Chris--- So let's go back to your original post, which asked for comments on whether or not we (the participants on this forum) would be interested in your fuel monitoring device. I can only speak for myself and a few other boaters I know particularly well, but I would say no, your proposed system is of no interest and I would not consider installing or having one installed on our boat. And I feel pretty safe in saying that the other boaters in our area I've come to know well would not have any interest either.
My reasoning with regards to our own boat is thus: We use the boat year round. We buy fuel from sources that have very clean fuel. Water in our fuel has never been an issue in the thirteen years we've owned the boat. We never get even a trace of water or dirt in the Racors. Our tanks feed from the bottom so accumulations of water and crud in the tanks is not a significant issue. Fuel does not sit that long on our boat. We've been in rough water (for here) for several hours at a time with fuel sloshing around in the tanks--- yesterday being a good example of this-- and our engines have never missed a beat. Our boat is not powered with modern engines that are super-picky about what they are fed. The boat is very old and adding fancy systems to it is generally a pain in the ass what with finding power, running wires, plumbing, finding space for gauges, etc. By the same token, the boat's age means it's very simple, which in turn makes it quite easy to troubleshoot, maintain and repair. Making the boat any more complicated defeats (in my eyes) the advantage of its simplicity.
I will not argue the pros or cons of the working of your system as it's not a subject I know much about. But based on our experience with our boat and the experience the boaters I know personally have had with their boats over the last 13 years we've been involved with this kind of boating, I would have to agree with Rick's initial assessment that, for the typical recreational, coastal, fair-weather boater, the system you propose does seem like a complex solution looking for a problem which, for the vast majority of recreational boaters, doesn't exist.* At least not in their minds.
No doubt there are plenty of examples of specific boats in specific situations that might have benefitted from a warning device such as you propose. But I assume that's not what you were asking. I assume you were asking if we (I) feel there is a market for a warning system as you describe, which to me means a market large enough to make developing, manufacturing, distributing, and supporting the product a profitable venture.
I do not believe this market exists in recreational boating. The boaters who participate in forums like this and get all anal about polishing fuel and discussing filter sizes ad nauseum are but a tiny fraction of the total number of boaters out there. Doesn't matter if it's a 25 foot cruiser or a 125' yacht, most owners simply turn the key and go. If it runs, great, if it doesn't they call someone to fix it. Or, like me, they want a boat that is very simple and so is very easy to troubleshoot and repair themselves. But I suspect the vast majority of boaters don't even know how the toilet in their boat works, let alone the fuel system in their engines. And I suspect most boaters don't care (about either the toilet or the fuel system).
We just had our boat out in the islands over the last four days. It was a rare (for here) nice weekend so there were a fair number of cruising boats about. The number one make represented was Bayliner by far. After that, there were plenty of "trawer-type" boats--- CHBs, GBs, etc. We also saw a number of Tollycrafts, which is a very popular brand up here for good reason. And there were plenty of other brands and one-offs and conversions out and about, too.
While I have no way of proving this, I suspect the majority of the boaters we saw are perfectly happy with the way their boats are now and would have little to no interest in the expense or effort of installing any sort of sophisticated fuel monitoring system outside of what their boats have now, if they have anything at all other than the usual lineup of filters.
Couple this with the fact that most boats spend most of the year just sitting. While that actually makes a case for some sort of fuel quality monitoring system, it says even more about the owners. Their boats are hobbies and they use them when they can or it's convenient, and the rest of the time they probably don't think much about them. These are not the kind of people who are going to get all wrapped around the axle about whether or not there are traces of water in their fuel.
Forums like this can give a very deceptive view of boating. Reading them, it's easy to think everyone is very conscientious about their fuel quality and the condition of every system on their boat.* Where in fact I believe reality is the exact opposite. There are 2,000 registered members of this particular forum. Of that only a fraction participate regularly and only a handful have commented one way or the other on your original post. There are over 2,000 boats in our marina alone, and ours is not the largest marina in the PNW by any means. Most of the privately owned boats in our marina are probably used just a few times a year if that. Their owners are not going to be cueing up to buy your (or anyone else's) fuel monitoring device.
This has nothing to do with the viability of your proposed device. I'll leave that debate to people like Rick and others who understand diesels and their fuel requirements, particularly modern diesels. But in terms of whether or not your proposed product--- good, bad, or indifferent--- has a viable market I would say no, particularly in the arena of recreational boating.
PS--- When we are up at our boat during the year, or out on it, we usually have the VHF on.* So we hear a lot of the distress calls, either both sides of the conversation or at least the US or Canadian coast guard side.* Distress calls could be a fairly accurate representation of the sorts of problems boaters in this area encounter.
While I've not kept any sort of numbers, the most common causes for distress calls in our waters are out of fuel or aground.* After that are mechanical problems, often with steering.* "Dead engine" is not uncommon but unfortunately we never hear why the engine died.* From our own experience and from the experiences of boaters we know, cooling issues are often to blame for the "dead engine" problem.
How many "dead engine" distress calls up*here*are the result of contaminated fuel?* Impossible to say based on what we hear on the radio.* But my guess is not that many.* So if you really want to make a dent in the number of boater-in-distress situations up here, figure out some sort of automatic gizmo that whacks a boater in the head or gives him an electric shock if he miscalculates the amount of fuel he needs for each trip
-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 26th of July 2011 07:19:09 PM
