|
|
| I was just curious as to how much an average pro boat would spend on a tournament day or prefishing day, say on Lake Erie. Just an average, not a day with an extremely long run. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| Really varies based upon the situation but I would guess 15- 20 gallons might be close, but need to factor in vehicle gas as well and oil if using a 2 stroke. Maybe others can "weigh-in" on their experiences. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I'm not a pro, but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn. For 3 days of prefishing the FLW league event on Green Bay. I was averageing between $50-$75 a day. I pretty much ran at "cruising" speeds while prefishing. Oil about 1 gallon of E-tec liquid gold at $40 a gallon. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | random - 2/20/2008 1:04 PM
I was just curious as to how much an average pro boat would spend on a tournament day or prefishing day, say on Lake Erie. Just an average, not a day with an extremely long run.
You also have to take into consideration the conditions on the lake. The rougher the water, the more a guy will be on the throttle. Meaning you will use more gas in rough conditions. And being on Erie, and day to day conditions can change frequently. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | Not a tournamet fisherman, but I practically live all summer on the Western Basin of Erie. For an 8 hour day of fishing, covering about 40 miles of travel total, I'll use roughly 12 gallons of gas in a 21'er w/225 Opti. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| "You also have to take into consideration the conditions on the lake. The rougher the water, the more a guy will be on the throttle. Meaning you will use more gas in rough conditions. And being on Erie, and day to day conditions can change frequently."
Actually I find the opposite to be true, the rougher it gets the less fuel I use, can only drive as fast as the waves allow, generally meaing you power up the wave and ride it back down. This has been true on both my E-tec and my last motor Yammy F225.
And to add to my post above the gallon of oil will be used in the course of 4days of fishing, 3 pre, and tourney day.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 129
| Not a pro either but fish 4 or 5 tourneys per year on Erie. If you are running and gunning checking several areas, you can go thru $50-$75 per day quite easily more when it's rough and you're on/off the throttle and can't maintain cruising speed.
Tim |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | If your on and off the throttle like a lot guys I know, you will use more gas than in calm conditions. Toolman said what I meant, it's hard to maintain constant cruising speed. I can remember talking to a couple of the guys on the trail in rough conditions, saying they were using as much as a quarter tank to a half tank of gas more than in calm seas. If you work the throttle, you will use more gas. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | TJ - Jayman spends on GB. Perhaps he just drives the boat differently in rough seas - not jumping on and off the throttle to try to squeeze an extra few minutes of fishing time into his day.
In any event , all outboards are much more efficient in the 2500 to 3500 rpm range than in the 5000 to 6000 rpm range. I could definitely see a difference in my last boat's gas consumption as I used a fair amount more gas on calm days. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| Figure about 2 mpg low end and 3 to 3.8 high end for fuel economy depending if being conservative at 32mph+-. or running hard. Figure how far you may run round trip and you got the numbers.
Take care,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Brad is correct about RPM's when it's that rough that you keep your RPM's down equaling better fuel mileage vs calmer conditions when you can run higher RPM's = equaling more fuel consumed.
And I've made plenty of long runs on the Great Lakes in rough conditions. So I speak from experience.
As for the trhottle, being in and out of it, I don't know how most drive their boats, but when it gets rough (the stuff that legends are made of, you know the 10' wave stories) I find my self driving by RPM's more than speed, It's all about keeping your boat on plane and riding the waves.
Oh and for the record, I'm the guy that prepares the boat for launch and heads out when others turn around and go home. Small Craft Advisories on the Bay have been some of my best days.
Then again, I've heard the stories of how some pro's completely abuse their boats to "make time". If you can afford to do that to your boat, then you surely aren't worried about the price of gas. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Jayman - 2/21/2008 8:50 AM
Brad is correct about RPM's when it's that rough that you keep your RPM's down equaling better fuel mileage vs calmer conditions when you can run higher RPM's = equaling more fuel consumed.
And I've made plenty of long runs on the Great Lakes in rough conditions. So I speak from experience.
As for the trhottle, being in and out of it, I don't know how most drive their boats, but when it gets rough (the stuff that legends are made of, you know the 10' wave stories) I find my self driving by RPM's more than speed, It's all about keeping your boat on plane and riding the waves.
Oh and for the record, I'm the guy that prepares the boat for launch and heads out when others turn around and go home. Small Craft Advisories on the Bay have been some of my best days.
Then again, I've heard the stories of how some pro's completely abuse their boats to "make time". If you can afford to do that to your boat, then you surely aren't worried about the price of gas.
Think about this way. Say your in five footers, you first have to go up that five foot wave, and then you have to go down that five foot wave. If that water was calm, you wouldn't have gone anywhere near that far. Therefore, in rough water, your traveling up and down like a car on a hill. So your going to use more gas. Why? It's all about simple physics and gravity. Everyone knows that it takes more energy to climb and then to descend a hill then it does to go the same difference from point to point across a flat plane.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | .......and there you go guys, I don't care what your on the water experiences tell you, its all about Physics and thats that. It just hasta' be that way because the professors said so, and I am not gonna tell you again. hahahahahahahaahahahahaha ...rotflmfao |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | If you drive a truck up a hill and then down a hill, will you use more gas? Now if you drive the same distance between two points on flat land, will you use the same amount of gas? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 17
| Obviously, you're going to get much better economy going downwind in rough water than against it. I suppose that's a tradeoff. You have to go downwind just as much as against it most of the time. I'm sure that if you had to travel against the wind/waves when it's big and nasty all of the way, you are using quite a bit more fuel than traveling in calm conditions.
OTOH, I've found that when it is really nasty I use less fuel. Of course I also do a lot less traveling too. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I attend dozens of big water events every year, and hear about additional gas consumption and less available range in rough VS calm conditions all the time. I've run a few days in the rough stuff myself, and can tell you for sure I use more fuel covering the same distance in rough water VS calm.
Of course, one can run a boat WOT in calm conditions and get much poorer range than running at a more efficient RPM range, that's a no brainer. But if the rig has to climb the big stuff with the engine at a heavy load, HOLDING a consistent low load low to mid range RPM and getting good fuel economy is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Running ALOT slower can lessen fuel use, again obviously, but one needs to keep the boat up and running at what would be comfortable to the driver. What is being said, if I am reading this right, is that one doesn't HAVE to abuse the rig and drain the tank as fast as one COULD in rough water.
I think the argument is semantics at this point.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| 5'ers? are we talking legitimate NOAA 5'ers? There's a great argument in itself.
I'll refrain from anymore comments because I clearly don't know what the hell I'm talking about vs. the college educated student that operates on hear say. Good day. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | A 5' wave is a 5' wave. The debate isn't about age and education, it's about what one can expect as per the original question. If one expects only people one personally approves of might offer advice from personal experience, consultation with others, or other sources of knowledge you may be at odds quite a bit here.
Since the question was at hand, and I happened to be in the same booth at the Ohio Muskie show as Merckid this weekend, I overheard discussions about this subject from folks who fish Erie and St Clair, Chautauqua, and other large bodies of water. I believe if one spent a summer working with a major walleye circuit launching and checking in Pro boats every day while listening to the Pros discuss things like this, perhaps information provided may be a little more than hearsay. Open minds and more carefully selected verbiage from all, gentlemen, will allow a better discussion. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| Merckid - 2/20/2008 1:51 PM
You also have to take into consideration the conditions on the lake. The rougher the water, the more a guy will be on the throttle. Meaning you will use more gas in rough conditions. And being on Erie, and day to day conditions can change frequently.
Here's my take. It depends on how rough the rough conditions are. Is 2 footers rough? or 3? Or 5? If it's calm, I'm probably going to use more fuel than when there are waves of 2-4'. Why, because I'm probably going WOT! Why? Because I can! Now, if there's 2-3 footers, I'm probably going to try to maintain a steady pace, and certainly not WOT, without beating up the boat. Maybe 25-40 MPH. Any bigger waves than that, and I'm probably not going to be able to maintain a stable speed. So, on the throttle/off the throttle more, and that will have a negative affect on the fuel mileage.
That said, as an example, I think I went through about $60 prefishing on Friday of the Oconto FLW Leaque, and maybe $30 on the day of the tourney. A lot calmer on Friday, and I also ran farther, than the day of the tourney. At the Merc last year, I used about $110 in fuel for both days. I figure I ran about 120-135 miles during that 2 day tourney.
And my oil is Merc Opti oil, and I paid $20 per gallon. I figure about a gallon of oil for every 60-75 gallons of fuel. I am really impressed with the oil useage on this 200 Opti. I think I used more with my 135 Opti on the previous boat.
Edited by Shep 2/25/2008 1:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 17
| Anyone who has had to run a long distance like 20 miles against high wind and waves would know that the old "equal and opposite" physics thing does not apply. You can soak yourself mercilessly, beat against em so hard you scare yourself and you look at the "GPS and you're going 15 mph. It would be a hard sell to convince me I'm saving gas when it's like that. Sometimes you run 20 mi from the ramp and then the wind comes up and you have to pound your way back . . . those days aren't good for anything, bodies, boats and least of all fuel economy. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I'm just saying in rough water situations, when your not able to go WOT, I believe you will use more gas in the fact that your having to travel a further distance than you would if you were in calm conditions. Your going up and down the waves, but also you have to remember the force of the waves are pushing you back. Your motor is working harder going up the waves, but in the process of being on top of that wave, right before you come back down, your getting pushed back. So every 20 feet you move, you maybe only making 10 feet due to the resistance of the waves. Just like the example I used before.
Think about the hill country, which is going to be quicker and more fuel efficient. Driving across a flat desert(and or a flat calm lake) or driving in the rocky mountains constantly going up and down(just like a rough lake)?
Also, I too believe that most don't know what a true 5'er is, however, I have been around enough to know what a 5'er is. I've been fishing the Great Lakes for as long as I can remember. I'm on that water every year. I've only been in legit 5'ers maybe a handful of times, if that. But let me tell you, working for a circuit like the PWT, we worked hand and hand with the Coast Guard, I know what a 5'er is.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Man with no end to winter in sight, we are all on edge.
I think you are both right. In reguards to 5'ers, to me it is all about throttle position. When I am going with the wind and "surfing" waves, you can get great fuel economy because the wave puts your boat on plane. You are not burying the throttle like you do driving against the waves. In that example you can drive for miles without touching your throttle at all.
If you are driving against the wind and waves and are constantly having to bury your throttle to make it over the crest of the next wave, you go through a lot of gas and your mileage suffers.
If you are in 2'ers and are skipping across them, I always got better mileage then when it was flat. At that point it becomes a matter of resistance and there is less resistance with a chop then without.
I really think you guys are saying the same thing but in a different way. If not then you guys should battle it out for pink slips. Use one boat with a full tank and see how many miles you can go in flat calm water then in 5'ers. I will put my money on 5'ers because you don't even have to put the motor in gear:)
Come on guys, group hug? You know you want to. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | In this case, as I said, I believe TJ IS correct in what he is saying and so did a passle of anglers he spoke with while I was listening who fish big water for a living over in Ohio.
So is Jayman in a strict semantic sense (in other words, an in 'how he meant what he posted'), as I also said.
Insulting folks doesn't do a thing to strengthen an argument. Let's do our best to avoid that...
If it IS 4' seas on Bays De Noc (yes, I have a boat, and yes, I've run real 4'seas), and one has to travel to the Cedar against those waves OR with them, the actual distance covered by the boat will be FAR more when considering the travel up and down the waves than if the water was calmer. Distance between the points is the same, but the physical feet the boat has to travel is increased dramatically. Wind will buffet the rig about, adding more resistance. Show me, please, how that is incorrect.
Sure, you can idle out and back in, but most tournament anglers I know won't.
2' Seas isn't what I'd consider rough. 3' is getting there for sure, but anything 4' or better becomes interesting.
Load on the engine effects fuel economy directly. If the water is very rough the load on the engine to climb those waves and negotiate those waters will be increased.
Shep pointed out possible variances of the debate, as did a couple others.
|
|
| |
|
| why is it that a on the water experience, posted by a regular poster here by there posts the number , that we can track a tournament record for that person through various sites over the last few years, gives his take on what he experienced on the water, is called a liar? I was told about this site by friends and find this to be a bit disturbing. Getting explained to why he is wrong, just seems wrong. I hope I did not offend anyone and will probably not visit much in the future if this is how it goes here. It reminds me of some of the stuff I have read on central. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I didn't say anyone was 'wrong'. In fact, I believe I pointed out why both positions could be 'correct' as did others, while explaining my take on things which is in the very spirit of good debate. Who called anyone a liar? Show me that one, I missed it.
Ever see Ron White's HBO special? He talks about how he handled trying to 'win' a debate...I still crack up every time I see that show re-run.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I'm not arguing fuel economy. The topic is fuel consumed. Fuel consumption is lower in rough water than it would be in calm water. You simply can't go WOT.
Waves? NOAA 2'ers are not run wide open waves. I'll gladly take Steve and/or TJ out on Central or upper Green Bay or Lake MI in 2-4' NOAA wave forcast. It's not a comfy boat ride. |
|
| |
|
| http://www.hotribs.com/03press/241-suzuki/suzuki.asp
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| So answer my question. What is considered rough? 2-4 footers, when you can run a steady speed? Or above that, when you have to be on and off the throttle?
Again, I can get better economy and use less fuel if I maintain steady speed in rougher than calm conditions, when I can't go WOT for not wanting to beat the boat up. I get poorer economy if I have to be on and off the throttle continually. Consumption for me is less in those conditions, because I'm probably not traveling as far to those fish.
I think we're arguing semantics here.
Edited by Shep 2/26/2008 10:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I guess there in lies the question, What is rough? Green Bay NOAA forcast 2-4's. I'd call rough, very rough. NOAA 1-3's can be a very bumpy day. Calm to 2' forcast is what you need to run wide open as long as waves are 1' or less. I'm speaking about waves not chop. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| OK, I'm going to run 30 miles one way on Green Bay at WOT - flat calm. Get there and fish all day.
On the way back wind has kicked up its nasty and now I'm averaging 20 -22 mph on the way back. Whatever the RPM's are (I don't know, too busy trying to read the GPS as well as the next wave), but let's say its highly variable, under great load, the prop is less inefficient and occasionally cavitates and the prop vents aren't completely closed off and beyond that it takes me three times as long to get back. Let's say the avg RPM is a loaded 3500-4000.
30 minutes at 5600 rpm vs 90 minutes at a loaded 3750. Which one burned more fuel? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Not trying to be a pain, but....
Physics... if your leaving Cedar River and traveling a straight line distance to your fishing spot 34 miles away at WOT and your engine gets 2.5 mpg at WOT, your total fuel consumption is 13.5 gallons. Now assume its "rough". The waves are following a perfect sine wave (the track along the top of the wave is 50% longer than the wavelength). Instead of traveling 34 miles, your boat now travels 51 miles (roughly). Your fuel efficiency at reduced rpm's should be pretty close to 4 mpg, thereby reducing you fuel consumption to 12.8 gallons.
I haven't been in a "pro's" boat, but I have fished GB a fair amount. IMHO, any increase fuel consumption on "rough" days is from guys running miles out of their way trying to find the smoothest (and therefore fastest) path to their spot. I don't believe feathering the throttle is something that most people do a lot of on LONG trips because its simply too hard to maintain the focus necessary on both keep your speed as fast as you can AND still avoid breaking a lot of equipment. Those people willing to run their equipment at the ragged edge of what conditions will allow obviously have made the decision that they are willing to chance breaking something, so I doubt fuel consumption is that big of a consideration.
Interesting discussion either way. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I was working on my last response before WF posted his. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Another consideration many are missing is the fact that under load as in driving a boat in rough seas, the injectors are supplying more fuel to HOLD the engine at 3500 RPM. 3500 in calm seas with the boat on plane gives the 'average' rating mentioned. That's similar to EPA fuel consumption ratings on a truck...drive that truck uphill and those injectors have to go to work supplying enough fuel to hold the truck at the desired speed, slow OR fast, going uphill. Anyone who drives in the mountains will tell you you use more fuel climbing hills, than on a flat road, even if the hill going up and going down are exactly the same, which in most cases isn't true on the water.
My Toyota Tundra has a fuel mileage meter that can run full time. 2000 RPM going up hill (until the tranny shifts down and RPMs go up)will get me about 10 MPG, while 2000 RPM on a flat road surface gets me about 19.
Every time one hits a trough, the boat slows considerably, and the engine has to work to gain back the lost momentum to climb the next wave. I listen to NOAA too, and know exactly what a 2' to 4' sea can look like...the 4' part is where you will really see the effect of what I'm trying to say.
From the article posted above:
The inventors of the Challenge have devised a points system relating to fuel
consumption, so it is not necessarily the fastest boat that will take the
title. Matthew Sillifant explained, 'these days everyone is much more aware not only of fuel costs but also the impact on the environment and this is particularly true in the commercial maritime sector'.
Matthew Sillifant record time included 3 re-fuelling stops whilst achieving the 540-mile record voyage, using 1290 litres of fuel. The bad weather and rough sea state play its part by increasing fuel consumption as the outboards had to continually to accelerate and de-accelerate as they battled though the steep seas which had not been forecasted....
|
|
| |
|
| there will be a point where the lines will cross and rough water running will be less economical based upon roughness of the water, would be interesting to do an actual test sometime. Maybe it could be tested with icpmmand or smartcraft? I would guess it would be the point at which you were no longer really able to get fully on plane.
|
|
| |
|
| icommand, oops
Last post done from iPhone, sorry to rub it in Steve... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Steve -
There are MANY items to consider when talking about fuel efficiency. My boat was more efficient in rough water than it was in flat conditions at WOT. My pocket book verified that for me quite conclusively.
Perhaps other people boats are different. I KNOW my boat used less fuel making the same trip in rough seas as compared to flat seas at WOT because I checked. The gas pump does not lie. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Well let's throw another variable into the whole mix. Are we talking Suzukis' or High end E-tecs?  Motor considerations
When fishing the MWC out of Linwood on Saginaw a few years back. I ran a Javelin 21 MSX with an F225 and our team mates ran a Crestliner 202 with and Opti 225. same HP different makes and different boats. We ran 40 miles as the crow flies to the Steeples, when we left we could run WOT by time we got to the spark plug we were probably down to about 1/2-3/4 throttle and by time we reached the Charities we running into left over energy from the thrusday blow and hitting big rollers at which point we were driving up and down waves. The run back in was between 3/4 and WOT because waves had laid down. The difference in burned fuel between the two boats was about 8 gallons, same trip same spots. The Merc drank more.
"Every time one hits a trough, the boat slows considerably, and the engine has to work to gain back the lost momentum to climb the next wave."
Here's where driving habits can have a drastic effect too. When I'm in the "big" stuff. I will drive my boat to maintain momentum, this is done usually by watching the RPM's and adjusting the throttle accordingly. I also quarter waves to minimze hitting "breakers" and help maintain my momentum. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Matthew Sillifant record time included 3 re-fuelling stops whilst achieving the 540-mile record voyage, using 1290 litres of fuel. The bad weather and rough sea state play its part by increasing fuel consumption as the outboards had to continually to accelerate and de-accelerate as they battled though the steep seas which had not been forecasted....
In my case, I also checked and not just a couple times. I use more fuel in rough water. So did the guys in this article, and they were TRYING NOT to in order to set a record. So this proves out that the operator intent and desire has everything to do with results on fuel economy in rough AND calm seas, again pointing out we are largely debating semantics.
As far as Merc VS E Tec, here you go:
Merc 225 Pro XS MPG 6.2
Yammy VMAX HPDI 5.8
ETec 225 HO 5.0
Not according to Merc, either, this was a test done by Bass and Walleye Boats.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| You're right, I completely made up the Saginaw trip.
again, my experiences...but hey who know's maybe I live in fantasy land. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| Yes, and the type and shape of the wave will have an extreme effect on what the results are. Are they tall steep waves close together or are they big swells can you essentially quarter and run on plane? That I can see. All good points. When I think rough water I generally think of heading into the steep, close-together variety you find on Green Bay and its Bays. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | You ran a Javelin, your teammates ran a Crestliner.
there's your sign...
Different rigs. probably different propping. Lots of variables. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| Shouldn't this thread be in the Walleye Boats and Motors Forum?
As for that F225 Yamaha using less fuel? I can believe that, because I'm sure it was going much slower than the Merc Opti!
Edited by Shep 2/26/2008 12:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Shep, you kill me. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Wow, thats all I gotta say about this thread.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| "same HP different makes and different boats." I believe I stated that? Damn, I must be a hell of a lot dumber than I look
This debate has become pointless. There is no value on people's experiences and real world situations vs opinoins. It's no surprise why other veteran fishemen shy away from commenting on this website. I'm beginning to understand why more and more veteran fishermen don't want to deal with the headaches of these internet forums. |
|
| |
|
| I don't see anything wrong with arguing a valid point, don't take it too personally, just as I won't take your comment above personally. It's just a discussion. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | wf - 2/26/2008 12:53 PM
I don't see anything wrong with arguing a valid point, don't take it too personally, just as I won't take your comment above personally. It's just a discussion.
You couldn't have said it any better! |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | 'There is no value on people's experiences and real world situations vs opinoins.'
Disagreeing doesn't indicate disrespect. I suppose we all could add the phrase 'With all due respect'
"same HP different makes and different boats." I believe I stated that? Damn, I must be a hell of a lot dumber than I look
I took the post to mean the Mercury was less fuel efficient than the Yamaha, and by 8 gallons. I thought it should be pointed out that the boat might have something to do with that and that the Opti has the best fuel economy rating out of the three listed in my post, including the 'high end ETEC', so I did. I fail to see the problem with that, no disrespect was intended at all. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe this needs to be considered...
Does stained water create more friction on a boat's hull that would give it worse gas mileage in stained lakes than on clear lakes? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | At this point all I can say is I agree with EVERYONE! This has been some thread. Takes me back a few years to the old days where the recycle bin got a good workout. I bet if you looked, most of the posts in the recycle bin were started in February?! Gotta have these once in a while to appreciate the open water season. Personally, I think my winter "period" is almost over and I am sure glad I only get one once a year and not every month.
Lets all get together, get sloppy drunk throw in a group hug or two and discuss gas consumption. This of course after a long day on the water pounding big eyes out of Denny's Tuffy. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Clarity? - 2/26/2008 4:24 PM Maybe this needs to be considered... Does stained water create more friction on a boat's hull that would give it worse gas mileage in stained lakes than on clear lakes? Clearly, you know nothing about the physical dynamics of H2O. Water particulates reduce surface tension, thus reducing friction and improving fuel economy (sarcasm off) |
|
| |
|
| Viking - 2/26/2008 6:37 PM
<p> Clarity? - 2/26/2008 4:24 PM Maybe this needs to be considered... Does stained water create more friction on a boat's hull that would give it worse gas mileage in stained lakes than on clear lakes? </p><p>Clearly, you know nothing about the physical dynamics of H2O. Water particulates reduce surface tension, thus reducing friction and improving fuel economy (sarcasm off )</p>
Hehehehe, excellent. A little levity never hurts and this thread needed it. |
|
| |
Gas consumption