - some embraced it - but into normal shaft designed hulls like the Sunseeker Portofino 47 range . Sessa in the 43 - designed boat arround - huge mid cabin compared to rivals
Larger + 55-60 ft upwards do not have the same space or wieght distribution dynamics - so stay with shafts
IPS has a place in the sub 40-50 ft range- where it seems nowadays - mid cabin obligitaire . When the IT works " parking " is dare I say women friendly ., and a pair of 6 L diesels will use less fuel than a pair of 9 L diesels - running for 6 hours .
There is a huge rubber skirt come diaphragm -visable in the engine room . This does not look like a DIY job ,and a hell of a lot of moving parts hanging in sea water + lets face it you could not design a more exposed prop set up? or a quiter set up I might add .
Personally @ 45ft upwards I would Preffer from the VP catalogue a pair of D9's or D12 s if 60 ft + cat C18
Man 1100 ,s or MTU 1200 on shifts - certainly not triple IPs 900,s - and put up with the noise and seemingly bigger fuel bill. Basically for piece of mind , and residual value later

 

[MapisM]

I'm happy to comment Lisa but not on a public forum.

LOL, you just did, I reckon...
...'nuff said!

 

[MapisM]

Firstly this gearbox issue - they are all inside - even outdrives

Nope, not all. Actually, the most popular outdrive in the industry has the gearbox right in the lower case...
But that aside, I couldn't understand a iota of your "raison d être for such a contraption".
In my books, the reason why there's gearing and a number of mechanical components in the external part of the IPS is pretty simple:
There isn't any easier way to transmit power along a 90 degrees angle, period.
If there was one, VP would have used it (and others before them - the azipod concept ain't a VP idea, in fact).

 

[Portofino]

Nope, not all. Actually, the most popular outdrive in the industry has the gearbox right in the lower case...
But that aside, I couldn't understand a iota of your "raison d être for such a contraption".
In my books, the reason why there's gearing and a number of mechanical components in the external part of the IPS is pretty simple:
There isn't any easier way to transmit power along a 90 degrees angle, period.
If there was one, VP would have used it (and others before them - the azipod concept ain't a VP idea, in fact).

Gearbox I take it is the thing usually found at the back of an engine ( in car it may have several forward gears ) in boat they have - well at least VP 1 forward and 1 reverse .this is in the boat .connected to the outside bit by a universal joint
The "Z" configuration of various drive shafts and bevels is in the leg - not strictly a gearbox ie change ratio,s or - direction
I.am not including this aspect as a gearbox .neversuggested VP invented azipods., merely linking them to extra BHP/ torque and associated wieght - meaning beast not to hang 3x D9 or tripple IPs 900 of the back of a 48ft Sunseeker XPS tripple -great mid cabin and tender garage though !