The Pod Parted

This link is to a chart posted by a vendor that shows Volvo engine pricing, including the IPS variant.

It's a couple of years old, but at least indicate how much more the IPS is.

http://www.marine-services.co.me/volvo/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/VolvoPenta-price-list-2013_14.pdf

Update from the OP. Yesterday a diver tried to locate the parted pod with no success. He is trying again today. Stay tuned.

As expensive as they are, they should be equipped with some sort of tracking device.

Cottontop said:

This link is to a chart posted by a vendor that shows Volvo engine pricing, including the IPS variant.

It's a couple of years old, but at least indicate how much more the IPS is.

http://www.marine-services.co.me/volvo/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/VolvoPenta-price-list-2013_14.pdf

Click to expand...

The number I've generally heard is about $60,000 each and your chart supports something in that range.

Sea Ray offers Zeus as an option starting on their 41' Sundancer. Also, only on twins. So, this reflects where Brunswick feels in-house they have a potential place.

Now, you'll see them sold primarily to very inexperienced and somewhat less knowledgeable boaters a lot of times. The sales person will talk about fuel usage. Well, there we're talking about using 40,000 fewer gallons to recover the initial cost. This is on boats that generally are used 100 to a maximum of 200 hours a year.

Then they'll also talk about the ease of the joystick. This is without mentioning that any boat can be rigged with a joystick. Now, recognize there is a cost in rigging that and the performance of the pod joysticks is excellent.

I think pods definitely have their place and there are some boats out there to which they've been well matched and they're a good choice. However, the early prediction/hope that Volvo and others made that they'd take huge market shares from both I/O's and from straight drives just hasn't materialized.

BandB said:

The number I've generally heard is about $60,000 each and your chart supports something in that range.

Sea Ray offers Zeus as an option starting on their 41' Sundancer. Also, only on twins. So, this reflects where Brunswick feels in-house they have a potential place.

Now, you'll see them sold primarily to very inexperienced and somewhat less knowledgeable boaters a lot of times. The sales person will talk about fuel usage. Well, there we're talking about using 40,000 fewer gallons to recover the initial cost. This is on boats that generally are used 100 to a maximum of 200 hours a year.

Then they'll also talk about the ease of the joystick. This is without mentioning that any boat can be rigged with a joystick. Now, recognize there is a cost in rigging that and the performance of the pod joysticks is excellent.

I think pods definitely have their place and there are some boats out there to which they've been well matched and they're a good choice. However, the early prediction/hope that Volvo and others made that they'd take huge market shares from both I/O's and from straight drives just hasn't materialized.

Click to expand...

Well, don't forget there are a lot of offsets to the cost, including one or more thrusters if you want anything like the manueverability of pods.

In a big boat with a lot of windage, on a windy day, waiting at a crowded lock, or trying to get into a skinny berth, you don't have to be inexperienced to start thinking pods might be nice.

Cottontop said:

Well, don't forget there are a lot of offsets to the cost, including one or more thrusters if you want anything like the manueverability of pods.

In a big boat with a lot of windage, on a windy day, waiting at a crowded lock, or trying to get into a skinny berth, you don't have to be inexperienced to start thinking pods might be nice.

Click to expand...

Most of the boats I've seen with Pods, also have bow thrusters. On a 50'+ boat, they're still needed.

BandB said:

The number I've generally heard is about $60,000 each and your chart supports something in that range.

Click to expand...

Is that engine + pod? Or just pod? If former, what's the delta for pod vs. shaft?

-Chris

ranger42c said:

Is that engine + pod? Or just pod? If former, what's the delta for pod vs. shaft?

-Chris

Click to expand...

See the chart in post 31.

Will a pod drive rotate a full 360 degrees?

ranger42c said:

Is that engine + pod? Or just pod? If former, what's the delta for pod vs. shaft?

-Chris

Click to expand...

That is the additional cost of pod over straight at msrp on the same boat with the same speed. However, it's probably not that far off from what replacement would cost for the pod drive. I'm guessing that would be in the $40,000+ range.

When comparing to a straight drive, let's not forget there is cost there to if you hit something hard enough that it would knock a pod off. Typically that could run $20,000. And on the straight drive the risk of ingress in the event of hitting an object that hard is higher than on the pod. Now if you lightly hit an object, pod or straight drive will have similar damage. These are all ballpark estimates so do not take them to the bank.

There is also a difference in various pods. The most popular on recreational boats are IPS and Zeus. IPS is forward facing and vertical. Zeus is rear facing, in a tunnel and slanted. IPS requires hauling to change the gear oil, Zeus doesn't. IPS is with Volvo, Zeus is with Cummins.

The information I'm giving is not based on any actual experience with pods, but conversations with those who have driven them and information I've gathered in considering them. I have one captain friend who loves them (prefers Zeus) for the economy and the lesser space requirements.

Talking their joystick's vs. joystick's for regular drives, the pod has some advantage especially in things like dynamic positioning, but the other joystick's have made significant progress and rapidly catching up.

Personally, in the US or most of Europe I would not say no to pods if that's the only way the boat I wanted came, but I wouldn't buy a boat simply because it had them. For Central and South America and the Caribbean, I would not consider pods.

For boats traveling at low speeds, I wouldn't choose pods nor do you see them used in those applications often.

However, there are boats where pods are your only choice but the builder has done an incredible job of developing good boat and drive combinations and performance. The first example that comes to my mind is Delta Powerboats, from Sweden.

DELTA POWERBOATS

They are IPS experts, early adopters. (See Sweden.....Volvo...). They're not by any means a price boat so the added cost of pods means nothing to their customer. They just want the best performance and handling and get that with pods.

Now, if I was considering a Sea Ray 410 Sundancer I can't see why I'd pay the extra for pods vs. conventional. Perhaps if I drove two, one after another, there would be something to change my mind. I'm a bit of the mindset "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Pods really found a place in the market as fuel prices skyrocketed and as an advantage one boat builder could have over another. For instance, Marquis trying to compete against Sea Ray. Delta vs. Wajer. Sessa and Monte Carlo and even Lazzara trying to get sales. I think they do have a place in the market, but that their percentage of market has leveled off and not reached the levels they hoped for. Other than for economy and efficiency, they were somewhat fixing a problem most of us don't seem to have.

Now, one use of pods I've not mentioned to this point. Azipod's from Azimuth. There are used quite often on ships and may be gaining popularity for major cargo and other commercial boats. Think of them as just being gondola's under the ships with propellers. They can turn 360 degrees so can back almost as fast as forward. Generally the props face forward to reduce water disturbance. Estimates of fuel savings is anywhere from 5-15% but I think most say 8-10%. They are widely used on cruise ships too. Now you're talking applications where 10% savings in fuel is huge dollars and fuel is a very significant part of operating costs.

Cottontop said:

See the chart in post 31.

Click to expand...

Got that, assuming it's right to compare something like a D9-500 (~E58K) to an IPS-500 (~E129K)?

But I dunno how to figure in cost of marine gears, shafts, logs/bearings, props, etc. on the standard engines...

-Chris

Here's a link to a Finnish accident report involving IPS drives which did not come apart as advertized, resulting in boats sinking very quickly.

http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/...intaselostus_2/c32010m_tutkintaselostus_2.pdf

Tad Roberts said:

Here's a link to a Finnish accident report involving IPS drives which did not come apart as advertized, resulting in boats sinking very quickly.

Click to expand...

Obviously that can and does happen. Rather rare I believe.

We had a pod boat accident here in NC near Beaufort several years ago. Boat wandered out of the channel at speed and hit a gradual slope of a sandbar. The force on the drives was not enough to shear them. But the boat stopped suddenly enough to cause occupants to fly forward, with severe injuries.

Most other types of propulsion present themselves to the bottom with a gradual angle: Skeg keel, sloping prop shafts, etc. In a grounding as boat bottoms, it ramps up and lifts the hull. Deceleration usually not that severe.

I've been involved in several pod failure investigations. Based on this I am no fan.

Downsides:

Fwd facing props subject to easy damage from small floating debris
Damage from grounding more expensive than straight props
Nead to haul for oil change
Some have poor mechanical reliability
Boat is now limited to that propulsion package for life, or heavy mods otherwise
Parts prices through the roof
Underwater exhaust on IPS has some annoying behavior, my feelings only

The speed/efficiency advantage is real, though.

That Finland wreck seems more due to poor glasswork by the builder and not so much due to IPS.

Ski in NC said:

We had a pod boat accident here in NC near Beaufort several years ago. Boat wandered out of the channel at speed and hit a gradual slope of a sandbar. The force on the drives was not enough to shear them. But the boat stopped suddenly enough to cause occupants to fly forward, with severe injuries.

Most other types of propulsion present themselves to the bottom with a gradual angle: Skeg keel, sloping prop shafts, etc. In a grounding as boat bottoms, it ramps up and lifts the hull. Deceleration usually not that severe.

I've been involved in several pod failure investigations. Based on this I am no fan.

Downsides:

Fwd facing props subject to easy damage from small floating debris
Damage from grounding more expensive than straight props
Nead to haul for oil change
Some have poor mechanical reliability
Boat is now limited to that propulsion package for life, or heavy mods otherwise
Parts prices through the roof
Underwater exhaust on IPS has some annoying behavior, my feelings only

The speed/efficiency advantage is real, though.

That Finland wreck seems more due to poor glasswork by the builder and not so much due to IPS.

Click to expand...

Several of your issues you describe are more prevalent with IPS than Zeus, although Zeus has their own set.

First, the grounding issue. Zeus is angled and uses a tunnel, so would be less likely to do the hard stop you describe. Still I can't say they wouldn't do that.

Zeus props are rear facing.

Zeus does not need to be hauled for oil change.

That said, I personally would still choose straight drive over pod on a pleasure boat.

Yep, I should have clarified: All the investigations I've been involved in have been IPS.

The other brands have a smaller population, so that is at least one reason.

I think those that use the tunnel have done so to avoid a patent infringement issue, but that is speculation on my part.

The tunnels do have a downside effect on performance.

ranger42c said:

Got that, assuming it's right to compare something like a D9-500 (~E58K) to an IPS-500 (~E129K)?

But I dunno how to figure in cost of marine gears, shafts, logs/bearings, props, etc. on the standard engines...

-Chris

Click to expand...

Me neither and would also love to see an "all in" analysis.

healhustler said:

Great concept for vessels requiring high degree maneuverability, but around here, they're Manatee killers.

Click to expand...

No more so than any prop I would think.

Ski in NC said:

That Finland wreck seems more due to poor glasswork by the builder and not so much due to IPS.

Click to expand...

The wreck was due to operator error, the skipper put the boat on the rocks at high speed.

Volvo claims that if you hit something at high speed with the IPS, it will break away, the boat will remain watertight, and all will be well. These particular IPS units did not break away, placing the grounding loads on the hull, which broke. Perhaps it would not of broken had it been better built, or if the IPS units had broken away as advertized.

Its been a while since I read that report but I believe the Finns placed blame on both the builder (Jeanneau) and on Volvo.

Tad Roberts said:

The wreck was due to operator error, the skipper put the boat on the rocks at high speed.

Volvo claims that if you hit something at high speed with the IPS, it will break away, the boat will remain watertight, and all will be well. These particular IPS units did not break away, placing the grounding loads on the hull, which broke. Perhaps it would not of broken had it been better built, or if the IPS units had broken away as advertized.

Its been a while since I read that report but I believe the Finns placed blame on both the builder (Jeanneau) and on Volvo.

Click to expand...

Yep, clearly on the operator for hitting the rocks at speed, sort of goes without saying. But: The glass structure sure did look weak in avoiding the uplift of the drive at the rear of the pod port when contact was made. The question then is once the hull yielded, did that affect the fracture of the fuse link in the drive? The hull yielding reduced the force on the drive.

Similar to a straight drive strut pushing into a hull when grounding, with similar effects. Many boats are weak over the strut pad.

Tad- do you know why Zeus requires the pocket?

Ski in NC said:

Tad- do you know why Zeus requires the pocket?

Click to expand...

AFAIK the pocket for the Zeus is so it can be mounted vertical in a vee bottom. The IPS is set up to swivel so it can be mounted square off the hull bottom.....perhaps part of the patent and thus Zeus had to do something different.....

Ski in NC said:

We had a pod boat accident here in NC near Beaufort several years ago. Boat wandered out of the channel at speed and hit a gradual slope of a sandbar. The force on the drives was not enough to shear them. But the boat stopped suddenly enough to cause occupants to fly forward, with severe injuries.

Most other types of propulsion present themselves to the bottom with a gradual angle: Skeg keel, sloping prop shafts, etc. In a grounding as boat bottoms, it ramps up and lifts the hull. Deceleration usually not that severe.

I've been involved in several pod failure investigations. Based on this I am no fan.

Downsides:

Fwd facing props subject to easy damage from small floating debris
Damage from grounding more expensive than straight props
Nead to haul for oil change
Some have poor mechanical reliability
Boat is now limited to that propulsion package for life, or heavy mods otherwise
Parts prices through the roof
Underwater exhaust on IPS has some annoying behavior, my feelings only

The speed/efficiency advantage is real, though.

That Finland wreck seems more due to poor glasswork by the builder and not so much due to IPS.

Click to expand...

I think that grounding was in Gallant Channel by a demo boat. There were some injuries as I remember.

I remember the introduction of pods and I was of the opinion they'd never sell, people too set in their ways. I was wrong. However, I think they were wrong on the potential sales. There were many who thought it would dominate a large middle segment of the market, basically all the twin engine boats under 60-70'. A very large number of boat builders (actually 137 per their site) have used them and offer them. However, they're the dominant choice for very few builders.

I don't see what need they fill than either an inboard/outboard or a traditional inboard doesn't. However, they are better at some things, primarily efficiency.

We run Svitzer's at the Port. They are podded vessels but they are commercial vessels and require a massive amount of manoeuvrability. Not sure it's worth it and a bit wanky on a pleasure craft IYAM.









Sent from my iPhone using Trawler Forum

Donsan said:

Will a pod drive rotate a full 360 degrees?

Click to expand...

Boattest.com had some info on the Zeus Marine 2800 pod drives and they rotate 180 degrees. Haven't found the radius on the IPS spelled out but it appears to be 120 degrees. Watched a YouTube Volvo IPS video which shows a yacht moving sideways and it was very impressive. I guess if 120 degree radius will move a boat in all directions, that is all that is needed. Sorry, I have never seen pod drives in a real boat except on Yachtworld. To move sideways, two pod drives are required. With a single pod, a bow thruster would be necessary but probably not as effective for sideways motion.

My first encounter with pod drives was on a Mikelson 43. The company owner took me out on a cold blustery day to demo the Zeus drives. The wind was up, the harbor was "bumpy" and the boat ran flawlessly. We approached a buoy at 90 degrees to the wind, put the controls in neutral and engaged "Sky Hook." Even though the tidal currents and the wind tried their best to move the boat's bow away from the buoy, it was all in vain. Think about it for a moment...so what's the big deal with that? Well, how about you are single handing and must stop and attend to fenders and lines before docking? Or you are close to a paddy that is holding fish and you don't want to get closer than casting distance? Or you are single handing and in a lock or your slip while readying the boat? There are literally dozens of scenarios where "pods" would come in handy. Yes, they are expensive but so is a Grumman Gulf Stream, my favorite biz jet of all time.

Codger2 said:

My first encounter with pod drives was on a Mikelson 43. The company owner took me out on a cold blustery day to demo the Zeus drives. The wind was up, the harbor was "bumpy" and the boat ran flawlessly. We approached a buoy at 90 degrees to the wind, put the controls in neutral and engaged "Sky Hook." Even though the tidal currents and the wind tried their best to move the boat's bow away from the buoy, it was all in vain. Think about it for a moment...so what's the big deal with that? Well, how about you are single handing and must stop and attend to fenders and lines before docking? Or you are close to a paddy that is holding fish and you don't want to get closer than casting distance? Or you are single handing and in a lock or your slip while readying the boat? There are literally dozens of scenarios where "pods" would come in handy. Yes, they are expensive but so is a Grumman Gulf Stream, my favorite biz jet of all time.

Click to expand...

One thing we should think pods for is moving things forward in so many ways. First pods hit the market with joysticks. Now most any boat can have a joystick. First pods hit the market with Dynamic Positioning (such as skyhook). Now there are other dynamic positioning systems being made available. However, I don't think any other system has the simplicity of pods in positioning. The skyhook only has to deal with the two pods. Dynamic positioning on other boats has to typically coordinate between two engines and two or four thrusters.

Places where DPS is extremely helpful. Waiting for bridges or locks. Waiting in line for a fuel dock. Watching a huge event such as fireworks. Macy's 4th of July fireworks, no anchoring and stay in your place. Preparing fenders and lines for docking when single handing.

DPS is important to fishermen to find their perfect spot and stay on top of it.

DPS seems to have even greater potential in the commercial market and in total is expected to be nearly a $1.5 billion market by 2020.

I'm holding out for a GB42 with Voth-Schneider cycloydal drive.

alormaria said:

I'm holding out for a GB42 with Voth-Schneider cycloydal drive.

Click to expand...

Those egg beaters are pretty cool.

hmason said:

Update from the OP. Yesterday a diver tried to locate the parted pod with no success. He is trying again today. Stay tuned.

Click to expand...

With the cost of em... don't they have a signal device built in that can throw traceable e-waves for at least a month? Good God Mon - Pods seem a big income gimmick. By em for great expense. Then, loose em. Then buy em again... over and over. A revolving door system to be sure me matey!