Jump to content

Torqeedo - what's the current scoop? Tired of gas engine trouble..


Recommended Posts

Mark, see comments.

 

I too am looking for more convenience. The electric seems like a good option for me, as I race around the buoys on our inland lake, and rarely motor no longer than it takes to get sails hoisted and set or taken down. I sail a S2 7.9 and the 3 or 4hp version would be adequate for my typical use.

Do I understand that the tiller is fixed on the Torqueedo? I believe it is fixed, in the sense that it doesn't tilt uo, however, it can be removed without removing the entire motor. I'm not sure, but I think you could rotate it 90º before tilting it up, which would help. I don't understand how most sailboats could utilize it since the power head of the motor is often lower than the top level of the transom when in the water. Even when I raise my outboard to the out of water position, the tiller still has to tilt up when I tilt the motor forward. (to completely clear the prop when heeled.)

I leave the motor on as it is a heavy 7.5 hp Merc with alternator and electric start. The motor runs fine, but having the auxiliary tank on board is a pita, and I would like to have a motor that is easily removed when racing.

 

Question 2 is about charging. If I read the specs right, the Torq can be charged while under way from a 12V source. I think this is correct. Don't most all displacement boats carry a marine battery for powering running lights or other electronics? I carry one, but it's quite small, just for a few hours of lights. I have a gel cell on my boat for that purpose which stays topped off with a solar charger while on the trailer ( I dry sail with no power close by) If this is true, a marine battery should extend the range quite a bit. Just hook the marine battery to whatever source you use for charging it. You can get a charger with a 12v plug.

 

What am I missing or not understanding? Thanks in advance for any advice or comments. The Torqueedo USA folks have been pretty responsive to email questions. Try Mike.Shafar@torqeedo.com.

 

Oh, and on the ethanol issue. We have several stations that offer non-ethanol fuel for fifty cents or so premium over the normal 'up to 10%" stuff. Most people I know use that for all of their small motors, even new ones who say E gas is ok.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1003 throttle unit isn't fixed. It can be tilted upwards while still attached to the motor, which is what I do when I tilt my motor on the transom. It can also be demounted altogether and still used as a throttle as long as the cable is attached to the motor unit (an extension cable is available as an option). The battery can also be demounted and located somewhere else while in use, as long as an extension cable (another option) is connected.

 

On the charging while underway question, don't expect this to add much to your range unless you are prepared to go really really slowly or take long breaks between uses. Power use underway at reasonable speeds is much higher than anything that you can put back in by connecting to another battery or solar panel. For example, I can drive my 20ft boat at just over 4 knots while consuming 500W. With a step-up controller connected to your house battery, you might be able to feed 120W back in. With the new Torqeedo solar panel plugged in, you might get 50W. You can't do both at the same time, so power replenishment on the go is fairly limited.

 

BTW, I've just had my 2013 motor "seen to" by an authorised agent here in the UK and the shocking amount of noise that it made has almost completely disappeared, much to my relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joakim, thank you for calculations, it is interesting to read. I have long been convinced that Oceanvolt makes good systems and you have convinced me that these can be quite efficient for generating power despite using propulsion propellers. Unfortunately their product range ends too high. These are too powerful (min 6kW), too expensive and too heavy (min 42kg). Torqeedo fills that hole quite well (with 2 and 4kw Folding Propeller Pods that weigh only 16kg). Especially now when they have announced that their products will generate power while sailing after software update. Will see how efficient this is going to be.

But I see that you have some interesting intel regarding to Oceanvolt:

Oceanvolt had their new CPP (controlled pitch propeller) version of the saildrive. They claimed they can get much more regeneration with it than with a folding propeller.

I tried to google but without result. Tell us more about it. Maybe this is worth of separate topic? This is something that I have been waiting to happen.

 

One interesting topic would be - is it possible to use some smaller electric outboard engine as a generator behind some bigger sailboat. Basically all cruisers carry some sort of dinghy when on longer voyage and the outboard hangs useless on the rail. So, I don't see any reason why shouldn't Torqeedo go further with this development. This would be especially attractive if you can change the propeller easily and maybe even have several propellers for different weather or power needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to imagine it is just a software update to make regeneration possible. 2.0 and 4.0 FP specs and manual say nothing about regeneration. 10.0 has no manual on Torqeedo site. So we may have to wait and see how Torqeedo solves the regeneration and will it affect the prices.

 

I have no clue about the prices, since I haven't really been interested in buying one, just interested in the technology. Is Oceanvolt SD6 more expensive than Torqeedo 4.0 FP with all the same components?

 

The CPP version of Oceanvolt was still a prototype. I understood that one of the Vendee Globe boats is using one. It looked very nice. They wouldn't tell how it works, but it looks like there is an electric motor controlling the pitch in front of the gear torpedo. If I remember correctly they said that they have been able to regenerate 1 kW at 7 knots speed and the propulsion efficiency is 25% higher than with a folding propeller. But 1 kW at 7 knots is probably more drag than most would like to have.

 

It is of course possible to use an electric outboard for regeneration, but an rather expensive system to control the load and the voltage is needed. Thus I don't think it will be soon a standard feature of these. Just compare the price of Watt&Sea to any electric outboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got conformation from Torqeedo that no additional hardware is needed and my local supplier will do the update. It is strange because the electronics is divided into three parts - pod, control unit and remote control. Only a pair of power cables goes into pod and as it is brushless DC motor it needs to have electronics to work. Otherwise there should be at least 3 power cables connected to the motor. Power is probably regulated outside in the control unit that has a radiator in back and this is connected through NMEA 2000 network cable to the remote control. I assume that tall three needs to be updated somehow.

 

Torqeedo Cruise 4.0 with folding propeller costs ca 4 350 euros. Cruise 2.0 costs 300 EUR less. But the Oceanvolt SD6 should be somewhere 12 000 EUR, if i remember it correctly. So, almost 3x more expensive. Not to say it is 3x more powerful than I needed and almost 3x heavier. And this was not the only reason why I chose Torqeedo. Oceanvolt solution is more like a replacement for internal engines with sail-drive. But Torqeedo pod-drive can be installed when you don't have internal engine at all.

 

You are talking about Conrad Coleman's boat Foresight Natural Energy? It has the Oceanvolt engine but I didn't know that this has an experimental propeller. I saw it somewhere that they got Watt&Sea generators few days before the start so I assume Conrad is using Oceanvolt as a backup. But this is a good hint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference page in the Oceanvolt site does not say anything abut this but from this video it looks that Conrad has three bladed Gory propeller. This is rare choice for saildrive and it is hard to imagine how the pitch is controlled with an electric motor in front of propeller. There might be some mechanical stopper bin that allows the blades to open in one way and stops them falling back into neutral. To release blades you need to spin blades into maximum position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these comparable prices? Torqeedo FP price includes "Equipment included: Remote throttle, integrated on-board computer with GPS-based range calculation, 25 mm² cable set (3 m) including fuse and main switch, with weedless propeller 1916-00". The price you gave was with a folding prop. So this price doesn't include batteries and chargers, which easily double the price. Torqeedo seems to have the same prices for Cruise and Cruise FP, thus 10 kW pod is likely to cost about 8 000 € with a folding propeller.

 

What does the price of Oceanvolt include?

 

Here is a picture of the Oceanvol METS stand. The bare aluminium color drive is the new CPP:http://oceanvolt.com/mets-2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no prices on Oceanvolt page but this is the first pricelist that pops up by googling. The price there is for SD only and is therefore comparable (assuming it contains remote control and display as well). I have to admit that this is cheaper than i remembered it - under 10 000€. But still more than twice as expensive.

I hope this CCP will be exhibited in Helsinki Boat Show as well. Looks something from the future. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to place my Torqueedo order in a few days. I'm also getting a TorqTrac. What is a TorqTrac?

 

Here is what Torqueedo says:

 

"TorqTrac uses Bluetooth to transmit information from the data bus of your Torqeedo motor to your smartphone, where it's not just clearly displayed, it's merged with map information from Google Maps, enabling you to see in real time just how far you can still travel. You can also enter waypoints and view your expected time of arrival at your destination."

 

Personally, I don't know how I would have lived without it. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

why not one of the propane powered motors?

 

http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2013/december/alternative-outboards.asp

 

BECAUSE THEY ARE TERRIBLE PILES OF CRAP AND DIRT AND NONSENSE AND THEY DESERVE TO DIE IN A FUCKING FIRE

 

Where's the tylenol!?

 

 

 

really, friend has been running one for over a year now without a problem. he stows it in a locker when its not on the boat ( lake boat) , it just has to be stored in the correct orientation.. he says after he hasn't used it for awhile it takes 2 -4 pulls and then starts... he's happy with it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think electric outboards are most suitable for those who need the specific advantages, such as lakes that prohibit IC. Range is a killer, but for getting small boats in and out of a marina it sounds pretty good. I cant see any real advantage over a small gas motor in price, reliability, range or performance until batteries get way better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think electric outboards are most suitable for those who need the specific advantages, such as lakes that prohibit IC. Range is a killer, but for getting small boats in and out of a marina it sounds pretty good. I cant see any real advantage over a small gas motor in price, reliability, range or performance until batteries get way better.

Not to argue, but take a look at this video. This fellow, SySunday, posted in the "Cruising Anarchy -> Show your boat sailing" thread. In the video, he sails a 22-foot boat from the Netherlands to the Shetlands and Norway. He has a Torqueedo and solar panel for auxiliary power. Impressive.

 

Other advantages for electric are lower maintenance, no smelly oil and gas, greener (unless you get your electricity from a coal-powered source). In my case, the remote throttle and true reverse will be a big advantage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cruise and use your dinghy regularly to go to the beach, fishing, pick up stores, go diving etc and dont have an access to shore power or a large area of solar panels then its very marginal at best. My boat has a 40a/h alternator and I dont want to run it just to charge a dinghy battery, in fact when cruising I try not to use the motor too much unnecessarily. The other issue is simply raw power, a 3.2m tender with a 15hp outboard is just awesome for getting around especially while yachting because you can do so much with them.

 

An electric outboard is more a like electric oars, it has a place and a use but for most cruisers is just not there yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have just purchased a Beneteau First 20 here in Dubai. I have fitted it with a Honda 5HP outboard engine but I am really struggling with it (for all the obvious reasons previously stated) and am now considering replacing it with a Torqeedo electric engine. Can anyone advise me whether I can get away with the Travel 1003 (3HP) for my type of boat as Beneteau have recommended the Cruise 2.0 (5-6HP). The boat weighs 1,245 kgs and the Travel 1003 is stated to be suitable for sailboats up to 1,500 kgs so I should be ok, no? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have just purchased a Beneteau First 20 here in Dubai. I have fitted it with a Honda 5HP outboard engine but I am really struggling with it (for all the obvious reasons previously stated) and am now considering replacing it with a Torqeedo electric engine. Can anyone advise me whether I can get away with the Travel 1003 (3HP) for my type of boat as Beneteau have recommended the Cruise 2.0 (5-6HP). The boat weighs 1,245 kgs and the Travel 1003 is stated to be suitable for sailboats up to 1,500 kgs so I should be ok, no? Thanks.

If you are prepared to go slow, only short distances and don't need to go in head wind, you are OK. Thrust and especially speed will be much lower than Honda. Here are some test results with a similar boat. So 4 knots for 2.5 M or 2.5 knots for 7 M. Currently your top speed is likely more than 5.5 knots and you can cruise at 5 knots for less than 1 l/h. And you can get several knots in head wind in conditions you will get nowhere with 1003.

 

Even Cruise 2.0 will be slower than your Honda. The 5-6 hp equivalance is just marketing BS. In reality Cruise 2.0 is equivalent to 2.5 hp. Maybe slightly better manouvering, but lower top speed.

 

Here are some more test results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Cruise 2.0 will be slower than your Honda. The 5-6 hp equivalance is just marketing BS. In reality Cruise 2.0 is equivalent to 2.5 hp. Maybe slightly better manouvering, but lower top speed.

NOT TRUE..... Got proof do you have that the Cruise2.0 output is as LOW as a Honda 2.5? I'll put up $10k for that bet. Hint: there is NONE as the Cruise2.0 blows the doors off my 3.5HP Tohatsu.

 

I have personally tested them. A Toq1003 has more power than the Honda 2.5 and slightly less than the Tohatsu 3.5HP. The top speed of my boat with the 3.5HP is 5.8k and 4.8k with the Torqeedo. I could do 6.5k with the Cruise2.0 which is very similar to the 6.8k of my Tohatsu 6HP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even Cruise 2.0 will be slower than your Honda. The 5-6 hp equivalance is just marketing BS. In reality Cruise 2.0 is equivalent to 2.5 hp. Maybe slightly better manouvering, but lower top speed.

NOT TRUE..... Got proof do you have that the Cruise2.0 output is as LOW as a Honda 2.5? I'll put up $10k for that bet. Hint: there is NONE as the Cruise2.0 blows the doors off my 3.5HP Tohatsu.

 

I have personally tested them. A Toq1003 has more power than the Honda 2.5 and slightly less than the Tohatsu 3.5HP. The top speed of my boat with the 3.5HP is 5.8k and 4.8k with the Torqeedo. I could do 6.5k with the Cruise2.0 which is very similar to the 6.8k of my Tohatsu 6HP.

 

Solo, what kind of boat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even Cruise 2.0 will be slower than your Honda. The 5-6 hp equivalance is just marketing BS. In reality Cruise 2.0 is equivalent to 2.5 hp. Maybe slightly better manouvering, but lower top speed.

NOT TRUE..... Got proof do you have that the Cruise2.0 output is as LOW as a Honda 2.5? I'll put up $10k for that bet. Hint: there is NONE as the Cruise2.0 blows the doors off my 3.5HP Tohatsu.

 

I have personally tested them. A Toq1003 has more power than the Honda 2.5 and slightly less than the Tohatsu 3.5HP. The top speed of my boat with the 3.5HP is 5.8k and 4.8k with the Torqeedo. I could do 6.5k with the Cruise2.0 which is very similar to the 6.8k of my Tohatsu 6HP.

 

There are plenty of tests with measured top speeds of Torqeedo vs. normal OB. E.g. in this test (unfortunately in Swedish) you can find the top speeds of Torqeedo 801 (4.5 knots), Cruise 2.0 (5.3 knots), Mercury 2.5 (5.5 knots) and Mercury 5 (6.5 knots) all tested on the same boat.

 

You were not able to get 4.8 knots with Honda 2.5? Maybe Honda is clearly less powerful than Mercury? The test I linked earlier showed only 4.1 knots with 1003 in a 22 feet 1200 kg modern sailboat. I had a 22 sailboat from 80's also around 1200 kg and with Mariner 4 and the top speed was 5.6 knots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even Cruise 2.0 will be slower than your Honda. The 5-6 hp equivalance is just marketing BS. In reality Cruise 2.0 is equivalent to 2.5 hp. Maybe slightly better manouvering, but lower top speed.

NOT TRUE..... Got proof do you have that the Cruise2.0 output is as LOW as a Honda 2.5? I'll put up $10k for that bet. Hint: there is NONE as the Cruise2.0 blows the doors off my 3.5HP Tohatsu.

 

I have personally tested them. A Toq1003 has more power than the Honda 2.5 and slightly less than the Tohatsu 3.5HP. The top speed of my boat with the 3.5HP is 5.8k and 4.8k with the Torqeedo. I could do 6.5k with the Cruise2.0 which is very similar to the 6.8k of my Tohatsu 6HP.

 

There are plenty of tests with measured top speeds of Torqeedo vs. normal OB. E.g. in this test (unfortunately in Swedish) you can find the top speeds of Torqeedo 801 (4.5 knots), Cruise 2.0 (5.3 knots), Mercury 2.5 (5.5 knots) and Mercury 5 (6.5 knots) all tested on the same boat.

 

You were not able to get 4.8 knots with Honda 2.5? Maybe Honda is clearly less powerful than Mercury? The test I linked earlier showed only 4.1 knots with 1003 in a 22 feet 1200 kg modern sailboat. I had a 22 sailboat from 80's also around 1200 kg and with Mariner 4 and the top speed was 5.6 knots.

 

I think the Torqueedo 801 is more of a trolling motor - not really what we're talking about here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torqeedo 801 was a predecessor of the 1003. It looked good on paper but had quality problems and, of course, didn't compare nearly as well with small petrol outboards as the marketing guff would have had us believe. Plus ça change!

 

On my 20 foot sailing boat, a Suzuki 2.5 would get me to hull speed (5.6 knots) whereas my 1003 will only achieve 5 knots as long as there are no waves or headwind - and only for 30 minutes. Even so, I'm surprised that the Swedish test only shows 5.3 knots for the Cruise 2.0 (the one in SySunday's video of his cruise to Norway) and that it was beaten by a lowly Mercury 2.5. And SySunday's own speed test (above) suggests that there was something wrong with the test, or that particular motor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Cruise 2.0 (pod version with folding propeller) and previously I was using Honda 5hp. The boat has similar LWL to the First 20. The theoretical hull speed is 5.6 knots and this is the top speed for both engines. The only difference is that Honda is able to achieve this agaist up to 8 knots of wind but with Torqeedo you could expect the speed to drop below 5 knots. So, I would say that 2kw is just enough and 5hp is too much. Despite we cruise usually below 1kw at 4knots I dont recommend the 1003 outboard (maybe using it inshore could be an exeption). You might get into trouble in stronger winds. I advise ordering Cruise 2.0 with remote control or even the Pod version with folding propeller. You will get less problems with corroding parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

801 was marketed as "2 HP". It was a 800 W model. Now they have 503 and 1003, which are 500 and 1000 W and marketed as "1.5 HP" and "3 HP". Only the battery differs 1003 from 503. I wouldn't be surprised, if 801 had the same lower unit as well. The tested bollard pull is about 30 kg for both 801 and 1003 while 503 has got only about 20 kg. So I would say 801 is very similar to 1003.

 

Yachting Monthly March 2009 had a test of several OB's. It used to be as pdf on Torqeedo site, but I can't find it anymore. However here are what they measured:

Gasoline Bollard Pull Top Speed
Honda BF 2.3 13 4.5
Suzuki 2.5 35 5.9
Tohatsu S3.5 45 8.8
Mercury 17 5.4
Parsun 27 4.4

Electric Bollard Pull Top Speed
Minni Kota Riptide 55 17 2.5
Flover 55TGS 13 2.5
Torqeedo Cruise 2.0 54 4.9
Torqeedo Travel 801 31 4

 

So Torqeedo has good bollar pull. Equivalent of the marketed "HP". But top speeds are not at all as good as "equivalalent HP". Cruise 2.0 lost also in this test to most 2.5-3.5 HP OB's, but not to Honda 2.3 mentioned earlier.

 

Note how good 801 was on bollar pull (more than twice the value of Honda and close to Suzuki), but still it was clearly slower than any of the gasoline ones. Cruise 2.0 had three times more bollard pull than Mercury, but was clearly slower.

 

Torqeedo seems to loose most of its thrust when the boat starts to move while gasoline ones work the better the faster the boat moves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

801 was marketed as "2 HP". It was a 800 W model. Now they have 503 and 1003, which are 500 and 1000 W and marketed as "1.5 HP" and "3 HP". Only the battery differs 1003 from 503. I wouldn't be surprised, if 801 had the same lower unit as well. The tested bollard pull is about 30 kg for both 801 and 1003 while 503 has got only about 20 kg. So I would say 801 is very similar to 1003.

 

Yachting Monthly March 2009 had a test of several OB's. It used to be as pdf on Torqeedo site, but I can't find it anymore. However here are what they measured:

Gasoline Bollard Pull Top Speed

Honda BF 2.3 13 4.5

Suzuki 2.5 35 5.9

Tohatsu S3.5 45 8.8

Mercury 17 5.4

Parsun 27 4.4

 

Electric Bollard Pull Top Speed

Minni Kota Riptide 55 17 2.5

Flover 55TGS 13 2.5

Torqeedo Cruise 2.0 54 4.9

Torqeedo Travel 801 31 4

 

So Torqeedo has good bollar pull. Equivalent of the marketed "HP". But top speeds are not at all as good as "equivalalent HP". Cruise 2.0 lost also in this test to most 2.5-3.5 HP OB's, but not to Honda 2.3 mentioned earlier.

 

Note how good 801 was on bollar pull (more than twice the value of Honda and close to Suzuki), but still it was clearly slower than any of the gasoline ones. Cruise 2.0 had three times more bollard pull than Mercury, but was clearly slower.

 

Torqeedo seems to loose most of its thrust when the boat starts to move while gasoline ones work the better the faster the boat moves.

As a sailor who intends to move from a Honda 2 HP to a Torqueedo 1003, the above are interesting to me.

 

Do any of you Northern European chaps know any H-Boat owners who use a Torqueedo 1003?

 

P.S. I have been known to engage in an accidental "bollard pull" when I attempt to leave my dock, forgetting to cast off my spring line. :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some experiences using 801 on H boat and two other rather similar boats (Albin Express, quite similar to e.g. J/24 and IF almost the same as Nordic Folkboat).

 

The article is in Swedish, but maybe you can read it with a translator. Anyway none of the testers were happy with the thrust it provided. They said it was OK with no wind and got a 4 knots top speed, but little wind or ways made it unusable. They couldn't get out of the harbor. They said it is clear that a 2 HP OB had better thrust.

 

Here is an example of a bigger one, the Cruise 10R, which is marketed to be "Comparable petrol outboards (propulsive power) 20 HP". So it got 17 knots with one on board and 15 knots with two, while the same boat reaches 19.5 knots with two and 16.2 knots with four using Yamaha 15 HP. Or 23.5/22.2 knots with Yamaha 25 HP. The OB results are from this data. So in real life 10 R with 10 kW (13.6 HP) is much less powerful than 15 HP OB.

 

There are clear reasons for all that. OB's are rated for propeller shaft power and tests show that most OB deliver more than the rated power, especially in the 2-20 HP range. Electric outboards are rated for the electrical input power. So 1 kW motor like 1003 is likely to output about 800 W (1.1 HP) at the propeller shaft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.1HP for a Torqeedo 1003 sounds about right, whatever the marketing guff claims. I wouldn't mind the lack of top speed on mine if it compensated with some low down grunt. It lacks both and the range isn't much use either. However, having one is still better than being forced to row 3 miles back if I get stuck with no wind at the wrong end of my petrol-free lake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video of a Travel 1003 on an Etchells 22, which is pretty comparable to an H-Boat:

 

E22 H-Boat

LOA 30.5'/9.3m 27.25'/8.3m

LWL 22'/6.7m 20.67'/6.30m

Beam 7.0'/2.13m 7.17'/2.19m

Draft 4.5'/1.37m 4.33'1.32m

Disp 3325 lb./1508 kg 3190 lb./1447 kg

 

According to the video, top speed for the Etchells 22 was 6 knots. Ran for 3 hours at "cruising speed" and 10 hours at "rowing speed," although they didn't say what these speeds were. I'm guessing 3 to 4 knots and 2 knots respectively.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The video says "close to 6 knots" and looking at the waves the E22 is making it is nowhere near 6 knots in that video. It's marketing material! I have given you several links to test by magazines showing only about 4 knots top speed and less than 3 knots cruising speed on different sailboats. I really don't believe you can get a 1.5 tonne sailboat even to 5 knots with 1003.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The video says "close to 6 knots" and looking at the waves the E22 is making it is nowhere near 6 knots in that video. It's marketing material! I have given you several links to test by magazines showing only about 4 knots top speed and less than 3 knots cruising speed on different sailboats. I really don't believe you can get a 1.5 tonne sailboat even to 5 knots with 1003.

Well, yes, it is marketing material, but let's not get excited. They also said it was a 3 HP equivalent. :)

 

Here is what Torqueedo USA estimated for my H-Boat with the 530 Wh battery:

 

Speed Range Run Time

Slow 2.3 mph/2kts 23.0 miles 10:30

Half throttle 3.4 mph/3kts 12.1 miles 3:30

Full throttle 5.7 mph/5kts 3.2 miles 0:35

Also, in post #25, RImike says:

I have the 1003L on my 30' Shields (weighs 4600 lbs) we use when the wind shuts down sailing in Narragansett Bay. It pushes it just fine and can get a 4-6 mile range out of it with 50% battery left

Finally, I will be taking delivery of my 1003 in a few weeks. I'll post my results.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballantine's recommends the 1003 as auxiliary power for their Stuart Knockabout (28', 4000 lb. displacement):

 

"We highly recommend the Travel 1003, coupled with our side mount engine bracket, for intermittent use or emergency propulsion. Sometimes you need a little extra help getting from the dock, off a mooring, or to the starting line."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to your results. 5.0 knots is possible with 1000 W electrical power and perfect 12" propeller, but then your H boat needs to be in perfect racing condition (no extra weight, perfectly smooth bottom etc). Drag of a perfect H boat is about 220 N at that speed. The running time of 35 minutes with 530 Wh battery doesn't quite add up, since that gives only 900 W average power. Maybe you get 1000 W only when the battery is full?

 

Half power calculated from the battery capacity and run time is only 150 W. Again reaching 3.0 knots with that power is possible, but quite unlikely. Drag of a perfect H boat is about 66 N at that speed.

 

The slow power seems to be 50 W. Same as before, you can do it, if everything is perfect. Drag is about 30 N.

 

At 6 knots the drag is already 500 N, thus you would need to have over 1500 W propulsive power. Even Cruise 2.0 can't do that, but some of the 4-5 HP outboards may do it.

 

Drags are from my own VPP based on the Delft series. According to my experience, you will not get those speeds. The real propellers aren't as perfect as needs to be assumed for that. E.g. the two boats I have owned with an inboard and saildrive both needed about 30% more power than estimated depsite being in perfect racing condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joakim, I only understand a bit of your calculations. It will be interesting to see my actual results.

 

I sail on an inland lake - no current or tides - so I am really only concerned with (a) in and out of the slip. and (B) those times when the wind dies.

 

My only worry would be a situation in which I can't sail, such a a broken mast, and there is a lot wind. I recall one situation in my previous boat, a J22, when I could make almost no headway into the wind with my 2 HP Honda. I guess that's when you need an anchor! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice - do not count on ideal weather. You need that engine when it is rough a s well. As I mentioned, we have 2kw engine and going against stronger wind can take a kont of your top speed. On calm sea we can get that speed with half of the power. So, the wind resistance and the wave action can take most of the power to overcome, if not all. And this means that coming to the harbor with half dead batteries, leaving sails on the deck on rough sea with strong headwind you get so little speed that you will not make to the docks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as an owner of a first gen 1003, all I can say is buyer beware. Granted, I've had the motor for around 10 years now, and for most of that time I found it to be reliable, useful, and adequate for my use. But I recently started getting the dreaded E45 error. Of course nothing is under warranty, and when they tore it open, basically every seal below the waterline had allowed water to slowly creep in, degrade performance, and rust everything out. cost to repair will be only slightly less than the cost of a new motor.

 

I take some responsibility for this. Beyond rinsing off the salt pretty much every time I used it, there wasn't a whole lot of maintenance done. it never occurred to me the seals would go bad like that. I think a couple years after mine was released they started recommending a "checkup" by an authorized repair facility every few years, but at the time that meant I'd have to ship it to wisconsin or wherever their na facility is. Since then more repair places have popped up. They have also, since the originals, changed the seal design and beefed up the motor housing. I've been pretty disappointed with the level of proactive support I've gotten from them, and now I have 4 batteries and a useless motor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice - do not count on ideal weather. You need that engine when it is rough a s well. As I mentioned, we have 2kw engine and going against stronger wind can take a kont of your top speed. On calm sea we can get that speed with half of the power. So, the wind resistance and the wave action can take most of the power to overcome, if not all. And this means that coming to the harbor with half dead batteries, leaving sails on the deck on rough sea with strong headwind you get so little speed that you will not make to the docks.

Very true! My Seascape 27 has an 8hp Tohatsu in a well. In calmer weather I do 6.8KTS, but in a choppy 25KT headwind it drops to around 3.5KTS. The 1003 will power the Seascape 18 to about 5KTS in calm weather. Also claimed to work well on J70's. Don't forget that important factors are prop immersion, drag, hull speed, wind resistance and waves.

 

Many of the tests referred to above are not comparable (the Swedish test for example was done on a 4.3m aluminum rowing boat (no keel) weighing 94kg empty). Once a boat approaches hull speed comparisons mean little. Add factors like prop design an comparisons become even more difficult.

 

I first tried a 4 bladed prop on my Tohatsu, but lost too much top speed so I went back to the standard 3 blader. I expect that in a heavy headwind the 4 blader may be faster. In any case if you buy for peace of mind you should buy bigger rather than smaller.

 

One area where the 1003 shines is ease of installation and storage as it can be assembled/disassembled while stern mounted so parts are easy to carry and store. For increased range you now have the larger battery. 1003 has only one prop choice so it needs to match your boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I picked up my Torqueedo yesterday, charged up the battery last night, and tried it out today. As mentioned, I have a 27' 3200 lb. H-Boat.

 

The pieces went together pretty easily, and seem pretty well made. I'm in a fresh water environment, much more forgiving that salt. The only problem was with one of the cords that came with the remote throttle, which is an accessory. Torqueedo provides a 1.5m cord and a longer one, which I need on my boat. The cord connects it to the battery.

 

One end has a straight male plug to connect to the battery, the other end has a 90º angled female plug to connect to the underside of the remote throttle housing. It's very nicely put together. The problem is that the long cord has a 90º male plug, and a straight female plug. The shape of the battery casing makes it impossible to connect the 90º plug, and the throttle will not accommodate the straight plug. I've reported the problem to the dealer and he is going to contact Torqueedo; we'll see what happens.

 

As to performance, the wind was very light today. At full throttle, I was able to make 3.9 to 4.1 knots depending on whether I was going into or with the wind. This is less than the 5 knots that Torqueedo USA estimated - imagine that. My boat bottom has got some algae which might account for 1/2 a knot.

 

The Torqueedo definitely does not have the punch that my Honda 2 HP has, but the Honda would not start this morning.

 

I have not yet checked the ranges against what Torqueedo USA estimated at various speeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to performance, the wind was very light today. At full throttle, I was able to make 3.9 to 4.1 knots depending on whether I was going into or with the wind. This is less than the 5 knots that Torqueedo USA estimated - imagine that. My boat bottom has got some algae which might account for 1/2 a knot.

 

The Torqueedo definitely does not have the punch that my Honda 2 HP has, but the Honda would not start this morning.

 

I have not yet checked the ranges against what Torqueedo USA estimated at various speeds.

Sorry to hear I was right about the 4 knots top speed and not as much power as Honda. The ranges will be equally off. It will run at full power about the same time they gave, but go slower. Same with other powers, but the difference may be a bit smaller.

 

4 vs. 5 knots is a huge difference in power. I wonder would even Cruise 2.0 reach 5 knots with your H-boat.

 

Torqeedo is a good product. I just hope they would stop the marketing BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wonder would even Cruise 2.0 reach 5 knots with your H-boat.

It will easily go over 5k if he is getting 4k with a dirty bottom. The power level in the 1003 is no where near the 2.0.

 

 

Power of 1003 is 1 kW (electrical, not mechanical) and 2.0 is 2 kW. So it is double.

 

Drag at 5 knots will be almost double compared to 4 knots. Power needed is drag * speed. So more than double power is needed to push the boat 5 knots compared to 5 knots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cruise 2.0 is supposed to be 5 HP. I'm sure it would push me closer to my 6 knot theoretical hull speed, but the financial cost is probably more than twice the Travel 1003, by the time you add in batteries. I was pushing the limits of sanity when I bought the Travel 1003.

 

So, all in all, there are some "buts." I'm disappointed in the power - another knot would have been nice, but I think it will still work for me: 4 knots on a glassy day on an inland lake ain't so bad if you've got a cold one - but, the remote throttle is really nice, given my long afterdeck, and the absence of gas, gas fumes, pulling starting cords, oil changes, getting gas on your hands and in the water is nice to leave behind, but it has a price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torqueedo definitely does not have the punch that my Honda 2 HP has, but the Honda would not start this morning.

 

 

It's faster than a Honda that doesn't run :)

 

I wish you joy with it. I find that most of the advantages of the Torqueedo are qualitative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cruise 2.0 is supposed to be 5 HP. I'm sure it would push me closer to my 6 knot theoretical hull speed, but the financial cost is probably more than twice the Travel 1003, by the time you add in batteries. I was pushing the limits of sanity when I bought the Travel 1003.

That's just marketing BS. Cruise 2.0 is not even close to any 5 HP outboard and is weaker than many 2.5HP ones. I'm sure you wouldn't get more than 5 knots with a boat that gets 4 knots with 1003.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just marketing BS. Cruise 2.0 is not even close to any 5 HP outboard and is weaker than many 2.5HP ones. I'm sure you wouldn't get more than 5 knots with a boat that gets 4 knots with 1003.

I like the Torqueedo a lot as auxiliary power for day sailing. Relaxing is the point of the exercise. The clean, quiet, odorless, easy staring Torqueedo is less stressful than a gas outboard and gets the job done.

 

That said, the power claims don't make much sense to me. There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

This may be a bit rough and ready as a calculation but if there are 746W in 1HP as rule69 says, and the Torqeedo 1003 at full whack consumes 1,000W, then it suggests that the motor is equivalent to about 1.3HP. This makes more sense than the "marketing BS" claim of 3HP as in my experience it has significantly less grunt than a 2.5HP petrol Suzuki.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

This may be a bit rough and ready as a calculation but if there are 746W in 1HP as rule69 says, and the Torqeedo 1003 at full whack consumes 1,000W, then it suggests that the motor is equivalent to about 1.3HP. This makes more sense than the "marketing BS" claim of 3HP as in my experience it has significantly less grunt than a 2.5HP petrol Suzuki.

 

In school we learned that "in fourteen hundred and ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue, if you divide that number in two you get watts in a horsepower." That was close enough in an era where slide rules were still used. So, IIRC, 746 it is. However, that's not the whole story. Torque and power curves, prop selection, gearing and so on matter. IME, the 1003 that we use on a 26' boat is very nearly as effective moving around the Marina as the 3hp 2 stroke that it replaces. That is, it gets the boat moving from zero to maneuvering speed and back down to zero almost as quickly as the nominally much more powerful gas engine. In that sense I think they're comparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

This may be a bit rough and ready as a calculation but if there are 746W in 1HP as rule69 says, and the Torqeedo 1003 at full whack consumes 1,000W, then it suggests that the motor is equivalent to about 1.3HP. This makes more sense than the "marketing BS" claim of 3HP as in my experience it has significantly less grunt than a 2.5HP petrol Suzuki.

 

Actually 1 HP equalst o 736 W and thus 1000 W to 1.36 HP. But the power Torqeedo uses is the electrical input power. So 1000 W electrical power input has to be multiplied by efficiencies of the controller and the motor. That may give about 800 W at the propeller shaft. So 1 kW electrical input power is about the same as 1 HP propeller shaft power, which is used for gasoline outboards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

This may be a bit rough and ready as a calculation but if there are 746W in 1HP as rule69 says, and the Torqeedo 1003 at full whack consumes 1,000W, then it suggests that the motor is equivalent to about 1.3HP. This makes more sense than the "marketing BS" claim of 3HP as in my experience it has significantly less grunt than a 2.5HP petrol Suzuki.

 

In school we learned that "in fourteen hundred and ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue, if you divide that number in two you get watts in a horsepower." That was close enough in an era where slide rules were still used. So, IIRC, 746 it is. However, that's not the whole story. Torque and power curves, prop selection, gearing and so on matter. IME, the 1003 that we use on a 26' boat is very nearly as effective moving around the Marina as the 3hp 2 stroke that it replaces. That is, it gets the boat moving from zero to maneuvering speed and back down to zero almost as quickly as the nominally much more powerful gas engine. In that sense I think they're comparable.

 

 

So what is the top speed with 1003 and what was it with Malta? I would guess 4 and 5 knots. How much gas did you have to give to Malta to reach the same speed as you get with 1003 at full power?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the top speed with 1003 and what was it with Malta?

What or who is Malta?

 

Honestly, my assessment is purely qualitative. It feels like the 1003 does as well as the gas at low speeds. I can rationalize that by saying the infernal combustion torque and power come in at high rpms, that it's spinning a prop intended to absorb that power at high rpms, that the engine tune isn't ideal at rpms where shifting gears is acceptable and so on. But, I ain't got numbers and I'm not going to bother to collect them. IME, the 1003 moves the boat around the marina as well as nominally more powerful gas and it's a more pleasant ship mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Rule69:


"IME, the 1003 that we use on a 26' boat is very nearly as effective moving around the Marina as the 3hp 2 stroke that it replaces. That is, it gets the boat moving from zero to maneuvering speed and back down to zero almost as quickly as the nominally much more powerful gas engine. In that sense I think they're comparable."


I would agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually 1 HP equalst o 736 W

The Google says 745.7.

Depends on whether you're talking Imperial or American Watts.

 

745 and 11/16ths in American. Pro tip: you want to be careful to use American wire sizes with that. There are some sizes of SI wire where an imperial watt will start to go but then it gets all jammed up a couple of Planc units in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joakim, how do you think the Torqueedo people think they can claim 3 horsepower for the 1003?

1003 has about the same bollard pull as some of the 3-4 HP outboards. But that has quite little to do with the actual performance in a boat that is moving. Anyway that part is true, at least for OB's with propeller optimized for clearly higher speeds than 1003 can reach.

 

They also claim that propulsive power is comparable to 3 HP, which is just utter BS. You can read their story from here: http://www.torqeedo.com/en/technology-and-environment/performance-and-efficiency.html

 

So they claim that Cruise 2.0 has 1112 W propulsive power (probably true at some optimal speed) and 5 HP petrol OB has only 995 W. For the latter to be true you would need to pick up an exceptionally weak 5 HP OB, choose very unoptimal propeller and speed. Most 5 HP OB's produced since 80's will have 5-6 HP propeller shaft power, thus about 4 kW. Propeller efficiencies are typically 40-70% when operated even close to the normal speeds for the propeller. So the propulsive power of a 5 HP OB is 1600-2800 W, not 995 W.

 

That is clearly shown by all the tests I have seen. The one that has higher top speed in the same boat also has higher propulsive power. Cruise 2.0 has been slower than e.g. Mercury 2.5 HP. Thus Mercury 2.5 HP has higher propulsive power than Cruise 2.0.

 

You have to ask Torqeedo what they base their marketing material on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually 1 HP equalst o 736 W

The Google says 745.7.

Depends on whether you're talking Imperial or American Watts.

 

Yeah that's true. There is imperial HP and HP for most of the world. The definition of HP is lifting 75 kg one meter per second. That gives HP = 75 *9,81 W = 736 W. Imperial HP has some other definition, which I don't want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think this is a case of deceptive advertising?

 

 

Joakim, how do you think the Torqueedo people think they can claim 3 horsepower for the 1003?

1003 has about the same bollard pull as some of the 3-4 HP outboards. But that has quite little to do with the actual performance in a boat that is moving. Anyway that part is true, at least for OB's with propeller optimized for clearly higher speeds than 1003 can reach.

 

They also claim that propulsive power is comparable to 3 HP, which is just utter BS. You can read their story from here: http://www.torqeedo.com/en/technology-and-environment/performance-and-efficiency.html

 

So they claim that Cruise 2.0 has 1112 W propulsive power (probably true at some optimal speed) and 5 HP petrol OB has only 995 W. For the latter to be true you would need to pick up an exceptionally weak 5 HP OB, choose very unoptimal propeller and speed. Most 5 HP OB's produced since 80's will have 5-6 HP propeller shaft power, thus about 4 kW. Propeller efficiencies are typically 40-70% when operated even close to the normal speeds for the propeller. So the propulsive power of a 5 HP OB is 1600-2800 W, not 995 W.

 

That is clearly shown by all the tests I have seen. The one that has higher top speed in the same boat also has higher propulsive power. Cruise 2.0 has been slower than e.g. Mercury 2.5 HP. Thus Mercury 2.5 HP has higher propulsive power than Cruise 2.0.

 

You have to ask Torqeedo what they base their marketing material on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's true. There is imperial HP and HP for most of the world. The definition of HP is lifting 75 kg one meter per second. That gives HP = 75 *9,81 W = 736 W. Imperial HP has some other definition, which I don't want to know.

The definition of a mechanical horsepower is 550 foot-pounds per second or about 76 kilogram-meters per second. That's about 746. (the number that ~everyone~ who uses horsepower natively uses :)). An electrical horsepower is 746 watts by definition. Doesn't make any significant difference to the argument at hand, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1003 has about the same bollard pull as some of the 3-4 HP outboards. But that has quite little to do with the actual performance in a boat that is moving. Anyway that part is true, at least for OB's with propeller optimized for clearly higher speeds than 1003 can reach.

 

That fits with my experience. However, in our use, moving a small yacht around the harbor, I think low speed thrust is important. And, their argument about low rpm torque is most meaningful in this regime too.

 

They also claim that propulsive power is comparable to 3 HP, which is just utter BS. You can read their story from here: http://www.torqeedo.com/en/technology-and-environment/performance-and-efficiency.html

Gotta agree here though. In our case, the 1003 is competitive in slow speed maneuvering but can't compete on top speed or time to top speed with our 3hp 2-stroke. They reference technical details. I presume that would be repeatable tests. However, I don't see them on their site. That whole page leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like the motor. It works well for us. But I'm not comfortable with they way they've laid out their arguments on that page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torqeedo have been over-promising with their products since they were founded in the mid-noughties, leaving behind a string of dissatisfied customers. As can be seen from the discussion above, they're still doing it with their current smaller products. I don't know about their bigger ones (Deep Blue etc), which they appear to think are more important given their speed of development in that area. I suppose it is difficult to market very expensive small motors which do not compare favourably in terms of power and range with their internal combustion competitors.

 

What I don't understand is why, so far at least, there is virtually no direct competition. The German electrical giant Bosch has taken a stake in the company. They have done good work in the field of electrically-assisted bicycles, which are big business in Europe. As far as I can tell, Torqeedo has not shown much benefit from this alliance. It really needs other giants, like Panasonic for example, to get into the market to ginger things up.

 

In the meantime, those of us that have no choice will continue to use our Torqeedos with a sense that things could be so much better if we had a choice of manufacturers. Also with a sense of resentment at the "marketing BS" and the fact that the motors are not as robust or as reliable as they ought to be for the price paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If their products stand up to scrutiny and they manage to organise a greater spread of distributors, ePropulsion may become useful direct competitors in Torqeedo's small outboard market segment in the future. We need more like them and preferably backed by one of the lithium battery giants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are about 746 watts in a horsepower.

This may be a bit rough and ready as a calculation but if there are 746W in 1HP as rule69 says, and the Torqeedo 1003 at full whack consumes 1,000W, then it suggests that the motor is equivalent to about 1.3HP. This makes more sense than the "marketing BS" claim of 3HP as in my experience it has significantly less grunt than a 2.5HP petrol Suzuki.

 

If it consumes 1KW it will output about 1HP - you have to account for effiency in the whole system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joakim, how do you think the Torqueedo people think they can claim 3 horsepower for the 1003?

1003 has about the same bollard pull as some of the 3-4 HP outboards. But that has quite little to do with the actual performance in a boat that is moving. Anyway that part is true, at least for OB's with propeller optimized for clearly higher speeds than 1003 can reach.

 

They also claim that propulsive power is comparable to 3 HP, which is just utter BS. You can read their story from here: http://www.torqeedo.com/en/technology-and-environment/performance-and-efficiency.html

 

So they claim that Cruise 2.0 has 1112 W propulsive power (probably true at some optimal speed) and 5 HP petrol OB has only 995 W. For the latter to be true you would need to pick up an exceptionally weak 5 HP OB, choose very unoptimal propeller and speed. Most 5 HP OB's produced since 80's will have 5-6 HP propeller shaft power, thus about 4 kW. Propeller efficiencies are typically 40-70% when operated even close to the normal speeds for the propeller. So the propulsive power of a 5 HP OB is 1600-2800 W, not 995 W.

 

That is clearly shown by all the tests I have seen. The one that has higher top speed in the same boat also has higher propulsive power. Cruise 2.0 has been slower than e.g. Mercury 2.5 HP. Thus Mercury 2.5 HP has higher propulsive power than Cruise 2.0.

 

You have to ask Torqeedo what they base their marketing material on.

 

Alternate facts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using a Torqeedo Cruise 2.0 on my Farrier trimaran (32' LOA, around 3600 lbs. displacement) for almost 2 years now. I don't think their power claims are totally off-base. It's slightly less powerful than my Tohatsu 6, and far more reliable. It will push my boat at over 6 knots in flat conditions. The Tohatsu would also push the boat at 6 knots, at 80% throttle, screaming like a banshee. Of course, range at 6 knots is probably around 8 nm from a single Power 26-104 battery. At slower speeds, with 200 watts of solar in summer, I can get significantly more range, but it's a lot harder to estimate range than it is with gas, since it varies much more with sea and wind conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the rendering of Trump's hands in the photo is in the correct proportion?

 

I notice that components manufacturer Robert Bosch have been implicated in helping VW falsify emissions data for their diesel engines - the so-called "Dieselgate", for which both companies have now paid squillions in damages. In Bosch's case, without admitting any wrongdoing, although some would say that there are no fumes without fire. Bosch are also a large shareholder in Torqeedo. Surely only the malicious would see a connection between that stake and Torqeedo's, er, economy with the truth. Torqeedogate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beanie & Joakim (especially) and All,

 

I was looking at the owner's manual for my Honda 2 HP, and it says that the "Rated Power" is 1.5 kW.

 

BC

No surprise there. 2 HP = 1.5 kW. I just saw an old test of small two stroke (except Honda) OB's. Honda 2 was the second slowest (6.2 knots). Evinrude 2.3 was even slower (5.6 knots), but Suzuki 2 (7.1), Mercury 2.5 (7.4), Evinrude 3.0 (9.0) and Yamaha Malta (3 HP, 9.4 knots) were clearly faster. The test was done in a 4.4 m rowing boat (wide transom) with one on board. Boat + driver about 150 kg without the OB on test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Update on performance:

 

As to performance, the wind was very light today. At full throttle, I was able to make 3.9 to 4.1 knots depending on whether I was going into or with the wind. This is less than the 5 knots that Torqueedo USA estimated - imagine that. My boat bottom has got some algae which might account for 1/2 a knot.

 

The Torqueedo definitely does not have the punch that my Honda 2 HP has, but the Honda would not start this morning.

 

I have not yet checked the ranges against what Torqueedo USA estimated at various speeds.

As a follow up to this, the shop got my Honda 2 HP running, and went for a motor today. With a pretty brisk breeze from astern (12 knots) and at almost full throttle, the Honda pushed me at 4.5 knots. As I changed course to having the wind abeam, this decreased to about 4.1 knots. I was using my phone and an app called Knotmeter to measure my speed.

 

I was surprised. I had this feeling that the Honda was moving me faster than that. I must be a poor judge of speed. Anyhow, it was not far from what the Torqueedo Travel 1003 could do on a windless day. So maybe the TT 1003 is closer to a 2 HP petrol engine than a 3 HP as they claim.

 

Because of a change in plans (a tale of woe), I did not go back to my slip, and hence did not get the chance to measure my speed into the wind.

 

Knotmeter (any translation appreciated):

 

post-54228-0-49838300-1487025266_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joakim,

 

I plan to do that, however, I have been side-tracked by the discovery of blisters on my bottom, the boat's that is. It will be several weeks before I'm back in the water.

 

B.C.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Torqueedo Customer Service:

I picked up my Torqueedo yesterday. The only problem was with one of the cords that came with the remote throttle, which is an accessory. Torqueedo provides a 5 ft. cord and 16 ft. one, which I need on my boat. The cord connects it to the battery.

 

One end has a straight male plug to connect to the battery, the other end has a 90º angled female plug to connect to the underside of the remote throttle housing. It's very nicely put together. The problem is that the long cord has a 90º male plug, and a straight female plug. The shape of the battery casing makes it impossible difficult to connect the 90º plug, and the throttle will not accommodate the straight plug. The short cord has the opposite and works fine; a 90º female male plug to the throttle, and a straight male plug to the battery. I've reported the problem to the dealer and he is going to contact Torqueedo; we'll see what happens.

The dealer referred me to a tech guy at Torqueedo USA who was supposed to help me. He said was able to connect the 90º fitting to the battery, and eventually, I was able to do so, however, it puts some sideways strain on the socket and plug. He said that by connecting the two cords, I would have a "functional" connection.

 

It may be "functional" but it is very kludgey. The tech guy could not explain why the long and short cords have differing end fittings. The two cords linked together are approximately 20 feet long. I need about 10 feet and I thought the 16 foot would be fine. Considering Torqueedo's claim to be cutting edge technology and considering the cost of their motors and components, I am very dissatisfied with this kludgey arrangement.

 

Any ideas on how I might pressure them to providing a proper 16 foot cable?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites