More testing on Sharrow prop...

[JASinIL2006]

I'm not propeller expert, but the latest tests of the Sharrow prop from Boattest are pretty interesting.

Sharrow Propeller™

The Sharrow Propeller™ is a remarkable new, patented loop propeller design that CEO and inventor, Greg Sharrow, claims can out-perform conventional propellers in most major parameters of current propeller measurement.

boattest.com

 

[flyingscott]

SHHHH you want to keep this a secret. Some people here are still in the affair fog with their Enertia propellers. It's like bringing a Vampire into the sun has to be done carefully so they don't explode.

 

[briangcc]

But here's the thing....That prop is $4900 for (1). How much time do you need to spend on the water to recoup the potential "savings" from their touted fuel efficiency?

In my personal case, the boat will be long gone before I even start making money back on fuel savings. It's just not a wise investment in my case.

I'd be curious to see the numbers worked out to where you actually break even on an outlandish purchase like this.

 

[flyingscott]

But here's the thing....That prop is $4900 for (1). How much time do you need to spend on the water to recoup the potential "savings" from their touted fuel efficiency?

In my personal case, the boat will be long gone before I even start making money back on fuel savings. It's just not a wise investment in my case.

I'd be curious to see the numbers worked out to where you actually break even on an outlandish purchase like this.

I think 4900 was the ss price.

 

[briangcc]

That's the only one you can buy on their online store right now.
In comparison, the Solas SS for my boat, most expensive on Iboats, is $661.

 

[flyingscott]

That's the only one you can buy on their online store right now.
In comparison, the Solas SS for my boat, most expensive on Iboats, is $661.

That prop is for people with disposable income. What does the Merc equivalent of your prop cost? Then add lab finishing to it and It's not $661. You need to understand that prop puts itself in the range of custom props not mass produced. If you look at those prices they are more inline.

 

[briangcc]

But to experience the cost savings in my lifetime - not gonna happen.

$4300 difference - buys a heck of a lot of fill ups. The benefit just isn't there. Drop it in to the $1k range and its more in line with what someone asking for fuel savings would be willing to pay.

And in all honesty...I wouldn't put SS on my boat anyways as where I boat, that will absolutely trash my outdrive. I'm in rocks. So I'd put on an AL prop instead. So $4800 difference.

 

[Scott06]

But to experience the cost savings in my lifetime - not gonna happen.

$4300 difference - buys a heck of a lot of fill ups. The benefit just isn't there. Drop it in to the $1k range and its more in line with what someone asking for fuel savings would be willing to pay.

And in all honesty...I wouldn't put SS on my boat anyways as where I boat, that will absolutely trash my outdrive. I'm in rocks. So I'd put on an AL prop instead. So $4800 difference.

Im also a big fan of aluminum for buy in price and understand why u may use it, but Dont compare Al to stainless let alone higher end stainless, not an accurate comparison. agreed the buy in is 2 x lab finished props would like to see a real world test aka no advertising dollars at stake …

 

[briangcc]

You're still missing the point.

How much gas do you have to buy in order to see any actual savings with your Sharrow purchase? Again, that price point, I will NEVER recoup that in my boat's lifetime. Let me repeat that...I will NEVER EVER see any savings using that prop. Why? The initial purchase price is WAY too high for me to break even. PERIOD.

Sure...a new product requires R&D $$$$$ to fund. Sure....there are several iterations before they hit on the correct variables. Sure...SS is natively more expensive than AL. These are not in debate.

What is in debate is that the prop is supposed to save you money. You'd have to be on the water almost daily for several years before you realize ANY savings.

 

[Scott06]

You're still missing the point.

How much gas do you have to buy in order to see any actual savings with your Sharrow purchase? Again, that price point, I will NEVER recoup that in my boat's lifetime. Let me repeat that...I will NEVER EVER see any savings using that prop. Why? The initial purchase price is WAY too high for me to break even. PERIOD.

Sure...a new product requires R&D $$$$$ to fund. Sure....there are several iterations before they hit on the correct variables. Sure...SS is natively more expensive than AL. These are not in debate.

What is in debate is that the prop is supposed to save you money. You'd have to be on the water almost daily for several years before you realize ANY savings.

I'm not missing anything...don't be condescending.

Yes it doesn't pay off in most situations (if you go way offshore a burn several hundred gallons a weekend it may pay off), completely agree. Would love to see real use feedback from someone vs article written in a mag supported by a company that advertises in their mag...

 

[Chris1956]

If they want to mass market that prop, the price will need to get to $1500 or so.

it does not look that hard to cast, so that should be doable.

Remember, the first new integrated circuit of a new design costs $500K. After that they cost a few cents apiece, but you need to amortize the initial cost across the thousands of units to sell them.

 

[QBhoy]

Saw that earlier. But unfortunately once again..they’ve been selective with the set up and test. On the first test the other year…they compared it to an under propped and pitched merc prop, that was on the limiter at the tested rpms. And once again…with this test…sharrow selected the boat and outfit to compare their prop with another. Claiming the opposition was a stock prop for the engines. There is no such thing as a stock prop. Added to this, they compared different pitch of prop to one another once again. I just wish they’d do an independent like for like test to compare. Such a shame.

 

[dingbat]

Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers......

Anytime I see percentages used in comparisons instead of absolute numbers I’m immediately suspicious of the entire presentation.

A 200% increase in murder last month....... went from 1 to 2 murders isn't much of a headline

 

[flyingscott]

OOOOH MY GODDDDDDD here we go again.
#1 There is absolutely a stock prop for a boat. That is why there are prop finders and Pitch is not a hard and fast rule. I have had a a 19" pitch SS Michigan wheel that my 70 hp could only pull to 5000 rpm. A 19' pitch OMC SST it could pull to 5800 rpm. So pitch is subjective to a manufacturers interpretation. The Sharrow prop is the President Donald Trump of props, It must be destroyed at all costs. It is Iboats Death star.
Hey Dingbat why do we use percentages for prop slip is that lying too.
Or How about calculating the difference in fuel mileage between 2 and 4 strks? Lot of percentages thrown out there when the comparisons were made. But they must be lies to right?

 

[QBhoy]

Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers......

Anytime I see percentages used in comparisons instead of absolute numbers I’m immediately suspicious of the entire presentation.

A 200% increase in murder last month....... went from 1 to 2 murders isn't much of a headline

And the big emphasis on idle speed efficiency increase. Suspect at best. Any prop of more pitch would surely do that.

 

[QBhoy]

OOOOH MY GODDDDDDD here we go again.
#1 There is absolutely a stock prop for a boat. That is why there are prop finders and Pitch is not a hard and fast rule. I have had a a 19" pitch SS Michigan wheel that my 70 hp could only pull to 5000 rpm. A 19' pitch OMC SST it could pull to 5800 rpm. So pitch is subjective to a manufacturers interpretation. The Sharrow prop is the President Donald Trump of props, It must be destroyed at all costs. It is Iboats Death star.
Hey Dingbat why do we use percentages for prop slip is that lying too.
Or How about calculating the difference in fuel mileage between 2 and 4 strks? Lot of percentages thrown out there when the comparisons were made. But they must be lies to right?

Absolutely there is not a stock prop for any boat. There is a manufacturer middle of the road recommended prop or a installers middle of the road prop when fitting an engine.
Really disappointed in boat test.com. Usually so good with their tests. But for the second time with this prop…an unfair and selected test by the manufacturer of the sharrow prop. Shame. Not as bad as the first test…that was laughable. But still a little unfair.

 

[flyingscott]

And the big emphasis on idle speed efficiency increase. Suspect at best. Any prop of more pitch would surely do that.

And you have empirical Data to back that up?
And if nobody has figured it out yet I love this prop. Just because it makes people lose their SH@T. Best prop EVER

 

[QBhoy]

And you have empirical Data to back that up?
And if nobody has figured it out yet I love this prop. Just because it makes people lose their SH@T. Best prop EVER

Oh…didn’t know it was available yet. So you have one already do you ? Love to hear real world info from an owner. I

And you have empirical Data to back that up?
And if nobody has figured it out yet I love this prop. Just because it makes people lose their SH@T. Best prop EVER

i totally respect everyone’s opinion on here to be fair. But would urge you to look at prop slip figures and tell me if both props on this boat…especially with a twin engine set up, seem likely to you, given the specs of the engine. Pay particular attention to the specs when it says peak power on that particular engine according to Yamaha them self states 5500 rpm. What have they pitched the sharrow prop to run at ? My goodness…it’s exactly 5500 rpm and with 8% prop slip. Makes you think

 

[flyingscott]

Oh…didn’t know it was available yet. So you have one already do you ? Love to hear real world info from an owner. I

i totally respect everyone’s opinion on here to be fair. But would urge you to look at prop slip figures and tell me if both props on this boat…especially with a twin engine set up, seem likely to you, given the specs of the engine. Pay particular attention to the specs when it says peak power on that particular engine according to Yamaha them self states 5500 rpm. What have they pitched the sharrow prop to run at ? My goodness…it’s exactly 5500 rpm and with 8% prop slip. Makes you think

Well we know that the percentage is a lie Look at Dingbats post. So we can eliminate that. It's funny everybody ooohs and aaahs over Mercury's new V12 which really has nothing new on it. But something different has to be bashed and ridiculed. It obviously exists because the tests are out. So if you are going to criticize this prop test. Why not all Prop tests? Why are you not bashing Enertia tests? Or Trophy or Tempest or any other of the myriad of props out there? Makes me sad about all the narrow minded people out there.

 

[QBhoy]

Well we know that the percentage is a lie Look at Dingbats post. So we can eliminate that. It's funny everybody ooohs and aaahs over Mercury's new V12 which really has nothing new on it. But something different has to be bashed and ridiculed. It obviously exists because the tests are out. So if you are going to criticize this prop test. Why not all Prop tests? Why are you not bashing Enertia tests? Or Trophy or Tempest or any other of the myriad of props out there? Makes me sad about all the narrow minded people out there.

I’d say I’m stating the exact opposite of being narrow minded. I would like a very wide minded test . That’s all. I don’t bash tests that are like for like comparable or that mostly I’ve done in real life. I think some merc props are terrible things. Like the vengeance. I only ever comment or post about props I’ve actually tried out or seen compared like for like. Can’t get fairer than that. Like I say…I respect and have time for everyone’s opinion…and certainly I’m all for anything new in terms of prop or watercraft development. Especially when it comes to efficiency around blades and rotating machinery. It’s in my nature and more crucially, my very occupation depends on it. Hence the reason I’d just love to see a fair test like for like and with a few different applications. This most recent test is a better effort for sure. But still not too comparable and very selective. The first one was ridiculed by many professionals just after and long after I suggested it. Just on the numbers alone. Who tests a prop that’s on the limiter and crazy underpropped, as they did last time. Surely they knew they’d get found out on that one ?