Seakeeper? Other things?

[Datenight]

You have a better chance of throwing a rod in a generator running a Seakeeper than snapping off a fin.

Peter

Rob

 

[Hippocampus]

Don’t disagree and defer to your superior knowledge and experience. Think there’s a misperception. Never said nor intended to imply fins present a safety issue. the experience with the KK in the keys was clearly an outlier. Hence never said anything about no holes nor anything about fins tearing off.
But still think there are advantages to having as few as possible appendages sticking out. Same with unprotected running gear. Agree much of it is marketing hype. But there is a kernel of truth.
But there’s a difference in what fits best on a given hull for a given use pattern.they say about running aground it’s not if but when. Some boats are easy to get off. Some present more of a challenge. In my solo (more to follow I’m sure) grounding was able to give a jolt of thrusters, strong rudder and pivot off. In the soupy then thick mud of the lower Chesapeake I’m fairly confident fins would have been in the mud. So I remain believing in that particular setting having dual thrusters, single protected screw behind the keel allowed a quick no hassle fix. We didn’t even suck up much and the engine exhaust water wasn’t colored that we could see at night. You could feel the boat slide sideways and pivot. Think it would have been more difficult with a different set up. Peter I find it difficult to have a different opinion than you about anything as you have much experience and great wisdom. But there is a difference.

 

[rslifkin]

Don't forget, different boats will often lead to different behavior in skinny water. There are places I'd never take my boat, but would happily take a well protected single or a sailboat of similar draft. The price for bumping the bottom in my boat is just too high unless the bottom carries a lot of slope where I'd hit on the keel forward of the running gear.

Generally, if I'm not very confident of what's down there, I'm nervous and down to idle by 3 feet remaining under the boat. If I get down to 2 feet remaining I'm out of gear and if the depth continues to drop at all I'm in reverse. If the bottom in the area is likely to be anything other than soft mud or carries risk of any significant debris, I'll add another foot or so to those levels.

Because of that, I wouldn't worry much about sticking fins in the mud as I'd be trying my best to keep away from the bottom with the running gear (which hangs lower than fins would). For perspective, I draw 3'10" loaded in fresh water, but the deepest part of the keel is only about 3'5" (the props hang about 5 inches lower).

On a boat with really well protected running gear or a really shallow hull, I'd worry more about fins as they'd be more likely to be the first point of concern in skinny water.

 

[Hippocampus]

Totally agree RS. That’s all I was saying. My concern in skinny water is sucking up too much stuff by the engine intake. Draft is 4’7” by manufacturers report but actually measures 4’10” with full tanks and full cruising kit. Engine intake is ~2’ above keel bottom. Stir stuff up enough that maybe an issue. But beyond that have less concern about grounding this boat than prior ones. Rocks coral heads and ledges are still a no no.

 

[mvweebles]

Don’t disagree and defer to your superior knowledge and experience. Think there’s a misperception. Never said nor intended to imply fins present a safety issue. the experience with the KK in the keys was clearly an outlier. Hence never said anything about no holes nor anything about fins tearing off.
But still think there are advantages to having as few as possible appendages sticking out. Same with unprotected running gear. Agree much of it is marketing hype. But there is a kernel of truth.
But there’s a difference in what fits best on a given hull for a given use pattern.they say about running aground it’s not if but when. Some boats are easy to get off. Some present more of a challenge. In my solo (more to follow I’m sure) grounding was able to give a jolt of thrusters, strong rudder and pivot off. In the soupy then thick mud of the lower Chesapeake I’m fairly confident fins would have been in the mud. So I remain believing in that particular setting having dual thrusters, single protected screw behind the keel allowed a quick no hassle fix. We didn’t even suck up much and the engine exhaust water wasn’t colored that we could see at night. You could feel the boat slide sideways and pivot. Think it would have been more difficult with a different set up. Peter I find it difficult to have a different opinion than you about anything as you have much experience and great wisdom. But there is a difference.

My statements are more universal about marketing on gyros. They are a great system and must be considered, especially for a new-build. But let's be clear: fins do have a hole in the hull, and there is an appendage. There will always be more risk than a gyro that has neither. But the risk is near enough to zero that it is a non-factor (though I'm sure the owner of the KK will never own a boat with fins again).

To my mind, there is only one near-absolute: stabilization is highly desireable. My wife would not cruise on a non-stabilized boat so it's a non-option for us. What form of stabilization varies - there is a strong case to be made for each of the three major forms of stabilization: Paravanes (simple, inexpensive, provide at-anchor stabilization - but relatively difficult to launch, snag traps, and air-draft so Loop is out); fins (easy on/off, relatively compact installation, reliable, but no at-anchor stability and yes, there is an appendage); and gyro (at-anchor, no appendage, but requires constant power-source).

For my thinking, if you're a 24/7 generator boat (many are), then the Seakeeper makes a lot of sense. If you're doing offshore passages, the simplicity and effectiveness of paravanes makes a lot of sense. For everything else, fins probably strike the right balance, though need some flavor of at-anchor stabilization depending on cruising grounds.

I do have a question: several mentions up-thread that Seakeepers can be installed anywhere in the boat, not necessarily on centerline, and have been installed in the lazarette. While electronic controls of fins have come a long way in the last few years, I would think Seakeepers would do a better job of controlling pitch and yaw in addition to roll. Further, I would think that installing in the lazarette would greatly reduce the effetiveness of controlling pitch/yaw due to long-lever arm. Thoughts?

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

On the paravanes topic, I've wondered whether it's possible to build a paravane setup that when retracted folds the arms aft against the hull sides rather than straight up in the air. Arm length would be limited (shorter arms might also make vertical storage a non-issue), so they wouldn't be as effective for a given size of fish, but it might make paravanes practical in a wider range of situations.

If it could be done without pushing air draft above 14'6" I wouldn't mind paravanes on my boat. Provided the launch / retrieve can be made easy enough, I'd be happy to use them for a few hour run down Lake Ontario. In confined waters where they'd need to remain stowed, stabilization would typically only be for boat wakes and such, so doing without stabilization would be fine.

 

[mvweebles]

Totally agree RS. That’s all I was saying. My concern in skinny water is sucking up too much stuff by the engine intake. Draft is 4’7” by manufacturers report but actually measures 4’10” with full tanks and full cruising kit. Engine intake is ~2’ above keel bottom. Stir stuff up enough that maybe an issue. But beyond that have less concern about grounding this boat than prior ones. Rocks coral heads and ledges are still a no no.

I forget the installation guidance, but the fin manufacturers require the fins to be well inside the 'envelope.' Even on semi-displacement boats such as Hatts, the deep-vee forefoot provides ample protection for fins.

When I moved to Florida 15-years ago, I thought it was go-fast country. No place for a trawler. I really thought I'd sell Weebles and buy something a bit more 'Florida-esque.' As I spent time in Florida on friends' boats, I came to realize that there are a lot of no-wake zones, and a lot of skinny water. Suddenly, seemed like a perfect place for a displacement trawler. Especially since my wife and I really prefer jogging speed and find higher speeds detract from our enjoyment.

My friend's 52-foot Horizon PowerCat draws about the same as Weebles - just under 4-feet. As Rslifkin observes, he gets damn nervous in water skinnier than 7-feet. Me? While I don't look for ways to run aground, I don't mind the Braille method of sneaking to the forward part of an anchorage.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

On the paravanes topic, I've wondered whether it's possible to build a paravane setup that when retracted folds the arms aft against the hull sides rather than straight up in the air. Arm length would be limited (shorter arms might also make vertical storage a non-issue), so they wouldn't be as effective for a given size of fish, but it might make paravanes practical in a wider range of situations.

If it could be done without pushing air draft above 14'6" I wouldn't mind paravanes on my boat. Provided the launch / retrieve can be made easy enough, I'd be happy to use them for a few hour run down Lake Ontario. In confined waters where they'd need to remain stowed, stabilization would typically only be for boat wakes and such, so doing without stabilization would be fine.

I thought it was on this TF forum a year or two ago that someone built a system with swing-out arms. If memory serves, an Aussie?

I've used a few paravane systems. I'm sure they get easier to handle after a while but there is a learning curve. Can't imagine setting them from a sundeck of a motoryacht style boat.

Peter

EDIT - here is the thread....with pictures of fold-out arms for paravanes.

https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/paravane-stabilizer-solid-foldaway-arms-design-48062.html

 

[rslifkin]

I thought it was on this TF forum a year or two ago that someone built a system with swing-out arms. If memory serves, an Aussie?

I've used a few paravane systems. I'm sure they get easier to handle after a while but there is a learning curve. Can't imagine setting them from a sundeck of a motoryacht style boat.

Peter

On my boat they'd be particularly awkward, as I'd be setting them from the side decks. I think they'd have to be rigged such that you could retrieve the fish tightly against the arms, then retrieve the arms and stow the fish after the arms are retrieved (being that there's no room to swing the fish inboard without hitting the cabin sides). Or maybe if using an A frame type arm that stows upright, design it so the fish stow on the arms and don't have to be moved by hand. Probably not a practical idea though, so I'll just keep ignoring the stabilization issue until the day I want to spend the value of the boat on fins (there's plenty of space to install them).

 

[mvweebles]

On my boat they'd be particularly awkward, as I'd be setting them from the side decks. I think they'd have to be rigged such that you could retrieve the fish tightly against the arms, then retrieve the arms and stow the fish after the arms are retrieved (being that there's no room to swing the fish inboard without hitting the cabin sides). Or maybe if using an A frame type arm that stows upright, design it so the fish stow on the arms and don't have to be moved by hand. Probably not a practical idea though, so I'll just keep ignoring the stabilization issue until the day I want to spend the value of the boat on fins (there's plenty of space to install them).

Have you considered roll-chocks? Several W40's have installed them and reported strong results at relatively low cost. I realize your under-body is much different, but maybe there are some examples out there. Would have a negative effect on faster speeds, though with diesel running >$5/gal, may not be an issue

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Have you considered roll-chocks? Several W40's have installed them and reported strong results at relatively low cost. I realize your under-body is much different, but maybe there are some examples out there. Would have a negative effect on faster speeds, though with diesel running >$5/gal, may not be an issue

Peter

I have thought about them, but I'm not sure how well they'll work on a hard chined boat with a fairly fast, snappy roll. The first few degrees of roll on this boat are pretty smooth, but fairly fast (roll period is 3 seconds or just under). But if you roll it further, it snaps back pretty hard. We do carry flopper stoppers (the cheap cone ones) to use at anchor and they help, but it's far from enough to knock down the roll if we get hit with just the wrong wake. I'd expect a similar limited effect from roll chocks, although if they slowed the motion a bit that would help (part of the rapid motion is having all of our tankage close to the centerline, so there's not a ton of weight outboard).

Realistically, we're rarely out in conditions where rolling is bad enough that it can't be solved by tacking or "screw the fuel, just go faster". So any of these options would be a "nice to have" for me more than necessary.

 

[Sababa]

I thought it was on this TF forum a year or two ago that someone built a system with swing-out arms. If memory serves, an Aussie?

There is a picture of the design you are talking about in Beebe’s “Voyaging Under Power.”

 

[Hippocampus]

People still only mention 3 forms of stabilization. But Magnus effect devices.
Are immediate on/off.
Retract to lie flush against the hull
Work at all speeds including none
Continue to work at all heel angles and in any sea state.
Do not require hydraulics nor use large areas of internal space.
Do not have the big draw at start up of gyros.
Have been in use for decades so technology is well established
Work in forward and reverse.
Do not increase airdraft nor beam(when retracted)
Are of comparable cost to modern fins or gyros.
Are as effective in decreasing roll as gyros and like gyros more effective thean fish or fins.

If I was doing a new build I would consider them. Particularly as electric motor tech has improved in recent years.

 

[Hippocampus]

A gyroscopic device will resist perturbation at right angles to the axis of rotation. Hence little to no effect on heave, or pitch poling. It precesses with axis of rotation remaining vertical or near vertical. The roll component of corkscrewing is eliminated but you still go up and down. Given the effect is basically on one direction of freedom of movement only and the device is structurally bonded to the entire vessel regardless of placement it acts on the whole vessel. Hence, it doesn’t matter where you place it.

The effect and presence of residual movement is quite obvious on my boat. The way central and peripheral vestibular systems are set up in you eliminating roll is quite sufficient in increasing comfort. People will tolerate heave better than roll.
The d-mn thing is heavy. We are a wee bit stern heavy with it in the lazerette. Being at midline prevents induced heel. Would think having the the thing directly below the metacentric point would be best for reasons of trim and gyradius . But if that’s not achievable midline aft rather than being bow heavy.

 

[Gotwex]

People still only mention 3 forms of stabilization. But Magnus effect devices.
Are immediate on/off.
Retract to lie flush against the hull
Work at all speeds including none
Continue to work at all heel angles and in any sea state.
Do not require hydraulics nor use large areas of internal space.
Do not have the big draw at start up of gyros.
Have been in use for decades so technology is well established
Work in forward and reverse.
Do not increase airdraft nor beam(when retracted)
Are of comparable cost to modern fins or gyros.
Are as effective in decreasing roll as gyros and like gyros more effective thean fish or fins.

If I was doing a new build I would consider them. Particularly as electric motor tech has improved in recent years.

I can personally attest to the effectiveness of Magnus stabilization. Instant the moment you turn them on and extremely effective. If we are cruising with them off and I observe a boat (think 35+ sportfish) on plane ready to overtake us, I simply turn them on and instantly prevent getting “waked”. When cruising in an advanced sea state, they are a dream. Mine are hydraulic and fixed below the stern, but the new retracting electric systems would be my first and only choice on a new build.

 

[ronobrien]

Have a SeaKeeper 5 on a NT 42. Went from sail to power because wife’s balance is a wee bit off after fracturing her ankle falling off prior boat on the hard. All I can say is it’s amazing. Still go up and down but not side to side. Thing is mounted in lazerette so there is some loss of storage. It’s midline but does affect bow to stern trim. On our first trip we entered Deltaville tired and in the dark (2am). First time there and was told where to slip the boat but couldn’t find it. Circling around just outside the marina ran aground. Having a single, full keel and nothing sticking out meant that event was trivial. Took a few seconds to be free and no harm done. Big advantage to that set up.
Downsides are time to spin up and electrical draw. If on shore power just let it spin up as we do our pre exit chores. On anchor while during morning coffee and absolutions. Given you need the genset add 3/4 to 1 g/h so some impact on range.
Overall think service and expense will be less than for fins. Still if I was not to ever be in skinny water and the program was only blue water I’d do fins. Gyros will give you decreased roll to a point. Once that point is exceeded and all precession has occurred you get nothing. Whereas fins will give you something as long as the boat is moving forward. So far decide before moving if we’ll run the SeaKeeper or decide to turn it on early when conditions change while running. The delay hasn’t been meaningful. If I had fins given immediate effect would do things differently but don’t think it matters much as you look at weather at least daily.
The presence of the SeaKeeper was one of the reasons I bought this boat. Prior owner got some money back for it being in the boat but surely didn’t get his installation cost which is significant. Also allowed me to see if the installation was beefy enough. Absence of any stress cracking or support changes let me know they did an excellent job. The SeaKeeper promo used my boat to demonstrate the effect on the unit. Its available on YouTube

I took a boat out of Deltaville with the owner and an electronics tech on board to calibrate some new equipment. I am from RI and the tech was local. We ran aground and the owner looked at me. I said "We were in the middle of the channel markers" The local tech said "That doesn't matter". It shifts almost daily down there.

 

[Johnboyrtw]

We have a sea keeper on our Grand Banks 42 and we love it. It works so well and you can use it at anchorage unlike stabilizer fins. Having nothing protruding from the hull like the Naiad stabilizers is a huge plus. There was a Kadey-Krogen that hit a rock and knocked a fin off and sunk.

 

[OldDan1943]

I took a boat out of Deltaville with the owner and an electronics tech on board to calibrate some new equipment. I am from RI and the tech was local. We ran aground and the owner looked at me. I said "We were in the middle of the channel markers" The local tech said "That doesn't matter". It shifts almost daily down there.

The buoy will shift the length of the chain and tide. And that is why I was told, do not get too close any buoy.
Soooooo, if you are in a narrow channel at low tide, the MFD is more of a suggestion. Low speed and rely more on your depth sounder?

 

[backinblue]

Brings to mind Clinton, CT. Narrow channel and surrounded by sandbars. I remeber coming in at low tide years ago, and a red buoy was litterally high and dry sitting on the sandbar at the edge of the channel.

 

[Mobcat]

What about both do many boats have sea keepers and Stabilise fins, adds another level of redundancy to I suppose, might as well throw some floppers as well I suppose just for good measures

 

[FWT]

Its a boat.

Let the boat be a boat.

If it has a motion you can't live with most of the time, maybe its the wrong boat.

 

[OldDan1943]

Its a boat.

Let the boat be a boat.

If it has a motion you can't live with most of the time, maybe its the wrong boat.

If that be true then I know of a USN DD that was the wrong boat for me.
LOL

 

[BlindHog]

I’ve never meet anyone with a sea keeper that wished they didn’t have it. If you can foot the bill they are worth it. My fishing buddies say it’s a game changer as it makes it so much smoother you can stay out all day and not feel beat up so much.

 

[Hippocampus]

Yesterday got SeaKeeper serviced. Although “project manager” at NEB is a total jerk wrench was a delight and quite experienced. I had no useful records which is why I wanted a factory certified tech.
Device has just under 500h. Entire service end up just putting in one zinc for the cooling system. He told me SeaKeeper intentionally puts no useful service information on the net or otherwise accessible to the public. Changing the settings of the device requires a code which is not given to the public nor buyer. SeaKeeper wants only factory certified techs working on the device.
He said in general as long as hydraulics work perfectly “if it ain’t broke-don’t fix it”. Of course if hoses, fittings or other things show signs of aging then replace before failure. SeaKeeper says to flush hydraulics, coolant annually. He had the same advice for coolant but said pull some out and assess but don’t mess with the hydraulic fluid unless you have evidence of troubles.
He further said use your temp gun on the bearings while underway for a long time. SeaKeeper has them as part of the 1000 h service. He said definitely do the complete 1000h but watch bearing temp. If you travel frequently when it’s bumpy they may need looking at sooner. You may also hear a squeak.
So in short service was under a hour. I’ll do it myself the next time. One zinc. I’ll watch the bearings and the usual stuff for any heat exchanger. Don’t know yet but sounds easier and cheaper than fins.
BTW he had nothing but good things to say about SeaKeeper. Durable and works. Easy to service. He also said their tech teaching program was good. For the other gyro brands- not so much on all of the above.

 

[CaptTom]

People still only mention 3 forms of stabilization. But Magnus effect devices...

I'd never heard of these, thanks!

I did find one company selling them, but it was one of those "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" kind of web sites.

Still, great idea, I'll keep my eye out for them. I'll probably start seeing them all over now that I'm looking.

 

[Fletcher500]

We are going for it and buying a new 43E. The last option we are chewing on is a Seakeeper gyro. Any thoughts?

Our cruising will mostly be in the PNW but will also likely head south down the coast and possibly out to the Caribbean.

Any other options that aren’t on the regular list?

Cheers
Scott

If you are cruising in exposed waters, I would highly recommend stabilization. I say that after 4 years of traveling in a H43. The last 2 years I have been retired and finally able to get some decent miles in.

My 3 favorite things on our boat, in order:

1. Gyro

2. Autopilot

3. Hot water shower on transom

 

[jimdavi]

Re:Seakeeper bearings. I think, unless it changed… bearing replacement requires ball removal and factory visit.

 

[FWT]

Curious, what is the expected useful life of a Seakeeper?

 

[Hippocampus]

Yup gyro is in a vacuum. To get to innards and then restore vacuum it's going to the factory. Told turn over time isn’t too bad but you need to add in removal and reinstalling the thing. In past short hauled for bottom and zincs. Will time that service for when we don’t want to use the boat for awhile.
Service life is really unknown but know there’s old units from when it first was marketed that are still in service. All wear points are replaceable so don’t see why service life would be limited. Kind of like the USN Constitution. My take is service life much like fins. As long as you can get parts good to go.
Bearings are several. Those inside the unit on which the gyro spins and those outside the unit which are moved by the hydraulics to allow precession. When I referenced bearings in prior post it was the outside bearings not the inside ones.

 

[Bduffey]

Stabilization choices

We purchased our 44’ DeFever with fin stabilizers and they have preformed very well. On our post purchase trip home we had to make the Carabelle to Clearwater crossing in the Gulf. The forecast was 3-4 feet with 10-15 knot winds max. Well it was a bit optimistic and we had 6-8’ seas with 25 knot winds. There were 4 boats in our crossing. Another 44’ DeFever without stabilization, a 47 Jefferson and a 41 Nordhaven. We clearly had, by far, the best ride and I became pretty sold on the Naiad fin stabilization.

The main issue with gyro stabilization is the power requirement. I would say that you could forget an inverter powering it, it is too power hungry for most systems. That means generator running all the time you are using it, it also takes a bit of time to spin up and the second you turn on a fin system it is on duty right away. I would also guess the gyro system is more expensive than a fin system.

The upside is you get stabilization without forward motion.

I would not worry about the fins, they are designed to break away without damage to the hull in a big hit, but that is very rare.

in any event, a stabilized boat is desirable and Worth the effort.

Safe Travels