The Pod Parted

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

hmason

Guru
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
2,764
Location
USA
Vessel Name
Lucky Lucky
Vessel Make
Pacific Mariner 65
A friend has a boat with pod drives. Methinks Volvo. Last evening he hit a rock and one of the drives sheared completely off (as it should). Tomorrow a diver is going to look for it. I was just convinced to stick with conventional shafts and props. I'd rather rework a prop and perhaps straighten a shaft than be looking for or replacing one of those bad boys.
 
HM-I have always had that concern about pods. Other than maneuverability, which I have never thought large, twin engine, thruster equipped boats needed anyway, I have never seen the advantage of them. I realize there may some advantages in that the total length of the drive train is a bit shorter, but is it worth it? We have twins with twin keels, fully protected shafts. props and rudders. Much prefer that over pods. I have also been curious about the energy transfer of the prop thrust from the props, through two right angles to the hull. Seems like it could be stressful on the hull to me as opposed to stringer mounted engines, or Aquadrive systems.
 
I understand they are common on ships for maneuverability.
Do they have the same issues as sterndrives/outdrives? I`ve wondered about the "lightbulb moment" when the designer says "Hey, got an idea, lets mount the gearbox permanently under water. Sure it will need a few seals to keep the salt water out, but the marine growth will keep yards in work. Good idea huh?
 
Sterndrives were invented by a committee who then left the country in a Ford Pinto.
 
I think the costs of replacing a pod are inline with the same catastrophic damage if done to regular inboard drive boat.

And there is little chance of water entering the hull after the loss of a pod. Unlike what could happen if you took out your shaft strut/s and rudder/s.
 
My understanding the one thing pods have over all other set-ups is the ability, with cunning computer control interfaces between the joysticks, they can move in any direction without the need of thrusters, just by synchronised movements of the pods in forward and reverse, including when linked to GPS to be able to maintain station at a specific position.
 
Pods: For recreational boaters are a material solution to an inept operator problem.

Ted
 
Pods: For recreational boaters are a material solution to an inept operator problem.

Ted

The same could be said for bow thrusters, stern thrusters, twin engines, engines on a sailboat or oars over a paddle for that matter. :D
 
Pods: For recreational boaters are a material solution to an inept operator problem.

Ted

Does not always solve that either the big July 4th smashing Dock part was a new Belize with them and I mean SMASHING
 
pods like outdrives provide options for boat design in addition to their goods and bads..


seems that as outboards have evolved in four stroke and power...there is a swing back towards them but not fast as their pricing is staggering....thus I/Os are still hanging tough.


I believe PODs also claim better fuel efficiency which was a strong selling point for some? many?
 
Last edited:
Great concept for vessels requiring high degree maneuverability, but around here, they're Manatee killers.
 
I believe PODs also claim better fuel efficiency which was a strong selling point for some? many?

Efficiency is one of the leading features, shown to be anywhere from 10-25%. Also space utilization. On a small boat it my mean a lot in that regard.

Replacing a pod unit is in line with prop, shaft, etc. repair and replacement assuming the pod did it's job and detached cleanly.

The limitation with pods to this point has been hp, requiring extra pods. Some boats with twin inboards would require 3 pods to reach the same performance. While many boats have been built with 3, that's a turnoff to most buyers. Then for more hp, you require 4 and while there have been boats built with 4 pods, that's not marketable when you can get by with twin inboards.

Zeus has hp limitations greater than Volvo because of Cummins limitations. That means a limitation of Pods on Brunswick models such as Sea Ray. At the other end, below a certain size boat it's hard to market the additional cost of pods over inboard/outboard.
 
I guess some large boats might need three pods vs two inboards. Volvo now produces IPS III pods/motors at 1200hp each. Two of these should be large enough for a pretty big boat.

I wonder what the maintenance requirement on pods is vs traditional shafts. I was told by a mechanic working on an IPS equipped boat on my dock that the boat would have to be hauled to change the transmission oil.
 
I guess some large boats might need three pods vs two inboards. Volvo now produces IPS III pods/motors at 1200hp each. Two of these should be large enough for a pretty big boat.

I wonder what the maintenance requirement on pods is vs traditional shafts. I was told by a mechanic working on an IPS equipped boat on my dock that the boat would have to be hauled to change the transmission oil.

Understand the IPS 1200 isn't 1200 hp. It's an equivalent system Volvo uses. It is 900 hp.

Twin IPS reach their limits at around 50-55' and builders start considering triples. At around 75-80' triples start to reach their limits. The typical IPS installation is a performance oriented boat. This differs from some other pod systems. Zeus/Cummins has been limited to around 600 hp although 715 looks possible now. This is why Sea Ray required triple on their L590 and went conventional on the L650.

For trawler type boats, pods really haven't been in play. At displacement speed their advantages disappear.
 
GBs in the mid 40 foot range (44?) is available with pods.
 
GBs in the mid 40 foot range (44?) is available with pods.

Yes, the Heritage 43 now is available with Zeus. (I believe the only configuration now). 480-600 hp options. Makes no sense to me as just another turn away from all their tradition.
 
A better GB improvement would be to use a composite instead of teak like the Fleming is using. That might sell more boats than pods! If they ever do that, I hope they offer a retrofit package. :rolleyes:
 
One diver cannot lift a pod off the bottom. An A frame boom is needed for the lift. It can turn a simple grounding into a salvage operation. For manufacturers pods are a win win win. They install quicker with less engine alignment problems. They are installed near the stern thus freeing up the space where the former engine compartment was. Then the big marketing drive that shows new boaters that they can wow the crowds like the old pros in boat handling. Whey would not manufacturers go for this. Plus the consumer sees it as a value added package that they are willing to pay for.

There are joy stick products for stern drives, straight drives and even single screws. I see no need for them.
 
There are joy stick products for stern drives, straight drives and even single screws. I see no need for them.

So true. The joystick attraction of pods is a total illusion now. It did hit a hot point for people, but soon everyone found a way to offer it. On other boats it can incorporate your drives and your thrusters.
 
The fuel efficiency is the primary attraction as pods are typically found on boats with a capability closer to 30+ knots than 8ish. Twin 700 hp diesels saving 10-20% on fuel at 80-90% throttle can be game changing.

I was under the impression most pod retrieval/replacement operations where insurance jobs.
 
A better GB improvement would be to use a composite instead of teak like the Fleming is using. That might sell more boats than pods! If they ever do that, I hope they offer a retrofit package. :rolleyes:

GB shows little interest now in their Heritage line. They've reduced it now to 4 models and 5 in the Aleutian line, but their push seems to be downeast with their Eastbay and Palm Beach lines which counting the flybridge models have a total of 13 offerings. That's also where their sales are. They talk about orders but their shipments continue to decline and they report losses again. Their stock value has dropped considerably. They released information on May 15 and talked about the orders they took the quarter ending March 31 and the success of the Palm Beach show and taking orders during the quarter for five boats-one GB and 4 PB. They lost S$1.1 million that quarter. All they've said regarding the quarter ending June 30 is issuing a profit warning and indicating they will expect to report a loss for the year ending June 30 during the week of August 24.

This is the final and most telling sentence, from their Chief Financial Officer.

Shareholders of the Company and potential investors are advised to exercise caution when dealing in the shares of the Company.

I'm very sad to see the continued problems. I wish I could predict some development and improvements of the Grand Banks boats. There is so much wonderful tradition just dying away. Who knows what pods might have done for them at the right time.
 
They talk about orders but their shipments continue to decline and they report losses again. Their stock value has dropped considerably..........

This is the final and most telling sentence, from their Chief Financial Officer.
Shareholders of the Company and potential investors are advised to exercise caution when dealing in the shares of the Company.
I've followed the GB line quite closely the last 10 years and have watched the decline. Once, a beautiful boat (I loved the 41 Heritage when it first came out) they have been living on their name for the past few years. Other manufacturers have surfaced and are offering boats of equal quality for a much lower cost. If you have a GB that was built in the 70's or 80's (even some 90's) that is in great shape or can be put in great shape without breaking the bank, you have the "GB of old" which is a great boat! GB's in the last 10 years, not so much. (As far as "value" for the dollar is concerned.):blush:
 
Last edited:
Quote from a pod owner in Sea Magazine: If I knew all the maintenance had to be done (on the pods) with the boat out of the water, I would not have purchased them."
 
GB shows little interest now in their Heritage line. They've reduced it now to 4 models and 5 in the Aleutian line, but their push seems to be downeast with their Eastbay and Palm Beach lines which counting the flybridge models have a total of 13 offerings. That's also where their sales are. They talk about orders but their shipments continue to decline and they report losses again. Their stock value has dropped considerably. They released information on May 15 and talked about the orders they took the quarter ending March 31 and the success of the Palm Beach show and taking orders during the quarter for five boats-one GB and 4 PB. They lost S$1.1 million that quarter. All they've said regarding the quarter ending June 30 is issuing a profit warning and indicating they will expect to report a loss for the year ending June 30 during the week of August 24.

This is the final and most telling sentence, from their Chief Financial Officer.
Shareholders of the Company and potential investors are advised to exercise caution when dealing in the shares of the Company.
I'm very sad to see the continued problems. I wish I could predict some development and improvements of the Grand Banks boats. There is so much wonderful tradition just dying away. Who knows what pods might have done for them at the right time.

So, Grand Banks is a penny stock. Sounds like they are long for this world.
 
So, Grand Banks is a penny stock. Sounds like they are long for this world.

No, I think the largest shareholder will keep them going somewhat as they have too many resorts in Malaysia and Singapore to let the company die. I do think it's very possible though that they'll become almost if not entirely a downeast type boat builder.

The former largest shareholder had the company basically sold in 2011 for far more than stock prices then or now. However, the sale was rejected and he was fired as CEO.

I don't think they'll consider selling to anyone who won't guarantee keeping the manufacturing in Malaysia. I think based on where their sales are the US would have made sense. However, if that wasn't your choice, then China would have.

I do look to see their stock back on the watch list of the Singapore exchange which it was for the previous two years before coming off for this last year.

I very much share Codger's feelings toward the decline. They had the most loyal and active owner's groups in the US and they threw all that away. I still like the boats, even the current designs.
 
Pods are a bad idea if one boats in shallow waters or believes they might run aground. If one stays in waters occupied by large ships or always travels in shipping lanes, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
HM-I have always had that concern about pods. Other than maneuverability, which I have never thought large, twin engine, thruster equipped boats needed anyway, I have never seen the advantage of them. I realize there may some advantages in that the total length of the drive train is a bit shorter, but is it worth it? We have twins with twin keels, fully protected shafts. props and rudders. Much prefer that over pods. I have also been curious about the energy transfer of the prop thrust from the props, through two right angles to the hull. Seems like it could be stressful on the hull to me as opposed to stringer mounted engines, or Aquadrive systems.

Gave some thought to pods:

Advantages:

​ Maneuverability during docking, mooring, locking
​ Efficiency (maybe not so much in a 10kph displacement boat)
​Eliminates rudders, steering wheel, linkages, auto pilot linkages
​ Eliminates bow thruster (?)
​ Exhaust through the foot reduces noise and fumes
​ Raw water intake through foot
​Joystick driving from anywhere on boat
​ Station keeping at locks and bridges
​Reduced vibration, no alignment hassles

Disadvantages:

​ Initial cost (How much? And how much offset by the bits eliminated, above)
​More frequent and expensive routine maintenance, boat may have to be hauled more often
​Expensive if damaged
​ Potential big hole in boat
 
They had the most loyal and active owner's groups in the US and they threw all that away

Times and tastes change. From what I hear in our harbor--- and we have the Puget Sound GB dealer here now--- the majority of people who buy GBs today are former GB owners. To new or younger boaters, GBs are seen as old fashioned, stodgy, ridiculously overpriced designs and they want no part of them.

The looky-loos who come down our dock when we happen to be working on our boat and stop and remark what a lovely boat it is all have one foot in the grave. The young folks who come down the dock looking at the boats don't give our boat or the other GB in the next slip a second glance. They ooh and ahh over the modern Euro-swoop boats on the dock.

The Eastbay is seen as modern and cool so it's no surprise that whatever success GB is having is in that line of boats.

Personally, I have thought for many years it's been long past time to put a bullet in the head of the traditional GB design and do something different and new. I think it was really dumb of them to try to "modernize" the GB by putting a faster hull and more power and/or pod drives under what is now a 49 year old house design. You can gussy a barn up with modern doo-dads but it still looks like a barn. Same thing with GB.

I think the company deserves what it's getting for being blind to the market changes. It's as though we were still trying to flog the 707 to our customers. Great plane in its day but its day is long, long gone.

It will not surprise me--- and from what I hear from acquaintances at the dealer it won't surprise them, either--- to see the GB brand disappear altogether and fairly soon. It's been interesting to see the recent evolution of what is passing through this particular dealer--- fewer and fewer GBs and more and more other brands. I'm talking used boats here. There have not been any new GBs come through for a long time. I think the last one was a GB47 that was part of a bank sale from the failed GB dealer in Seattle. The folks who bought it got if for half price. The bank didn't want to be in the boat business and just wanted it to go away. The dealership/brokerage in our harbor is doing very, very well from what our friends there tell us. But more and more of their sales are not GBs.

Brand loyalty is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The old folks still cling to it but the new crowd buys what grabs them on the spur of the moment and then changes it out as soon as something cooler comes along regardless of who makes it.

Car manufacturers are having a hell of a time with this and have been for years. Twenty, thirty years ago a car brand consisted of just a few models. Maybe three or four. Today, a brand has to have a ton of models if they expect to survive. I read an interview with one of the car CEOs--- it might have been Alan Mulally--- who was talking about how a company could once get away with just a few basic models per brand but today they need eight or ten or even more. It makes it hellaciously expensive, he said, hence the sharing of platforms as much as possible, the moving offshore of as much production as possible, and the rapidly increasing use of manufacturing automation so they can get rid of their expensive humans as quickly as possible (the aerospace industry is doing exactly the same thing).

So I think the Grand Banks line is all but officially dead. And that's okay. It's their fault they couldn't keep up with the market--- actually I don't think they even recognized the market anymore and were still clinging to a market that is dying off at an accelerating rate--- so they are joining the growing list of failed or failing companies who's glory years were long ago.

There's nothing new in this. History is comprised of companies led by people who saw an opportunity, jumped on it, were wildly successful, then failed to recognize the continuing changes around them, and faded away. My gut feel is that this is what's happening now to Microsoft although they've got a long, long way to fall so the crash is a ways off.
 
Last edited:
Gave some thought to pods:

Advantages:

​ Maneuverability during docking, mooring, locking
​ Efficiency (maybe not so much in a 10kph displacement boat)
​Eliminates rudders, steering wheel, linkages, auto pilot linkages
​ Eliminates bow thruster (?)
​ Exhaust through the foot reduces noise and fumes
​ Raw water intake through foot
​Joystick driving from anywhere on boat
​ Station keeping at locks and bridges
​Reduced vibration, no alignment hassles

Disadvantages:

​ Initial cost (How much? And how much offset by the bits eliminated, above)
​More frequent and expensive routine maintenance, boat may have to be hauled more often
​Expensive if damaged
​ Potential big hole in boat


I think another advantage -- by locating engines further aft -- is the potential to free up forward space inside the boat, for systems access or living quarters or whatever.

I wonder about the efficiency hit often cited against pods for slow boats. Seems to me that where current new twin engine installations might use 2x 300-hp (or whatever) engines... they could instead reduce installed HP for each engine by maybe 30%.

I also wonder why a single-engine pod drive might not work for a "trawler" (sic). Somebody did a single-pod installation on a planning hull (might have been a center console, can't remember) and it appeared successful. I think Volvo says something about adverse water flow (from a keel?) becomes an issue, so maybe that one I'm half-remembering was a Zeus installation... Anyway, a single pod protected by decent keel wouldn't maybe suffer so much from the concern about damage.

I suspect I'd be all over a single-pod with bow thruster... assuming I were to win the lottery and therefore need a new boat.

-Chris
 
We have 2 boats with Pods on our dock one is a new Belize (the July 4th dock smasher) the other is a Italian boat both very expensive and beautiful boats not my style

Both owners are very green and normally hire captains

So one day husband and wife past a group on the dock all working on a friends boat. They had a set of extra props in a cart Volvo on the box. One of the men said oh parts for my boat thanks. the pod owner said ( in the best Thurston Howell 3rd voice I have ever heard) "these are for my IPS very expensive in case you are not aware"

so now the 2 boat owners have the nic name the Pod Squad
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom