The new Prestige 680…. strong competition for the Princess 68!

Is a Targa 42 in our marina right now .... her IPS legs was removed in Oct/Nov and sent away somewhere in Dec .... She was on the hard without the legs until approx. 3 weeks ago, but now in the water again.. I'll ask around about why ... for no other reason than I am curious ... and this discussion fuels the curiosity...
 
username said:
I think you are being a bit unfair on me. I did not insist anything.
Click to expand...
Well, that was (and still is, TBH) my impression, but I apologize if my post came through as unfair.
And yes, I agree that you didn't specifically say to be sold on IPS based on the number of boats built with them, but I jumped in such conclusion because that's the only fact (as opposed to hearsay) on which you seemed to base your IPS "defense".
Regardless, good luck for your upgrade plans - looking forward to reading more about them, and the types of IPS/non-IPS boats involved.
 
MAFWeiss said:

Why would you want the owners cabin in the bow? One of the reasons everyone else has it amidships is because you get less wave noise slapping on the hull at anchor.
We have yet to anchor overnight in anywhere other than a marina, so wave slapping is so far not an issue for us. However in the heat of a summer's afternoon on the Med, with the owner's cabin amidships, we find that the noise of the generator running the aircon too intrusive to sleep in our own cabin, so if we are alone on the boat we would retreat to the VIP in the bow, and I do not recall being put off by the sound of the waves on those occasions. So as far as I am concerned having my cabin in the bow and being able to sleep with the generator running is a major plus.
Click to expand...

On the Prestige P68 - which I think looks very nice - with the VIP-amidships layout is there really much difference between the Owner's and VIP cabins; in other words, don't you end up with two super cabins?

Congratulations, anyway.
 
A floating temple of TV worship. That screen is overdone..... the boat is literally built around the screen (altar) and its viewing positions; not to mention large TV screens in every cabin. Do we really venture out on the water just to stare at screens? What's the point!
 
Hugin said:
A floating temple of TV worship. That screen is overdone..... the boat is literally built around the screen (altar) and its viewing positions; not to mention large TV screens in every cabin. Do we really venture out on the water just to stare at screens? What's the point!
Click to expand...

Agreed… which is why I suggested to Prestige that they use they use similar system that they have on the 500 and the 550, which is a smaller concealed TV and adjacent to the helm which is what they will now be offering. If you want to see really OTT large TVs check out the latest Sunseeker 75!
 
MAFWeiss said:
Agreed… which is why I suggested to Prestige that they use they use similar system that they have on the 500 and the 550, which is a smaller concealed TV and adjacent to the helm which is what they will now be offering. If you want to see really OTT large TVs check out the latest Sunseeker 75!
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, it looks like Puff Daddy's house!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuRwsduxbgQ
 
If space is the big benefit of IPS and shafts are more reliable why aren't there more v-drives around? It always seemed the obvious way to do it to me apart from minor access issues with shaft under the engines.
 
grumpy_o_g said:
If space is the big benefit of IPS and shafts are more reliable why aren't there more v-drives around? It always seemed the obvious way to do it to me apart from minor access issues with shaft under the engines.
Click to expand...

If The engines are "normal" ie big heavey lumps ( used in trains, earthmoving gear, lorries ,cranes etc ) .
So you may upset the weight distribution -shoving them aft 6-8 ft ?
Potential extra vibration ?
Loss of a tiny % power - burn more fuel .?
Few more gears to wear out ?
The biggest advantage of IPS from a pure efficiency point is the prop angle -can be made ecactlty perfect (same with outdrives + Arnesons BTW)
A v-drive g box set up may , i say may ? - work against trying to reduce shaft angle .
Simplest is straight shaft s set up ,but to reduce shaft angles, you have to place the engines more fwd -thus compromising -living space -well not exactly true if you go the hole hog and basically divide the boat in two .fwd and aft spaces .
Prob is these days through " marketing " builders have well the " dog has seen the rabbit " -its called the owners mid cabin .As it is now Joe Public wants a mid cabin -cos he can have one -but at an engineering compromise some where along the way ?
IPS tries to get round all this -Also a few years ago VP being a big global Co with aggressive marketing -allowed builders to take delivery of units on credit .Credit in such the invoice would be raised only AFTER the new owner actually took delivery of the boat .
So from a cash flow point of view as a builder think about it ,when you are doodling on a blank piece of paper wondering how you are going to design the next modal ,with the marketing and sales team screening MID CABIN in one ear , and the bean counters screaming CASH FLOW in the other ear !
Common engineering sence and basic intuition goes out of the window IMHO

The "engineering compromise" is condensed into the pod -
It's the mid cabin that sells the boat at shows -
BTW Memo from factory to marketing team ---- for health and safety at the next show tell em they can not go into the engine room -tape it up.:o. If they see all the pipes , seals clamps etc It will put em off ?:o
Distract em with the joystick instead -blokes love gadgets :o
 
Last edited:
Portofino said:
The biggest advantage of IPS from a pure efficiency point is the prop angle -can be made ecactlty perfect (same with outdrives + Arnesons BTW)
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that’s only partially correct.
Yes, with outdrives (and outboards) it’s possible to achieve a perfectly horizontal thrust also with the typical AoA of a planning hull.
Not so with pods though, and not always even with Arnesons (but that’s more complicated and depends on each hull/installation, let’s not go into that).
It’s a matter of simple geometry, after all: pods can not be trimmed, so they are bound to follow the AoA of the hull, at any given moment.

But of course, the horizontal thrust component is obviously somewhat higher with pods than with shafts – again, simple geometry.
The whole point is, is that efficiency advantage big enough to justify the additional complications? Imho no, because:
- Shafts are MUCH better whenever the priority is on reliability, and speed is not a major target. And that just about covers the large majority of P boats.
- Outboards/outdrives/surface transmission are MUCH better when the priority is on performance (in that order, depending on the boat size).
Otoh, for maneuverability and joystick tricks, nothing can beat pods, obviously. If only at VP they would be honest enough to not pretend that the thing is better than anything else in each and every respect... :)

As an aside, I agree with most of your comments on builders' viewpoint, but you forgot a factor that was actually central in the VP selling strategy to boatbuilders: easier and faster installation. I guess that might seem trivial, but any builder can confirm you that once a mould is adapted to pods, the working hours required are much lower than with shafts.
If we should summarize the VP marketing strategy with IPS, it's fair to say that they aimed at making boaters believe that they are overall BETTER, while they sold them to builders as a way to achieve an overall CHEAPER construction... :(
 
grumpy_o_g said:
If space is the big benefit of IPS and shafts are more reliable why aren't there more v-drives around? It always seemed the obvious way to do it to me apart from minor access issues with shaft under the engines.
Click to expand...
Its true that Brit builders don't use V drives much although Sunseeker have used them on a few models but the Italian builders like Ferretti and San Lorenzo use them a lot. Yes there is a loss of power in the V drive gearboxes although I have never seen a definitive figure for how much. Yes the engines are obviously further aft but certainly on Ferrettis, they compensate for that by putting other weights like fuel tanks and gennies further forward. 2 out of my 3 Ferrettis have had V drives and I haven't noticed any difference in planing attitude compared to my other straight shafted boats. The big disadvantage with V drives tends to be that because the engines are further aft you lose the lazarette but you do gain more accommodation space forward and the engine noise is reduced
 
1- It’s a matter of simple geometry, after all: pods can not be trimmed, so they are bound to follow the AoA of the hull, at any given moment.

2- If we should summarize the VP marketing strategy with IPS, it's fair to say that they aimed at making boaters believe that they are overall BETTER, while they sold them to builders as a way to achieve an overall CHEAPER construction... :([/QUOTE]

1- I would suspect the pod angle will be set at build to compensate for bow lift at av speed -thus achieving optimal thrust.
Next time you climb the stairs of a 737 or Airbus ,notice the engine pods are sloping 15-20 degree towards the tarmac .They too cannot be trimmed .Once the wing or in this case the hull in a boat is at the correct attitude the " pod " should be at the correct designed line of optimal thrust .

2- Cheaper install -yes on reflection without crossing the forum taboo of criticising other folks pride + joys ,pods do seem to appear at the bottom end of price range and general quality of build ?
Like cored hulls , drop in creeky - prefab units , wafer thin teak laminates etc -push fit plumbing etc -wafer thin laminates etc --- .But like any market theres room for all comers ----- initially .

I wonder how much VP marketing folks actually play on the minds of potential owners ,re joys stick ,
Mentally conditioning them into -sort of -you can,t do without it ,life will be **** in the marina without IPS and OUR joystick ..?
In the Vid above "Puff Daddy's " interior fit out of SS 75 Yacht they now do a joystick ( black box to connect up serious bow+ stern thrusters with electronic gearbox and fly by wire throttles on the two main engines ) .
Its there as an after thought ? Or --- pretty much standard kit thats now the norm ?

To the OP I do not think VP IPS should be the "clincher " in a boat purchasing .
In fact I would rarther for the same money buy a used 2-3-4 year old -somthing else without IPS and forfit the cabin space of the room where you err -- sleep most of the time .
 
Portofino said:
I would suspect the pod angle will be set at build to compensate for bow lift at av speed -thus achieving optimal thrust.
Next time you climb the stairs of a 737 or Airbus...
Click to expand...
LOL, I've yet to see a jetliner that needs to rotate the engines to steer!
Though that might be an idea after all - by rotating them 180°, they could get rid of thrust reversal... :D

Stretched comparison aside, I see what you mean of course.
But in practice, I'm not aware of any IPS installation where the lower shaft isn't aligned with the hull bottom.
 
I'll bite :-) TBH you'll find it hard to find many pro pod people on here, in general we are a conservative bunch and it takes heaven and earth to change our thinking on something so fundamental as a drive system. Of course there are plenty of new and semi new to boating people on here but probably due to their lesser experience don't want to comment too much on something they have little experience on whereas the long standing members have years of experience and taken part in many a debate on drive systems, many of us are also anoraky beyond belief, some of us bordering on OCD when it comes to googling responses and justifications for our positions .

But don't let that put you off, pods have been around for many years now, early days there were some hideous stories going around and end of the world as we know it stuff. The fact is throw your pride and joy at a bunch of rocks at 20 knots and it doesn't make a lot of difference what drive you have to the outcome, your stuffed one way or another. You can find as many googled stories of sunk shaft, pod, out-drive boats , you just tilt your responses according to your preferred system.

Personally, I don't believe one system is safer, better or significantly way ahead of the other, it is very subjective, you have to consider what you want from a boat, what you are prepared to sacrifice or not, what costs you are willing to accept or not and what features are important to you. Secondly when it comes to pods you really have to be buying a model that was a pod designed boat from the start, anything retrofitted / designed from a shaft drive hull is a bit hit and miss.

In defence of pods I have to say it has brought a lot more people into a bigger size range than they would have first thought of. In truth many owners are not super skilled boat handlers as those on here, only getting afloat maybe a dozen times a year. A demo of a pod drive boat has been the clincher for many newish buyers, everyone from the kids, wife , girlfriend, mother, father or uncle Ted can park it with a Saturday afternoon of training, its a more point and shoot affair , push the joy stick left and we go left, diagonally and we go diagonally , twist and we go around in circles on the spot. I know many owners of pods wouldn't swop them for the world , those one or two squeaky moments berthing in a bunch of tide or a bigger beam on blow than expected was worth every penny of their pods decision. Sure our esteemed collective on here could probably park anything, anytime, any place in any conditions but for the nervous not so experienced boat chap/ess pods have been a boon to their confidence.

Then you have the different manufacturers , IPS is mentioned here but of course there is the Cummins Zeus system if you prefer with its more traditional aft facing props and super douper skyhook system. The QSB 6.7 Cummins is a stonking engine mated to the Zeus pod system.

Fuel efficiency is probably not something you would want to hang your hat on for every model and builder, some have great results and others not so, the big upsides are the ability to give better layouts, ease of use and reduced vibrations and noise (in most cases).

Pays your money takes your choice, just don't base a decision on everything your hear on the www, especially from us bunch of die hards :-)
 
Last edited:
That's very well put Nautical, I'm sure that it will be taken on board by all...

My view is pretty much aligned with yours, having experienced multiple drive types across various boats, in terms of my current boat, it was built from IPS upwards and that is tangible.

The Pods add another £1k per year to service costs, (if one uses Volvo oil which I do), but with the boat returning 20kts on a 100lph burn rate, my guess is that trounces a shaft boat of similar proportions.

I have been speaking to my local Volvo engineer, (Royston @ Falmouth Yacht Brokers), we have looked through the volvo service schedule as far as 8 years and can find no reference to anything that looks overly worrying. I have a mind to start an IPS thread, with a link to the service schedule, my actual costs per season and details of any issues, (of which there have been none thus far).

There does seem to be a partisan approach and huge snobbery regarding drive systems, which seems very strange to me.
It would be good if some other POD owners came out of the woodwork and gave some first hand feedback rather than so much of the second hand tosh that gets regurgitated every time the subject comes up.

As for solving a problem that does not exist, or whatever the sound bite is, well that's just not the case...from a marketing and sales pov PODs are solving a huge problem in terms of customer confidence.
 
Last edited:
Nigelpickin said:
As for solving a problem that does not exist, or whatever the sound bite is, well that's just not the case...from a marketing and sales pov PODs are solving a huge problem in terms of customer confidence.
Click to expand...
For the records, since I'm the one who came up with the "problem that doesn't exist" concept, if you look at my post #30, I also said that "the joystick/maneuverability wow factor" (as I called it) has been the main KSF of pods, obviously because it gives to anyone scared by docking a greater and more immediate confidence.

In other words, yes, of course from a marketing and sales viewpoint, pods are a solution to the problem of widening the market.
But if you think about it, that's actually a producer/dealer/seller problem.

'fiuaskme, I'd rather suggest to anyone who is unable to gain enough confidence to moor a boat without a joystick to forget boating altogether.
But not because of the risk of scratching his/her boat, or some others.
Trouble is, the REAL risks involved in boating are much different (and higher, to the point of potentially involving casualties!) than those involved in mooring.
And that has nothing to see with being a conservative bunch or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top