Thoughts on Sonar?

[Nick14]

I would appreciate hearing anyone's thoughts on sonar. Do you have it? Is it really useful, for non-fishing applications? Or is it just something gee-whiz that isn't all that helpful?

I've never had sonar in our boats, mostly because the last electronics package I did was 10 years ago. I got along fine. I don't 'fish' except for eating a lot of it at home and in restaurants.

Am now planning the electronics for our next boat, and wondering if sonar is a need to have.

Thank you!

 

[Fletcher500]

Hi Nick, I think it’s worth it. It’s really helpful to see the depths when traveling through shallow spots, especially when unfamiliar with the area. Not only the depths, but the profile curve of the bottom on a 2 axis graph to see contours changing. You can also set an alarm for a specific depth. I have my alarm set at 7 ft and it has helped me on a couple of occasions, especially when single handing and being distracted with other things going on. The new gen fishing systems are amazing, but definitely not what we need. Airmar makes some nice, mid cost, low frill units. It can take some time to get them set up properly as far as settings, but overall they are trouble free after that. Well, until my software update last month that messed up everything up, but the Furono Tech Support folks got me squared away after a few phone calls.

 

[LovetoBoat]

For me it was worth it. I brought my boat down to WPB from NJ. Without sonar / depth - I would not have been able to maneuver as well as I did. I scraped bottom several times but it was sandy and I was going slow. For me it is a must have due to my experiences.

 

[Nick14]

@Fletcher500, @LovetoBoat, thank you!

I would always absolutely have a depth sounder. I'm wondering if the additional capability of visualizing the bottom, beyond solely depth, is worth it.

 

[Lepke]

Depends on where you go and your experience. I've used commercial and military.

I don't think sonar is worth the cost in a yacht unless you're looking for subs.

I anchor in tight places in Alaska and Canada (for the quiet) where most fear to go. And I do it with a depth sounder in an 83' boat.

 

[LovetoBoat]

Apologies I read that wrong - no Forward Sonar is not advanced enough to make an impact - IMHO.
Save your money...

 

[Comodave]

We put Raymarine Realvision 3D in our biat, not for fishing because we don’t fish. But rather because I wanted to see more of what the bottom looks like. Last summer we were in Thunder Bay where there a lot of ship wrecks. We were able to see the ship wrecks in over 100’ easily.

 

[twistedtree]

Lots of assumptions about what you mean by "sonar". So let's ask. What do you mean by "sonar"? Fish finder? Recreational side scan sonar? Forward sonar? Searchlight sonar? Omni sonar? Sorry you asked? Just kidding, but if we can narrow it down you will get answers to your question rather than answers to some different question.

 

[guy with a boat]

I think you are referring to traditional fishfinder down-view sonar vs depth number only. The additional cost is pretty minimal and I think the information you gain is worthwhile. The best example I can think of is evaluating an anchorage. Depthfinder gets you a number but a fishfinder graphic display tells you if its rocky or flat and what is the contour and variation. That alone is worth it to me.

You can spend some money if you fish and want lots of detail and serious depths. For cruising and not fishing, a basic sonar/fishfinder is not much more than just a depthfinder and is IMO very worthwhile.

 

[Comodave]

3D Realvision of ship wreck.

 

[SoWhat]

I've never had sonar in our boats, mostly because the last electronics package I did was 10 years ago.

A simple transducer through the hull will give you sufficient depth information to anchor anywhere or navigate through skinny water or narrow channels. I am guessing that an MFD with sonar capabilities is not much more than one without.

Being able to count the pebbles on the bottom or see seaweed stalks might interest fisherman but I wouldn't pay a lot more for the capability.

If you don't anchor out and don't hug the sides of channels at low tide then you may not get much benefit from sonar. If you haven't ripped the bottom out in 10 years...

 

[DDW]

If you don't anchor out and don't hug the sides of channels at low tide then you may not get much benefit from sonar.

But for that it is pretty good. If we are talking about side scanning sonar. The MFD won't cost much more, but the transducers do.

I cruised the PNW (rocky shores with sudden shoaling) for several years with just a depth sounder. It was fine. Then I put in Raymarine 3D side scanning. It is much more fine. Just another tool, but one that can often give you valuable information. In a shallow mud bottom location that doesn't vary much or fast, like the Chesapeake, maybe not that useful. In SE AK or Georgian bay, definitely useful. Not forward scanning, but you can strafe the shore and get what you need.

 

[North Baltic sea]

Hi,

if you don't have exact depth information, how do you determine the length of the line overnight at anchor?

Basic Sonar is a small investment in boating costs. I myself have placed a slightly more forward looking Sonar (fls) and I feel it is useful here where there is a large archipelago where I move.

NBs

 

[Simi 60]

Wouldn't be without it.
Have two,
An ancient datamarine numbers only with a heartstopping alarm
And a Koden dual freq colour fishfinder/gps

Vessel used to have forward looking sounder but not worth squat
Boat travels too fast at idle for it to work

And being ex commercial she had some real fancy stuff once, still have transducers on the bottom about the size of a shoebox on either side of keel.

 

[boomerang]

A traditional sonar has always been invaluable to me in non-fishing applications when navigating new areas that are shallow and especially when travelling the narrow channels of the ICW. With a simple digital depth finder, while being tasked with the operation of the boat, I need to remember the depth of the water at each glance to see if the depth is getting deeper, shallower or remaining the same. With a video depth recorder, I can instantly see the trend of the bottom, knowing in an instant & with one look at the screen, if the depth history has changed. Running up & down the often tightly dredged channels of the Intracoastal waterway, it's so easy to just figure out the controlling depth of the water and adjust your course if the bottom is seen as sloping uphill. With a slow uphill trend, adjust your heading. A steep uphill trend, slow down or stop!

 

[Iggy]

Hi Nick, I think it’s worth it. It’s really helpful to see the depths when traveling through shallow spots, especially when unfamiliar with the area. Not only the depths, but the profile curve of the bottom on a 2 axis graph to see contours changing. You can also set an alarm for a specific depth. I have my alarm set at 7 ft and it has helped me on a couple of occasions, especially when single handing and being distracted with other things going on. The new gen fishing systems are amazing, but definitely not what we need. Airmar makes some nice, mid cost, low frill units. It can take some time to get them set up properly as far as settings, but overall they are trouble free after that. Well, until my software update last month that messed up everything up, but the Furono Tech Support folks got me squared away after a few phone calls.

 

[ranger58sb]

I would appreciate hearing anyone's thoughts on sonar. Do you have it? Is it really useful, for non-fishing applications? Or is it just something gee-whiz that isn't all that helpful?

I've never had sonar in our boats, mostly because the last electronics package I did was 10 years ago. I got along fine. I don't 'fish' except for eating a lot of it at home and in restaurants.

Am now planning the electronics for our next boat, and wondering if sonar is a need to have.

I'm thinking you mean a fishfinder versus a simple depth finder?

We have both. DST on one frequency (235) and fishfinder on two freqs (50/200). We do occasionally fish, but my real focus with the "finder" is on bottom discrimination... and it works well for that.

If we were to only have one, it'd be the fishfinder.

-Chris

 

[Nick14]

Thank you everyone! I should have been more specific. I'm going with a Garmin electronics setup (mostly because my last experience was with Simrad, which was an unmitigated complete dumpster fire disaster, and the Raymarine people at the Newport boat show were rude and unhelpful).

Garmin has a range of 'sonar' products, LiveVu, FrontVu, RealVu. The primary sales pitch for all of them is on fishing (and the only fishing I do is at the market or in a restaurant).

I'd never leave the dock without a depthfinder, but for this setup was wondering if the additional cost of one of the forms of down, forward, or 3D looking sonar above and beyond a simple depthfinder was worth it.

@Lepke, I particularly appreciate your perspective. While it would be amusing to look for subs (and I might even spot one off New London), overall I'm not feeling the urgent need to upgrade from basic depth to one of the 'sonars,' though a forward-looking system to be able to see the bottom profile changing would be nice.

 

[mvweebles]

Nick - I went through this exercise recently. Like yourself, I pinged/perused a couple forums for feedback. My takeaway was that if your use is for poking into shallow anchorages at slow speed, there is utility to the lower-cost forward-looking transducers (around $1k or so as I recall). Where people are disappointed is where they think it will detect a submerged log or container. I have not used mine yet, but it seemed like it was worth a shot given the relatively affordable cost. I also installed a conventional transducer (Simrad/Navico) that gives the standard bottom-scan.

Good luck -

Peter

 

[Greg QS]

I have full Garmin stuff . Have a 61' You want the fish finder and the side view. I run with both all the time. Fish finder lets you see trend or a sudden rise in the bottom under the finder. Visually you can see the change. The side view is great for seeing walls and shoaling on the sides in tight areas. It tells you better the topography of the bottom. Are you anchoring in a boulder field? It is also a chip sonar. It gives you a down view very clear and is easier to interpret what you see on the bottom over a traditional fish finder. If i had to choose 1 , do the side scan since you get the down view with it .

All the new stuff comes with the standard sonar module built in. So why not put the standard sonar in. You just need to add the transducer. The side scan needs a separate module and 1-2 transducers depending on your hull. I installed the transducers last year 2 - 1200 each with faring blocks. I already had the module in the boat so why not.

The more info under the water where you cannot see the better. Yes its designed for fishing but it gives you a lot of informant about your surroundings.

After sandy years ago. I had the simrad version on my last boat. I went through the marina and could tell the Owner what was in the slips. Just by driving by the slips I found dock boxes, tables, chairs, Freezers and the missing coke machine! LOL Even found a upside down boat in the bay. Cool stuff

 

[twistedtree]

I would minimally have a "fish finder" which is down looking, will show the bottom contour as you pass over it, and show the past N minutes like a strip recorder so you can see patterns. They also show what's in the water column, not just how far it is to the bottom. I don't know what that is in Garmin-speak.


You don't really NEED more than the depth, but a fish finder is typically very short money to add, and gives useful info about the bottom contour, likely composition, and depth trends.

 

[FWT]

I would minimally have a "fish finder" which is down looking, will show the bottom contour as you pass over it, and show the past N minutes like a strip recorder so you can see patterns. They also show what's in the water column, not just how far it is to the bottom. I don't know what that is in Garmin-speak.


You don't really NEED more than the depth, but a fish finder is typically very short money to add, and gives useful info about the bottom contour, likely composition, and depth trends.

And the forward scan, with all of its limitations, will give you the same idea, just looking ahead.

 

[GoldenDawn]

I have a Humminbird side-scan sonar with a transom-hung transducer (about the size of a hand). I use it ALL THE TIME but especially just before anchoring, even in familiar anchorages. I do a pass through the anchorage to see the seabed conditions then pick my spot. You would be surprised how much stuff there is on the bottom, at least in the Pacific NW. A couple of photos - one showing dozens of logs on the seabed and one showing what I think is a winch with cable.

Watch where you anchor!

 

[Capn Bob]

Apologies I read that wrong - no Forward Sonar is not advanced enough to make an impact - IMHO.
Save your money...

Before we took our 38’ trawler down from upstate NY to SC, I installed a Simrad system for navigation, radar & sonar. In addition, we added a Forward-Scan sonar head as well, as the MFD had the capability to power it.

Yes, it was pricey, but we found that it was invaluable when on the ICW when crossing near the inlets. Many of these areas shoal very quickly, and the charts cannot keep up with the shifting sands. Even the buoys, which the USCG moves often, were at times showing deep water where it was actually shoaled. The “look-ahead” sonar saved our bacon a number of times, since your standard sonar shows you where you’ve been if moving, and where you are NIW if stationary.

When coming down the Alligator-Pungo Canal in NC last year, we noticed a lot of shoaling. In fact, while transiting it late one afternoon a trawler passed us at high speed and hit a sandbar. The allision actually ripped out the starboard shaft, including the Drive-Saver, and the boat began to sink. We were able to nose into him to try to effect a rescue. This would have been much more difficult without the Forward Scan, as the water is full of tannin and fairly dark.

I’ve never had a Forward-Scan sonar until now, and it’s now become an essential tool when transiting shallow or shoaling waters.

 

[Capn Bob]

Now THAT is a really nice image of the bottom!