Is it prudent to have a kicker?

[Home Cookin']

Re: Is it prudent to have a kicker?

for folks who choose to run smaller boats in congested waters having a contingency pan for main motor failure makes sense to me .... having an anchor system capable of holding their boat is most certainly worth a strong consideration .... if they want to move their disabled boat back to any given point, having a kicker is worth a strong consideration .... I'd want to be able to control where the boat is going and have little interest in sitting anchored while I hope for the best ..... that said, I see no reason why it would have to come down to choosing between the two options, if at all possible I'd go for having both

Jim

it isn't a matter of choosing one over the other. The anchor, properly rigged, is your #1 safety device, unless you boat where anchors don't work (not likely). You aren't "sitting to hope for the best" you are sitting to stay safe and not get in a worse predicament. That is the most important thing you can do in most situations. While it's certainly possible, it's less likely your first order of business is to move immediately when you break down, especially when you factor in the reasonable probability that you will soon safely drift (or can paddle) out of immediate danger--that of course depends on where you boat and what you boat in.

It would be foolish--no, dangerous, not to have an anchor b/c you have a kicker.

Next question is whether the spare motor is worth buying, maintaining and taking up space solely for that rare emergency. That depends on your circumstances; for most recreational boaters, it's not IMO. It's different if you use it for trolling, or already have the motor lying around. Size of boat matters; since you can paddle a 17' boat, and not a 24' boat (where weight/space is not an issue either), that has to be factored in.

 

[JEBar]

Re: Is it prudent to have a kicker?

it isn't a matter of choosing one over the other.

It would be foolish--no, dangerous, not to have an anchor b/c you have a kicker.

my response should not be construed to indicate that I was recommending choosing one over the other because that most certainly isn't the case .... it is true that the cost of adding/maintaining a kicker can be prohibitive for many (if not most) folks .... if I was using our boat under the circumstances outlined in he original post, I'd want both

Jim

 

[UncleWillie]

Re: Is it prudent to have a kicker?

A good point brought up by many;

If the second/emergency motor is not properly maintained it will not be any more reliable that the primary motor.
If the primary motor is regularly and properly maintained like your life depends on it; It will likely never let you down.
It is a rare case where the engine quits without warning, it is usually a case of wishful thinking and ignoring the warnings.
If your old reliable engine doesn't start right up and purr like a kitten; There's the warning sign, don't ignore it!

If your maintenance attitude is "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It", carrying a kicker that you haven't started in 5 years with a tank of 7 year old gas isn't emergency planing, it's planing an emergency!

I know a lot of the boaters on the forum are inland boaters where anchors are optional.
Just a reminder, if you are in Federal waters where the USCG has jurisdiction, a properly sized and functional anchor with appropriate rode is required.
More than one fisherman has been fined here on lake Erie for only having 50 feet of rope tied to a cinder block.
The local CG wants to see an anchor with flukes attached to at least 150ft of line. 200ft recommended.
My safety inspection approved my Danforth anchor, when asked they stated that Mushroom anchors do not qualify.

 

[JimS123]

Re: Is it prudent to have a kicker?

Next question is whether the spare motor is worth buying, maintaining and taking up space solely for that rare emergency. That depends on your circumstances; for most recreational boaters, it's not IMO. .

My last 3 boats had kickers. The first one was merely adding Grandpa's old Merc. It was done after losing power (on a brand new engine under warranty) just above Niagara Falls. The second was more for fishing, but also for that rare emergency. Rare, indeed, but the mighty Niagara isn't to be fooled with. I dunno about the OP's water - never sailed there.

My current boat was a factory order, with a few dealer installed options. If my memory serves me correctly (it was 28 years ago), the total was 11.5k. Out of that there was an optional nautolex deck for $150 (instead of crummy carpets - but it also included several built in rod holders), $100 for an all-roller trailer instead of crummy bunks, and $600 for a new 9.9 'Rude and OMC bracket (installed by the dealer.). In my mind, considering the overall cost, the extra $600 had little impact on the economics.
Maintenance is also non-existant compared to the I/O. A couple spark plugs every few years, an annual tube of gear oil, and an impeller every now and then won't break the bank. We run her every few weeks thru the no-wake zone just for the fun of it.

Haven't NEEDED the old girl in many years. But the first 2 years on a brand spanking new Mercruiser I/O and she brought us home twice because of engine failure.

Do I NEED it...no. Will I ever be without one....NO.