New Electric Outboard Announced

[Mako]

I bought an ePropulsion because it fit my needs better than gas.

The same reason I have shifted to battery powered hand and garden tools. The higher prices are worth it to me in functionality.

The electric solutions will be adopted when and as they make sense for people.

True. Nowadays my battery power tools are 100% effective at what I need them for. However, if I were framing a house then they would be about 1% effective.

I tried the electric lawn mower but after one year gave up and bought a Honda gas powered because I needed it for that application.

Electric outboards for near-shore dinghies and canal cruising. Gas outboards for long distance exploring in dinghies. Diesel for long range cruising.

Different applications require different solutions.

 

[Helmsman]

Bonified Scientific References, for your statement - Please.

"A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming"

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

Art,

There are certainly many articles debunking the concept of a grand solar minimum in the future. However, it is a demonstrated fact that they do occur, and the periods in which they occured are pretty well documented..

An article is attached below with links to studies that suggest a grand solar minimum cooling will occur over the next 50 years. Other articles suggest that NASA has many scientists who agree with the data, and some who think that solar changes are too chaotic to determine whether the next one will occur over the next thirty to forty years.

I hesitated to post in this discussion because it could easily devolve into a political debate. However, I have studied both sides of the debate as to what the climate will do, and spent some time trying to dissect claims from both sides of the debate. Hard data and unmanipulated historical trends are difficult to find, but when I do the occasional deep dive through the available data, I lean towards a general cooling trend.

If there is a climate scientist on TF, perhaps they would be willing to wade into the discussion. I am not one, but again, have an interest in what will happen, and have studied it some in the past.

This article provides links to studies (which provide further links within those studies) if you wish to delve further into it. One caution: the article also reveals itself as being on board with the grand solar minimum side of the debate with comments at the bottom. Those comments inversely mirror the same types of claims in articles that promote warming and sea level rise. If you can get past that, the links will take you much further into the science behind the claims to judge for yourself. I hope this helps.

https://electroverse.co/11-scientific-predictions-for-the-upcoming-grand-solar-minimum/

 

[rslifkin]

True. Nowadays my battery power tools are 100% effective at what I need them for. However, if I were framing a house then they would be about 1% effective.

I tried the electric lawn mower but after one year gave up and bought a Honda gas powered because I needed it for that application.

Electric outboards for near-shore dinghies and canal cruising. Gas outboards for long distance exploring in dinghies. Diesel for long range cruising.

Different applications require different solutions.

It's interesting to see how much the tech has changed even in a few years. I bought a gas mower ~5 years ago as none of the electric ones on the market at the time had enough runtime to cut my yard without a battery swap (but the gas one will do it on one tank) and they weren't quite up to the cut quality yet of the better gas mowers.



But if I were buying now, it would most likely be electric, as they've improved just enough in the last few years to change the math. The rest of the lawn tools already are, save for the snowblower. And that's unlikely to change any time soon, as nobody is even close to making a sufficiently powerful electric snowblower (my gas one is good for a bit over 13hp).

 

[FWT]

It's interesting to see how much the tech has changed even in a few years. I bought a gas mower ~5 years ago as none of the electric ones on the market at the time had enough runtime to cut my yard without a battery swap (but the gas one will do it on one tank) and they weren't quite up to the cut quality yet of the better gas mowers.



But if I were buying now, it would most likely be electric, as they've improved just enough in the last few years to change the math. The rest of the lawn tools already are, save for the snowblower. And that's unlikely to change any time soon, as nobody is even close to making a sufficiently powerful electric snowblower (my gas one is good for a bit over 13hp).

What can seem like progress often isn't.

Early 1960's ... we are taking 60 years ago more or less ... my Dad bought an electric riding mower from Sears. Yeah, Sears. Back in the day when they did a big business selling hardware and tools. It was powered by a lead acid car battery, and you left it plugged in on a trickle charge between uses. As a little kid I did the cutting and never once ran out of juice. I guess the most I'd do at once was 2-3 acres. Ours plus some neighbor yards making money as a kid. If they could build that 60 years ago, surely they could do it today.

 

[SteveK]

What can seem like progress often isn't.

Early 1960's ... we are taking 60 years ago more or less ... my Dad bought an electric riding mower from Sears. Yeah, Sears. Back in the day when they did a big business selling hardware and tools. It was powered by a lead acid car battery, and you left it plugged in on a trickle charge between uses. As a little kid I did the cutting and never once ran out of juice. I guess the most I'd do at once was 2-3 acres. Ours plus some neighbor yards making money as a kid. If they could build that 60 years ago, surely they could do it today.

GM had electric cars in the 90's which were abandoned even though they worked satisfactory.

 

[SteveK]

Introducing Electric Outboard Motor Epropulsion Spirit 1.0 Plus 3HP 1kW
Spirit 1.0 Plus is a portable 3HP electric outboard made for dingies, fishing boats, sailboats and tenders. It features a 1276Wh large integrated lithium battery for long range. It’s nimble, lightweight, and clean power.

With one charge, you can go 22 miles at 4.5 mph, or go fishing all day long at trolling speed.

The electric Mercury OB (discussed here) has a 12.7x7P prop compared to my propane 5HP 7.7x8P.
I am guessing the electric torque allows the larger prop which then can make it equivalent to a 3HP gas engine for speed. I can see my 5HP cavitating and not using all the propulsion as the larger prop.

 

[DDW]

Very easy to build a gas outboard with a large prop. British Seagull did it for many decades. It just takes a bigger reduction ratio. Torque is not power, power is power. The 5hp and the electric may be set up to be optimized for different speeds, hence different props. But that has nothing to do with the power head.

 

[Mako]

My advice to anyone wanting to buy an electric mower is go with the 60v models. Mine was 40v and was not sufficient for a 4,000sf lawn in Florida. However my neighbor and my brother recently bought the 60v models (cost was about $600) and they seem adequate.

The other thing is that the batteries have a life of about 1 to 1.5 years. And the cost of a new battery is nearly the cost of buying a new mower!

 

[Mako]

Very easy to build a gas outboard with a large prop. British Seagull did it for many decades. It just takes a bigger reduction ratio. Torque is not power, power is power. The 5hp and the electric may be set up to be optimized for different speeds, hence different props. But that has nothing to do with the power head.

Ah, the memories of my Mercury 60hp Bigfoot. Big reduction gear. Big prop. Pushed my heavy boat along much better than a fast-turning egg beater would have. Lovely.

 

[SteveK]

Very easy to build a gas outboard with a large prop. British Seagull did it for many decades. It just takes a bigger reduction ratio. Torque is not power, power is power. The 5hp and the electric may be set up to be optimized for different speeds, hence different props. But that has nothing to do with the power head.

The electric can spin the 12 inch and produce the thrust & speed with as stated a 1.3HP. My 5HP propane I doubt could spin a bigger prop. What am I missing?

 

[rslifkin]

What can seem like progress often isn't.

Early 1960's ... we are taking 60 years ago more or less ... my Dad bought an electric riding mower from Sears. Yeah, Sears. Back in the day when they did a big business selling hardware and tools. It was powered by a lead acid car battery, and you left it plugged in on a trickle charge between uses. As a little kid I did the cutting and never once ran out of juice. I guess the most I'd do at once was 2-3 acres. Ours plus some neighbor yards making money as a kid. If they could build that 60 years ago, surely they could do it today.

A riding mower totally changes the game compared to a push mower. You have much more space for batteries, it's not as weight-constrained, etc. I'd expect current battery tech would allow more runtime than what you had. Of course, some of the same issues still apply. A suitable electric motor (ideally 2 for separate propulsion and blade drive), controller, and a sufficiently large pile of batteries costs more to produce than a cheap gas mower engine they've been making for 20 years since the last big changes. So convincing people it works well enough and lasts well enough to justify the higher price is a challenge.

 

[twistedtree]

The electric can spin the 12 inch and produce the thrust & speed with as stated a 1.3HP. My 5HP propane I doubt could spin a bigger prop. What am I missing?

You could change the reduction gear ratio in the propane motor to turn the larger prop at the same speed and same torque.


As DDW said, torque and power are not the same thing. Power is torque x rpm. Electric motors can develop high torque at low rpms, but if the rpms are low, so will be the power.


There is no situation on this planet where 1hp equals 3.5hp. That said, it's unlikely that Mercury is lying, but rather not telling us what they really mean, and leaving (I'd argue they are guiding) the reader to independently conclude they are actually getting a 3.5hp motor. That's kind of the art of marketing/PR in a nut shell. Guiding people to conclude something more flattering that what you are actually saying by selective omission.


My guess, and it's only a guess, is that when they say their 1hp motor is equivalent to a 3.5hp gas outboard, the more complete statement is something like "the 1hp electric outboard's full power torque is equivalent to a 3.5hp gas engines torque at the same RPM". Come to think of it, do they really say how it's equivalent? Maybe they are the same color? Maybe they make the same amount of noise?

 

[twistedtree]

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not anti-electric motors. I'm anti BS.

 

[SteveK]

You could change the reduction gear ratio in the propane motor to turn the larger prop at the same speed and same torque.
.....................

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that when they say their 1hp motor is equivalent to a 3.5hp gas outboard, the more complete statement is something like "the 1hp electric outboard's full power torque is equivalent to a 3.5hp gas engines torque at the same RPM". Come to think of it, do they really say how it's equivalent? Maybe they are the same color? Maybe they make the same amount of noise?

No the bottom end will not fit a 12"

and yes, I still think a side by side may be interesting with a gas 3HP and the electric. The size of prop may well travel the same distance, just saying.

I have had a seagull 2HP? and it worked on a light dingy, but on a heavier one you could not use full throttle as it just cavitated due to the small prop.

 

[SteveK]

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not anti-electric motors. I'm anti BS.

My next OB may be electric, the propane one will do just fine for many years.
Besides how could you be anti electric.

 

[Bmarler]

My take is that mercury says it performs similar to a 3.5 hp gas outboard. I haven’t used their motor, but I do have a similar powered torqeedo. I have to agree that using a seat of the pants comparison the electric performs similar to a 3.5 gas. At full throttle they both achieve about the same speed. In all fairness though, I don’t think the gas can make full power as it never reaches the rpm to do so.

I actually have two torqeedos. I was joking to my wife about mounting twins on the dink and see if I could get it up on plane. I’m not sure it would though, the prop rpm might be too low. I don’t know if the torqeedo rpm’s would increase like a gas motor does when you get on step. Would be interesting to see.

 

[DDW]

The use of "equivalent", which can be interpreted in a large variety of ways, is key to their marketing babble-speak.

An outboard that can't swing a large prop is a deficiency in the drive leg, has nothing to do with the power head.

I have done the side by side comparisons (temporally, at least) between the 5hp Seagull and the <1.3 hp ePropulsion Spirit (they have about the same size prop). At displacement speeds, you have a very non-linear increase in speed with a big increase in power - until you can make it plane. There is little practical difference between the two, about 0.5 knots in top speed. The biggest difference is a lot less smoke on the electric, a lot less noise on the electric, and a lot less pull cord action. Once you get above planing speeds there is a more direct linear relationship between power and speed. That isn't where you are with 1 or 3 hp outboards. If I had compared 10 hp (sufficient to make it plane) to 30 hp, I'd bet a 6 pack there would be a very real difference.

This should be familiar to trawler owners. My AT34 will run at 7 knots at about 40 hp input. To get to 8 knots takes 70, 9 takes 120, 10 knots takes 180 hp. Much different above 12 when it is on plane.

Mercury could have said, "its only 1 hp but you don't need more, it doesn't do any good". But that sounds a lot worse in the brochure than "equivalent to a 3.5 hp outboard". They are marketers, not oracles of truth.

 

[mvweebles]

FYI - ePropulsion and Torqueedo both state their 1kw motors are equivilent to 3hp outboards.
https://www.epropulsion.com/spirit-1/
https://www.torqeedo.com/en/products/outboards/travel/travel-1103-c/M-1151-00.html

I have no idea how to square this, but let's be honest - hp ratings on outboards have been murky for decades. 3.3hp is the same as 2.2hp except it's not. 15hp is the same as a 20hp except for some minor tweaking. The whole power rating in OBs has been a sea of obfuscation. To suddently get knickers in a twist about electric is a bit ironic.

I'm good with saying that where you used a 3.3hp outboard, you'll be happy with a 1kw output eOB (e.g. ---- wait-for-it -----'equivilent').

Peter

FYI - eBay has a few British Seagull outboards listed. Looks like this one has a similar Amel Monobloc carburetor as my 1963 Triumph motorcycle. Wasn't there an old joke about Seagulls - "Only 4 moving parts including your arm."

 

[Art]

Art,

There are certainly many articles debunking the concept of a grand solar minimum in the future. However, it is a demonstrated fact that they do occur, and the periods in which they occured are pretty well documented..

An article is attached below with links to studies that suggest a grand solar minimum cooling will occur over the next 50 years. Other articles suggest that NASA has many scientists who agree with the data, and some who think that solar changes are too chaotic to determine whether the next one will occur over the next thirty to forty years.

I hesitated to post in this discussion because it could easily devolve into a political debate. However, I have studied both sides of the debate as to what the climate will do, and spent some time trying to dissect claims from both sides of the debate. Hard data and unmanipulated historical trends are difficult to find, but when I do the occasional deep dive through the available data, I lean towards a general cooling trend.

If there is a climate scientist on TF, perhaps they would be willing to wade into the discussion. I am not one, but again, have an interest in what will happen, and have studied it some in the past.

This article provides links to studies (which provide further links within those studies) if you wish to delve further into it. One caution: the article also reveals itself as being on board with the grand solar minimum side of the debate with comments at the bottom. Those comments inversely mirror the same types of claims in articles that promote warming and sea level rise. If you can get past that, the links will take you much further into the science behind the claims to judge for yourself. I hope this helps.

11 Scientific Predictions for the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum (spoiler: wrap up, it's getting cold) - Electroverse

Hi Helmsman

This clearly displays the difference between guesses/conjectures and scientifically proven facts.

Your Link [first paragraph follows]: 11 Scientific Predictions for the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum (spoiler: wrap up, it's getting cold) - Electroverse

"The exact time-frame and depth of this next chill of solar minimum is still anyone’s guess, and the parameters involved (i.e., galactic cosmic rays, geomagnetic activity, solar wind flux etc.) remain poorly understood."

My Links: [listen well to first link and watch closely to 2nd link]:
CO2 overage in atmosphere is scientifically proven to be the leading reason for climate warming and oceanic acidification.

noaa co2 history - Google Search

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. A. Something I have yet to see is how much is man influencing climate change. Is he responsible for 5%? 25% 75% or maybe 90%? What is the REAL number?
What would the change in climate be if man did not exist? Surely this is calculable along the same lines as man's contribution.

 

[SteveK]

Greetings,
Mr. A. Something I have yet to see is how much is man influencing climate change. Is he responsible for 5%? 25% 75% or maybe 90%? What is the REAL number?
What would the change in climate be if man did not exist? Surely this is calculable along the same lines as man's contribution.

If there was no man then the earth would be flooded since we are 98% water.

 

[Helmsman]

Hi Helmsman

This clearly displays the difference between guesses/conjectures and scientifically proven facts.

Your Link [first paragraph follows]: 11 Scientific Predictions for the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum (spoiler: wrap up, it's getting cold) - Electroverse

"The exact time-frame and depth of this next chill of solar minimum is still anyone’s guess, and the parameters involved (i.e., galactic cosmic rays, geomagnetic activity, solar wind flux etc.) remain poorly understood."

My Links: [listen well to first link and watch closely to 2nd link]:
CO2 overage in atmosphere is scientifically proven to be the leading reason for climate warming and oceanic acidification.

noaa co2 history - Google Search

Thank you for posting the links. I actually appreciate the writer I cited not acting as if there is any absolute in a science that is still in its infancy, attempting to measure millennium long natural cycles. There is a considerable amount of impacts on temperature change. CO2 has an impact, as does the sun, as does the earth’s own core.

I dismiss any definitive statement as to the direct cause of temperature change due to the complexity of the phenomena. There is no single bullet that impacts it. There are many climatologists who do not agree with the man made global warming mantra currently passed as settled science.

But, we will let this go, because it is beyond the intended scope for this forum. And neither one of us will settle the debate, regardless of the effort we put into trying to. I am sure there are other forums out there where these issues can be debated. This one is not one of them.

 

[rslifkin]

I have no idea how to square this, but let's be honest - hp ratings on outboards have been murky for decades. 3.3hp is the same as 2.2hp except it's not. 15hp is the same as a 20hp except for some minor tweaking. The whole power rating in OBs has been a sea of obfuscation. To suddently get knickers in a twist about electric is a bit ironic.

With gas engines they typically build a few sizes of outboard and then restrict the power on some of them to get the intermediate ratings.

With a few of the Tohatsu models they use a smaller, more restrictive carb. An 8 and a 9.8 have the same basic engine, but the 8hp has a smaller carb that chokes it down so it can only produce 8hp. On some outboards there's also a different cam between different ratings of the same base engine.

 

[SteveK]

I remember a popular brand, maybe Evinrude or Merc 9.9 that a carb change turned into a 15HP. The 9.9 cowl would keep it under license requirements

 

[DDW]

FYI - ePropulsion and Torqueedo both state their 1kw motors are equivilent to 3hp outboards.
https://www.epropulsion.com/spirit-1/
https://www.torqeedo.com/en/products/outboards/travel/travel-1103-c/M-1151-00.html

I have no idea how to square this, but let's be honest - hp ratings on outboards have been murky for decades. 3.3hp is the same as 2.2hp except it's not. 15hp is the same as a 20hp except for some minor tweaking. The whole power rating in OBs has been a sea of obfuscation. To suddently get knickers in a twist about electric is a bit ironic.

Peter
...
Wasn't there an old joke about Seagulls - "Only 4 moving parts including your arm."

It is true that manufacturers claims about HP for *anything* have been suspect for as long as there has been HP. But 3.5x exaggeration is a bit excessive. And probably illegal without the mushy word "equivalent".

BS outboards have been the butt of many jokes. Amel carb (basically a small hole with gas dribbling into it), con rod caps fixed by slotted screws ("tighten firmly"), 10:1 gasil mix, unsealed reduction gear that operates on a mixture of 140W and seawater. Nevertheless, I bought one from a collector who guessed it hadn't run in at least 20 years. It had compression and spark so I took it to the boat. Dumped gas in, waited until the cork seals swelled enough to stem the flow of gas from everywhere, and it started on the second pull. I used it for a season and it always started on the first or second pull. The Yamaha on the other boat is pretty good, but not that good!

 

[Art]

Greetings,
Mr. A. Something I have yet to see is how much is man influencing climate change. Is he responsible for 5%? 25% 75% or maybe 90%? What is the REAL number?
What would the change in climate be if man did not exist? Surely this is calculable along the same lines as man's contribution.

See PM

 

[backinblue]

As for an electric outboard. First off, I think I have at one point or another dunked every outboard I ever owned. I want nothing to do with LiO batteries and fresh water let along salt water. No thanks no matter how waterproof they say it is. I am a bit nervous to take my big fat electric bicycle on a long boat trip.

eProp batteries are not only waterproof, they are designed to float if you should drop it in the water. That should be the least of your concerns.

 

[backinblue]

Good to see Mercury developing electric, but I don't see anything special about their first try. Compared to what's already available, it looks heavier for similar performance. I would be willing to bet it will also be more expensive. One of the things I really like about my eProp is how lightweight it is, making it easy to handle and store, especially once the battery is removed which is very simple.

As for the boat, again expensive and heavy and not sure who is looking for a boat like that. Designed to fit in the back of a pickup but too heavy to lift? Made for places w/o a boat ramp but comes with a trailer? Sounds like a product looking for a market.

 

[heysteve]

I had a Torqueedo 1103 which claims a 3 HP equivalency. I now have a vintage 3HP Johnson two-stroke. I can say that - without doubt - the Johnson seems WAY more powerful in real world conditions (like leaving a beach through a surf break). The Torqueedo hole shot, in particular, is terrible due to its highly optimized propeller. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the Torqueedo for its quiet operation but I tend to think of it as an alternative to rowing rather than of an equivalent gas outboard.

 

[mvweebles]

Leaving aside the hp vs kw debate, the Torqeedo 1103 and the eProp Spirit 1.0 seem to be positioned in the same market - 500w motor; 1kw battery. The eProp is priced around $1500; the Torqeedo just under $3000 - a big difference. The $3k Torqeedo is just slightly less expensive than the 20hp Tohatsu i bought 8-mos ago (around $3400). Any idea why the big difference? Why would anyone by a Torqeedo when it's 2x the eProp? Or did I get something wrong?

I also carry an old 3.3 Merc ostensibly as a back-up (mostly because I had it). I could definitely see carrying an eOB as a backup because I can charge it via solar array. And I do see it useful as a boat-to-shore tender vs exploration-at-pace where ICE excels.

Bottom line, at $3k, I don't see a broad market. At $1k, starts to be really interesting.

Peter