Spreading Manure, again

[jimmbo]

I see Boat Test is once again shoveling the Manure about an oddball Prop Design. This time 'testing' it on a Configuration that is rarely seen. All their past tests of this Prop, have been great examples of DoubleSpeak, even TripleSpeak, with outright Misrepresentation

 

[ScottinAZ]

well, that prop may be good at spreading manure.... If its the one that keeps showing up in my feed, then its definitely "unique".... you would think after all these years, hydrodynamicists would have figured out how to make a prop the most efficient it can be.... so the chances that someone just pops out of the woodwork with a "revolutionary new design" is slim to none.... same as the folks that peddle their snake oil to get better mileage out of your internal combustion engine.... the science just isnt there 99.99% of the time. This however is what you get when people are paid to push a product, you have to wade through the BS and figure out the truth yourself


just for giggles, I did a google search on the prop, and of course, the only sources for information on the prop in question are Boat Test, and the MFG..... the MFG website you need to wear boots when reading it, it has all the hallmarks of BS snake oil..... if it really was the next best thing, you would see its praises all over the internet....

 

[jimmbo]

Last year there was one guy on here constantly claiming every Prop made before this Pretzel, was inferior. When the Prices were revealed to be near the Orbit of the Moon, he probably thought, it must be even Better than Imagined, with a Price like that... I wonder what his connection to the MFG was?

You are Correct, that Test/Web Site, has Never, everm been critical of any Product that is from their list of Advertisers.
As bad as the Photography Magazines of the 60's. 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Even when the Test Numbers were showing low Contrast, the written review was always "Contrasty Images"... Also some 3rd Party $100 Lens was superior to the $900 Nikkor. Adjust to todays Dollar, and it is $1500 3rd Party vs, the $18,000 Nikon/Canon/Sony Lens

 

[ScottinAZ]

Last year there was one guy on here constantly claiming every Prop made before this Pretzel, was inferior. When the Prices were revealed to be near the Orbit of the Moon, he probably thought, it must be even Better than Imagined, with a Price like that... I wonder what his connection to the MFG was?

You are Correct, that Test/Web Site, has Never, everm been critical of any Product that is from their list of Advertisers.
As bad as the Photography Magazines of the 60's. 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Even when the Test Numbers were showing low Contrast, the written review was always "Contrasty Images"... Also some 3rd Party $100 Lens was superior to the $900 Nikkor. Adjust to todays Dollar, and it is $1500 3rd Party vs, the $18,000 Nikon/Canon/Sony Lens

it truly is a bit sad that the days of independent and honest tests seem to be done and gone. All you get now is paid for advertizements and hype. It transcends industry and product lines.... everything must be taken with a grain of salt, and even then you need a good pair of boots to read most of it

 

[racerone]

But people believe this stuff.-------Anybody out there that bought into ----" BITCOIN " -----And the other " bovine scat " would agree.-----People that bought million dollar homes because it was a good investment will soon find out.-------I sometimes show folks a $5 bill and ask them to look it over very carefully.------They look at me with the wonderment.----I then ask them if there are any instruction on the money !!!

 

[dingbat]

This time 'testing' it on a Configuration that is rarely seen.

Kats are very common on the coast. Personally know 3 guys that run them. Very efficient, nice running boats in the slop.

All their past tests of this Prop, have been great examples of DoubleSpeak, even TripleSpeak, with outright Misrepresentation

The prop is designed to increase efficiency. They present a very good and documented case on prop efficiency.

What data are you disputing?

For people (like me) that run great distances on a regular basis, a 10% increase in efficiency is intriguing

 

[Scott Danforth]

would like to see the prop tested in the real world. maybe down here in the ICW where the channels move with every tide and there are submerged boats that you can hit.

 

[ScottinAZ]

Kats are very common on the coast. Personally know 3 guys that run them. Very efficient, nice running boats in the slop.

The prop is designed to increase efficiency. They present a very good and documented case on prop efficiency.

What data are you disputing?

For people (like me) that run great distances on a regular basis, a 10% increase in efficiency is intriguing

the issues I am seeing off the top are these.

1) increase in speed
2) decrease in RPM
3) increase in fuel economy

getting two out of three of these is not unreasonable, but it seems that getting all three violates the rules of physics.

Changing the pitch can and will likely result in top speed at a different RPM, however the loads on the engine and especially drag on the hull are not going to change appreciably, meaning that an increase in economy (due to the lowered RPM) is not going to be what they are claiming. Yes, you are running a lower RPM, but the load on the engine and hence BSFC is going to be higher to compensate for this.

if however you decrease the RPM and get the attendant increase in fuel economy, your top speed should be lower, again due to the laws of physics. there is not as much power being absorbed by the prop to give the same top speed you had before.

Its very similar to the old joke, I can do this job good, fast or cheap, you can pick any two;

A good job fast, isnt cheap
A fast job cheap, isnt good, and
A cheap job good, isnt fast.....

 

[jimmbo]

What data are you disputing?

For people (like me) that run great distances on a regular basis, a 10% increase in efficiency is intriguing

Go back a year or two, and read BT's original Fawning of this prop. The Informercial, which is all it was, was so poorly done, and full of errors, that it wasn't even credible.
A couple of weeks later they brought forth a Cleaned Up Infomercial with 'revised' Data and Comparisons, but it was still a Manure Spreader Event.
Of course when the Pricing was announced, man it had to be a GREAT Prop, at $5000 each!!!
Just another bit of Proof that BT Barnum was right. There truly is one born every minute

 

[briangcc]

Again with the blinged prop?

I would have to buy an awful lot of gas to actually make my money back on a purchase. That's fact, not fiction. You tell me...at 2-3 tanks of gas per yer (I fish, so I don't burn alot of fuel), how many years to start making my money back in fuel savings?

Hint: I'll be worm food before I ever recoup.

I get development costs. I get startup production costs. But for the love of all things holy, does it have to cost the same as a used car? $500-700 would be more reasonable IF, and I say IF, the test results could be duplicated.

Then I want to know who I'm taking it to when it inevitably finds a submerged object and dents itself. Again I fish so I find submerged stuff on occasion.

 

[flyingscott]

Love this prop it has been living rent free in your heads since what 2018? I wonder if people said the same thing about John Ericsson?

 

[jimmbo]

Actually I had forgotten about the God Damn thing until I got an email the other day from that Boat Test.

 

[flyingscott]

Actually I had forgotten about the God Damn thing until I got an email the other day from that Boat Test.

WEEEEELLLLLL even I don't get updates for it. It is like beetlejuice for you isn't it? Say it 3 times and there it is
Sharrow
Sharrow
Sharrow

 

[jimmbo]

But people believe this stuff.-------Anybody out there that bought into ----" BITCOIN " -----And the other " bovine scat " would agree.-----People that bought million dollar homes because it was a good investment will soon find out.-------I sometimes show folks a $5 bill and ask them to look it over very carefully.------They look at me with the wonderment.----I then ask them if there are any instruction on the money !!!

At least it doesn't tell us to Trust a Figment of someone's Imagination

 

[flyingscott]

At least it doesn't tell us to Trust a Figment of someone's Imagination

how is it a figment?

 

[jimmbo]

it's not real

 

[dingbat]

Again with the blinged prop?

I would have to buy an awful lot of gas to actually make my money back on a purchase. That's fact, not fiction. You tell me...at 2-3 tanks of gas per yer (I fish, so I don't burn alot of fuel), how many years to start making my money back in fuel savings?

Hint: I'll be worm food before I ever recoup.

I get development costs. I get startup production costs. But for the love of all things holy, does it have to cost the same as a used car? $500-700 would be more reasonable IF, and I say IF, the test results could be duplicated.

Then I want to know who I'm taking it to when it inevitably finds a submerged object and dents itself. Again I fish so I find submerged stuff on occasion.

Well, I get it.........it's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it has no value to anyone.

Its' all about scale.
I'm fishing a 2 day tournament this weekend. At today's fuel prices, I'm looking at $750-850 a day to fish. Know guys who burn twice that a day
How long to make their money back in fuel savings?

Spent $30K+ on my last used car
Spent $700 on a "stock" prop
Have never dinged a prop...knock on wood....lol

 

[QBhoy]

So sad that there have still been no real world and like for like comparison test on this. Been ages now. Wish someone would do a proper test.

 

[flyingscott]

it's not real

So you hate that prop so much you made up a reality where it doesn't exist? And yet you get e mail notifications for it? This is the best prop ever built even if it never sees widespread production. Just the angst it causes is hilarious.

I believe this will be the one prop to rule them all!!!!!

 

[QBhoy]

If anything…that most recent test, is the most disgraceful of them all. Who the hell thinks a 5 blade prop is a “conventional” prop ? They have literally compared the sharrow prop to thee most inefficient type of prop available. The prop slip on a 5 blade is horrendous. Same with the efficiency and ability to show any sort of performance.
They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Just a shambolic carry on.