The red hot diesel campaign – you vote

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
and the subsidy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I object to the inference that Red Diesel was a subsidy .. it wasn't (isn't) and still attracted a tax - just not to the same level as road diesel.
Perhaps the subsidy should be removed from Non-Smokers who don't have to pay the horrendous taxes on cigarettes?

 

[MaxR]

Magna Carter said:

[ QUOTE ]


... in order to achieve the efficiency, we'll end up with engines that should they break down at sea, cannot be repaired, and gone will be the days of owner maintenance....

[/ QUOTE ]

This suggests that reliability presupposes inefficient combustion - does it have to be that way? I know 'traditional' diesels like Gardners (RIP) are reputed to last for ever, but are they actually any more reliable than a modern high speed diesel for the relatively short hours of use of most leisure craft?

Max

 

[tcm]

um, but slowing down and then speeding back up (as i do) to avoid wash will actually be less likely with more expensive diesel, hm? The near-skinties in microscopic boats who will give up boating due to more expenisve diesel hardly produced much wash anyway. And of course newbies may as well buy petrol powered boats with extra speed and added fire risk, most likely whilst nobody on board, but with the boat is next to others in a marina. Heyho

 

[Oen]

We should concentrate on the central issues...

When I started boating, less than ten years ago, I was paying about 20p per litre. Now, it'll be over £1. A five-fold increase in that time is simply unreasonable, regardless of the other issues.

If we're to be 'european', then bringing our taxation system into line with other states should not result in our diesel being the most expensive by far, yet it shall. Again, simply unreasonable.

My own solution - carry lots of jerry cans and only fill up abroad - won't work for everyone. The transitional arrangements have not (to my knowledge) been made. How do we eradicate the chemical evidence of red from our systems? Who will pay for this? What about the claimed difficulties in sourcing supply?

I can't help feeling that yet again, this is Bliar and his illegitimate government robbing our pockets.

...and yet again, we're just bending over and taking it...

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests that reliability presupposes inefficient combustion - does it have to be that way? I know 'traditional' diesels like Gardners (RIP) are reputed to last for ever, but are they actually any more reliable than a modern high speed diesel for the relatively short hours of use of most leisure craft?


[/ QUOTE ]No, I was talking about efficiency, not reliability..... efficiency will be gained through (amongst other things) precisely controlled combustion, which will be achieved through computer control.... all of which are less easy to maintain for an individual.... as well as this, we'll have exhaust recirculation systems, and computer controlled timing with lambda sensors etc etc, all of which will make the CO2 output dramatically lower, but will make it very difficult to do any emergency repairs at sea....

As a seperate, but related subject, modern car reliability has come through better use of materials, more precise engineering tolerances, and better computer analysis and modelling of stress and loads...

Take a look under your car bonnet, and compare what you see with just a few years ago... I used to happily replace a thermostat, or even rebuild an entire engine, lap valves in, and replace big end bearings.... But I wouldn't dream of doing so on a modern car engine.... There is too much that I don't have the tools to set up properly.....

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
But I wouldn't dream of doing so on a modern car engine.... There is too much that I don't have the tools to set up properly.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep! Took my gran to see the new mini recently, and upon lifting the bonnet the only thing I (as an engineering graduate) felt able to say was "it has definately got an engine."
Car engines are now a world apart from boat engines.

 

[fireball]

The difference is though - if you car breaks down you can stop ... call the breakdown service and get help.... you're (generally) perfectly safe (I have been in a broken down car in a very dodgy location - it wasn't nice!!).... if really desperate you can always abandon the car and walk.

On a boat - if your engine breaks down and you've got no wind (or no sails) then basically you are at the mercy of the sea - and unless you are lucky enough to be able to anchor then you are relying on someone else to come out and save you - you can't get out and walk ....
I was unlucky enough to have the prop shaft come out of the back of the linkage to the gearbox ... luckily it didn't go far as there was a nice rudder in the way (3/4 keel) - as I was basically by myself (Crew didn't have a clue - but not expected to either!) I couldn't spend the time beneath the cockpit trying to get it back in whilst the crew steered - just plodded back into the harbour under full sail (not much wind and an ebb tide! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif) ... fixed the following day whilst she sat on the mooring - very quick and easy...

When it comes to boating the primary systems should really adhere to the KISS principle ... or if not - then the backup systems should!

 

[davidhomer]

WHY
Why schould any body who can afford 60 grand for a boat that burns more fuel in a hour ,then what i used for 2 weeks boating the Berlin waterways in my small boat.peaple like to ride bikes that ride offroad thay cannot get cheap fuel. why boaters. a saily boat needs a engine to get out of port ,and with luck back in ,and dont burn 20 lts ahour like .

 

[Koeketiene]

[ QUOTE ]
How many Turkeys will vote for Christmas then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it would seem 46%