The Non Evolution of the Sport Fisher

It's not about the SF mode. The few ZF's I've run are a little more robust in their movements (docking) than their IPS and Zues brothers. You cannot make as finite movements in any direction as with the other two......it's a little more jerky.....

That being said, CAT engines would be the preferred engine choice in the SF crowd over both Volvo and Cummins in a traveling SF. Also 2 engines and drives to maintain over 3 or 4 is also much preferred.....it's definately a step in the right direction on the larger boat pod applications.

Why on earth would you chose a C32 rated at 1200hp over a C18 rated at 1150hp for this pod set-up? The C-32 at 3220kg would be a waste of iron at that rating. The C18 comes in around 1675kg. C32 is not the right choice.

Less weight = more speed

FYI - ZF developed the Zeus drive for Brunswick (jointly), with Mercury providing the Integration team. It's mostly ZF hardware.

Except for out West where we do anchor and fish from the bow. Marinas are far and few between, but there are plenty of deep water anchorages for the active boater. Bridge mounted riggers are a must.

sorry to derail the thread but yes captain J I know of the boat in your story it is a barnad new meridian being delivered to trinidad , with zeus drives. They were able to recover the drive and had to wait about 10 days for a technician to reach to come and repair the drive. later on in the trip on the other drive that didnt hit the log, the aft propeller broke off

I've never heard of a C32 ACERT at 1200 bhp. The lowest rating C32 I've seen is a non-acert at 1550 hp. The C32 while being heavier than the C18, would last a lot longer at that HP level, but would have a lot more low-end torque to get the boat on plane and such. I've run a 44' Express with C18 acerts......C18's in a 60' SF is on the small side in todays day and age.

The Zues drive was a joint effort between Cummins, Mercruiser, and ZF. The drive itself I'm pretty sure was designed by Mercruiser as well as the electronics, the transmission by ZF and the engines by Cummins.....I've worked for CMD for a week several years back running one of their Zues boats for seatrials at the Miami Boat Show.

I've run about 10 Zues boats, 2 ZF boats and 1 IPS boat......

Sorry to hear about all of their misfortunes. I spoke to the Captain Baba several times. The mate I had with me knew him previously. We ran into them at Long Island, Bahamas, Ocean World, DR, and St. Thomas..... They'd leave the dock before us, we'd leave later and had a faster hull and cruise speed, and they'd pull in a little after us each day. I was running a 64' Hatt MY down to St. Thomas.

Hi,

Both the 1150 HP C 18 and the 1550 HP Non Acert C 32 are E Rated engines.

A 1/2 hr every 6 hrs at MCR.

The 1200 hp Acert C32 on the other hand is B Rated

8 hrs out of 10 at MCR

If someone wanted to drop to an E Rated Acert C 32 they could get 1900 hp a side out of the same footprint and weight

I was reffering to the Cat C 32 (B) ACERT with 1200 bhp, as the Zeus 4000 Pod is limited to 1200 hp max. input. The C 18 ACERT does not seem to have this amount of power. See below, C32 ACERT and C18 ACERT.

Sorry, I'm so used to dealing only with the E rated engines, I forgot that on a 1200hp B rated C32, you could run it at full power for most of the day or as kiwi said 8 out of 10 hours. So you're cruise speed would a 1200hp at full throttle, would be about the same as a 1550hp C32 at 80% load. The C18 E rated at 80% load would only net you around 935hp......

My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Mercury supplies the lower unit/props and controls, ZF provides the transmission for Zeus. I agree that the Zeus product has a much better feel at the helm than the larger ZF Pod, and I would credit that to the Mercury integration team that handled the control side of that program, as well as to their decision to use that oversized hydraulic pump.

I am sure I was also onboard one of those sea trials that you would have run at the Miami Boat Show

The selection of the B rated C32 would not justify the added weight penalty of that product at 1200hp, as well as the lost space due to the C32 being an oversized product at that rating.

Note - the ZF 4000 Pod is not rated for an input of 1200hp at 2000rpm, I am assuming due to torque limitations. Check their brochure.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG | Drives

You are absolute correct on both of your statements. The C18 is the biggest engine, the ZF 4000 Pod can take in that RPM range and the C32 is to heavy. But Cat is missing the V8 and V10 engines in their portfolio completely, like MTU or MAN. That is probably why most SF manufacturers offer their boats with MANs as standard engines in that range (best power to weight ratio). But I do not trust those MANs (Italian engines !!!, Leporello / MAN SE). I only like the big ones (mediun speed) and the very big ones (2-strokes). Cat should offer V8 and V10 versions of their C32 family.

I must say, from my point of view and what you guys telling me, the ZF Pod has some disadvantages in comparison with the IPS. Due to lack of personal experience in the SF business, I could not tell, which is best for a sport fish, but from my yachting knowledge, its either IPS or shaft and prop with rudder. The IPS system is designed and constructed with and for its corresponding engine and no big adjustments have to be made to the hull (besides some striggers on the inside). I take that point with the exhaust gases, when backing or trolling. I will check that on our shakedown cruises with our 82 quad IPS.

See the MAN range below

I ran across the Slane 62 while searching for more examples of pod equipped SF. Apparently Tom Slane is the grandson of the Hatteras founder. He and his father have been rebuilding/customizing old Hatts and have built some pretty interesting express models. They are now looking for a buyer for their first new build. If the advertised numbers hold up, this will be a good example of an "evolved" SF.

Slane 62

It looks very fuel efficient according to the numbers 2 gallons per mile at 30 knots....... Why Volvo's is another question. I would think the Cat C18/ZF would be the easiest for servicing reasons on a traveling SF. But I think Zues would be the best all around due to it's integration, transom exhaust, and features......

BTW, the ZF pods and possibly others can be mounted on the deadrise without changing the hull design or whatever. But you really DO NOT want to. What happens is if you're running at cruise and make any more than a very very slow turn, the whole boat leans over on one side of the vee (inside of the turn) of the hull and then radically turns (like full rudders over on a traditional inboard). It's a very strange handling and most people wouldn't like it. But there is little in-between, you either get a very very slow turn or an instant and hard over turn......

The main issue I've seen with pods, besides the complexity of the system, is any growth on the propellors and stuff REALLY effects performance, much more so than with inboard propellors. I've seen just scaling on the propellors knock 250rpm's off top end.

On any new project, fuel consumption figures are only estimates until they actually test the boat - I'll wait for the test results to see if she can really hit those numbers.

What Zeus Pod/Power package can be used in this application? They are running twin Volvo D13's at 900 hp and I don't think the Zeus combo of QSM11's at 715 hp have enough grunt/power for a 62 footer, and there is no talk of triples.

Fuel efficiency at 30 knot cruise seems to be a marketing key, and it will be interesting to see if they can get there with the D13s. I'll be rooting for them to hit that 57,500lb. weight target.

I agree that a 1200hp/ZF 4000 Pod would be a more logical but more expensive package. All pod systems struggle to get enough blade area for the power installed, as they are essentially diameter constrained design but make up for it with two counter rotating propellers. I think IPS has a better chance of optimizing the propeller design at the lower 900 hp than the 1200 hp ZF set-up.

The turning ability of pod driven boats is one of the key selling features. With the electronic helms, the steering rate as well as the individual pod angles can be programmed to lessen the effect of "lean" to some degree, but it is definitely fun to snap a U-turn at 40mph on a pod boat, as long as you give your crew some advance notice!

A C18/ZF pod package on the 62' SF would be more logical for a lot of reasons. CAT preference for the Carolina boys would be a main one.

Lol! Yeah, it's always a good thing getting a headsup from the skipper when his about to chuck her into a turn... unless he doesn't want crew !

57,500lbs is a realistic goal I think, I know Lightning Yachts can do it with one hand tied behind there backs .

I was getting estimates of 40-42knots with a 62' I did a few years back with the triple IPS1200 offset configuration, with the twins it was back down around 36knots (WOT), boat had to be light. But top speed can't be everything over there, can it...? It's rare that one can get a chance to use that speed down here, so a lot of S/F tend to have smaller engines, as it's one thing to get past and top end, but it's another getting past by a slower boat in harsh conditions!

I think Pods are the way to go, but they just have to start meeting similar requirements as the shafts were giving.

By the way the Slane 62 looks gorgeous!

Far

I assume high speeds are a bigger selling point in the US because the waters are calmer in the Southern US?

As was noted above, in Aust most SF's sell on ride and handling, with a cruise in the mid to low 20's being the aim when conditions allow.

Fuel is also more expensive here, so most people trade off taking a little longer to get out or back vs leaning on the sticks.

That said, it does feel good to run flat out "up the bay" for 10 minutes to clean the engines out after a day trolling.

Design of SF yachts

As my poor European brain seem to have understood the basic principles and tactics of blue water sport fishing and the pros and cons of the various propulsion systems for those type of yachts, I still have some questions about their design.

- Why do have SF yachts no front windows in their main salon ?

- Why is there no lower helmstation in the salon on open bridge SF boats ?

- On most SF, some or most cabins seem to have no windows or hatches at all ???

- Is it comfortable or even advisable on a planning SF hull, to have beds on a 45 degree angle in relation to the longitudinal axis (movement of the boat, when on the hook) ?

- Is a gyro stabilisation system usefull on a SF boat (maybe not during fishing) ?

- Is a larger SF (a 82 ft for example) used in the same way than a 45 or 50 ft, when fishing (trolling, backtracking and rampaging around) or are they better used for whale hunting ?

- How fast can those SF boats go backwards, without turning the fishing cockpit into a swimmingpool (calm waters) ?

- Which custom US SF builder(s) is (are) concidered the "Rolls Royce" among the SF community ?

Sorry, if my stupid questions are boring for an SF specialist .