IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
89
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
I expect they are still finessing the set of questions to elicit the largest number of supportive responses and minimise opportunities to be miserable and negative.
Oh!
I guess we'll see when the questionnaire is sent out, no-one seems to have had one yet.
From the website and the FAQs I think it's a done deal that the overall (average) license fee will go up significantly, due to record inflation and the shortfall in CART funding. The inflation part is just as fair as any other price rise, point the finger of blame at the causes of inflation, a large part of which is down to government mistakes -- and the funding shortfall is essentially their fault too. Blaming CART for all this is pointless as well as unfair... 😉
The question is how this increase will be distributed across boaters, and the FAQs strongly suggest that the increases will be larger on those who have either had a historical advantage in costs (e.g. area-based charging for widebeams) or boaters who are effectively abusing the system and the rules (e.g. surcharge for CCers) -- for which the blame falls on the increasing number who have been bending/ignoring the CC rules (the CMers) not the "real CCers" for who the rule was introduced many years ago, but who will also suffer as a consequence of CMers behaviour.
Inappropriate use/mooring of widebeams on canals where they're simply not suitable may also be another reason for these to be hit -- and yet again those who *are* on suitable canals like Peter will suffer as a consequence.
In both these cases the boaters who have been selfishly abusing the system are largely to blame, and ire should be directed at them not CART -- whose basic problem is not blue signs or executive bonuses but having too much to do and not enough money to do it with... 😞
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, MtB said:
All this chat about float charging on lithiums is asking for trouble AIUI. As Nick says, one needs to STOP charging when any one cell gets up to 3.65V.
For the most comprehensive seemingly knowledgable article I've ever read about LiFePO4 batteries in boats, this chap is well worth reading. The link has not been posted on this forum for a while now so it's time it had another outing.
https://nordkyndesign.com/protection-and-management-of-marine-lithium-battery-banks/
Li batts in boats still strike me as immature technology, mainly because Li batts like to be cycled over a wide range (not kept well charged like LA batts) and most Li users still seem to have the LA mentality engaged and write in ways that imply they keep their Li batts constantly charged. E.g. using a charger with a 'float' setting. One really should not be doing this. Charge them, then discharge them low before re-charging almost fully. Don't put them on float so they get recharged after a small discharge.
What the boating world needs is some devices that monitor the SOC somehow and keep the charge sources disconnected until it falls to a low value, then reconnects until charged to a high SOC, then disconnects, etc etc.
The bit in bold is why you really *do* need a BMS which monitors each cell, and is capable of top-balancing the bank -- batteries with good built-in BMS do this, as do high-quality external BMS, but not all do.
Given how rapidly cell voltage rises around 100% SoC, if you only measure the overall battery voltage and stop charging using this (e.g. at 14.6V) then if there's any cell imbalance this could be reached with one cell well above 3.65V (e.g. 3.8V) and the others below it (e.g. 3.6V). This shouldn't happen with well-matched Grade A cells (or most good quality drop-in batteries) but is definitely a risk with a DIY system or cheap no-name drop-ins.
Keeping the batteries at a high float voltage for long periods (e.g. 100% SoC or 14.6V) is *very* strongly advised against if you don't want to reduce their lifetime.
Another excellent source of LFP advice is here:
https://marinehowto.com/drop-in-lifepo4-be-an-educated-consumer/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MtB said:
Definition of an oxymoron;
"Someone who didn't go to Cambridge"
😁
I went to Cambridge -- trust me, there are morons there too... 😉
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Orwellian said:
How about making it really difficult and spotting a CWF boater who is happy?
Isn't that an oxymoron, like military intelligence or honest politician? 😉
-
I wonder if that chimney meets elf'n'safety regulations, having it within easy reach of someone on the towpath looks like an invitation to a burnt hand...
-
18 minutes ago, matty40s said:
It's on the Thames mostly
IIRC that photo was taken on the GU...
-
24 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Standard Collingwood construction.
The one with all the solar panels and wonky chimbly featured in Waterway World last year. All electric drive.
What's the point of an all-electric drive on a boat so obviously unsuitable for using it on the canals?
-
36 minutes ago, dmr said:
The signs are easy to spot, they are bright blue and clash with everything, not genteel black how waterways signs should be.
Maybe spotting a black sign should get double points....and triple for a BWB sign.
Double for a lock that is not leaking,
Double if you see a duck getting run over by a cyclist?
Quadruple for a duck in a lock, being squashed by a boat, next to a blue sign warning about ducks? 😉
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, David Mack said:
Laziness on the part of the fabricator. Use a standard rectangular sheet for the cabin roof then just pull in the bottom corners of the cabin sides to meet the line of the hull.
One could argue such craft are not fit for the waterway and so should not be licenceable, unless restricted to sections with no arched bridges (or drawbridges).
What's the excuse for the abomination I posted then? Never mind the chimney... 😞
-
-
1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:
Whatever the issue with overall width, another "interesting" feature is that bizarre forward end of the cabin which actually looks like kit has "tumble-out" rather than tumblehome.
Even if they can navigate this bridge, (which looks unlikely?), it can surely only be a matter of time before one of those cabin corners collides with something very solid.
A lot of them around -- like this one, seen near me. And then there's the chimney... 😞
-
43 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:
I don't trust anything anybody says. Or writes. To be absolute truth. But the majority of everything has a degree of validity which can be useful if judged correctly.
I am a bit worried about I. I is 75 years old and should be decrying anything newer that 50 years old, but I'm not. I've looked in Wiki for an explanation and haven't found one - but I did get distracted by an article on particle physics which we all know is fantasy.
You think that's fantasy, try quantum physics... 😉
-
9 minutes ago, MtB said:
I think you may have misunderstood. The 20% I refer to is the +20% Steilsteven's widebeam riveted iron Dutchman pays over a 6ft 10in narrow boat. Grossly unfair.
I think it should be made proportional to either deck area or displacement BEFORE any increase to help fund CRT's black hole is considered, purely on the basis of fairness.
I agree (but widebeam owners don't, for obvious reasons), and this is precisely one of the ideas that CART are asking about in the consultation.
I predict it will be very popular with the majority of (narrow) boaters, who for equally obvious reasons would rather that (a minority of) wideboats paid a lot more instead of them.
I also predict it will be extremely unpopular with (the minority of) wideboat owners, who have been luxuriating in their roomy and lower-cost-per-square-foot boats for many years.
It will be interesting to see which view prevails, though obviously there's only one democratic answer... 😉
(which is certainly not the one that Peter wants to hear, hence his la la la fingers-in-the-ears posts)
-
8 minutes ago, peterboat said:
He isn't guessing he is using 40 years experience of dealing with them, he is the biggest moorings in the area so I think he knows what he is doing. When I told him about your idea of charging the well of more etc he killed himself laughing! They arnt a government body anymore so how would they get a real idea of how much we can afford? Answer they cant which is why it will be a percentage increase above inflation
You're still not listening, or even reading the report that was quoted earlier. Charging by boat length and width (or age) is a way of indirectly charging the well-off more, because better-off people can afford bigger (or newer) boats -- it's what CART already do, as the report points out. Nobody (including me) ever suggested any kind of means test, this won't work for all the reasons that have been pointed out.
Since you're so absolutely confident that you and Dave are right but strangely unwilling to back up your conviction with a potential £100 donation to CWDF, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? 😉
-
14 minutes ago, MtB said:
Yes 20% extra is worse than trivial for boat probably at least twice the displacement of mine yet costing much the same to licence.
I doubt that anyone thinks a 20% (or bigger) increase in the license fee is trivial or painless, but CART are in a financial hole and an increase like this is almost certainly going to happen one way or another.
The question is how to make it, and the issues are already covered in the CART notification and FAQ, for example raise all licenses by a flat rate, or change the way the cost is shared out e.g. charging by boat area or a CC surcharge.
No amount of complaining about it is going to make this problem go away; the best that boaters can do is give feedback to CART about what they would prefer (or hate the least), and hopefully CART will take notice of this.
Some people think they won't, but this makes no sense for CART -- the least bad option for them is to listen to what boaters think is the least bad solution. Not the best, there's no good solution here... 😞
(except for the government to cough up a big chunk of cash, which simply isn't going to happen -- at least, not with the current government...)
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, peterboat said:
Exactly the same as you! Except he has 40 years experience of them, remind me how long have you had a business with BW and now CRT?
Leave it out Peter. He's guessing, so am I. We'll see who's right after the result of the consultation and CART tell us what they're going to do.
-
1 minute ago, Hudds Lad said:
Are they Yorkshire prices?
I doubt it... 😉
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, peterboat said:
What like your hotline? He pays them many thousands of pounds unlike you, what they do with licensing directly affects him, so he has a consultation as well.
And I'm sure he's also a predictive mindreader so he knows what they're thinking before they've even made a decision following a consultation that hasn't happened yet... 😉
-
1
-
-
There are places nowadays that will take an original metal object and make an exact replica using 3D scanning and 3D CNC milling (or 3D additive metal printing), but I don't know if they'd be in your price bracket...
-
20 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Oh dear, very careless of me😃
As I understand it, CRT are trying to find another £25m a year via savings or income. Obviously boaters form part of that as does this extra 10% from charitable giving. I don't know what they will do on the savings front - perhaps reduce headcount (again).
The only real way forward would be to start converting assets to cash and start spending on maintenance in a big way. Obviously it reduces future income but at least Defra can't point to £1.1 billion in assets and CRT reports of a slowly improving system.Never mind, we all make mistakes 😉
An extra £25M a year will at best fill the temporary funding hole, but it will do nothing to reduce the massive maintenance backlog which is estimated to be anything up to £400M -- and still rising, since they're not even doing enough maintenance to stop the system from deteriorating further, regardless of whether they claim it's getting better this is quite obviously not the case, some more book-cooking seems to be going on... 😞
Unless some enlightened and extremely rich multibillionaire canal enthusiast ponies up, the only place this is going to come from is the government -- which is not hard to justify since it's spending on infrastructure which is what governments usually pay for. And after all it's only about 0.5% of what they spent bailing out the banks in 2008 or 5% of what they wasted on unsuitable PPE during Covid, so you'd think they could find this much down the back of Jeremy Hunt's sofa... 😉
-
28 minutes ago, MrFish said:
Trying to pull the conversation back to the original questions asked by the OP. Collingwood really don't have a great reputation. I would recommend either Tim Tyler or Colecraft. However itis worth bearing in mind that many companies buy their hulls from these 2 boat builders for outfitting and finishing. So if you do start looking for someone to supply you a turn key boat, have a look to see who the hull builder is.
If you want to go the second hand route then start by having a look at Apollo Duck website. There are plenty of nearly new (less than 3 years old) widebeams for sale that fall within your budget.
Last of all if you are looking to live aboard then make sure you secure a mooring before you buy the boat.
Colecraft are midrange and decent quality (better than Collingwood) but more expensive, Tim Tyler is better still but also more expensive and with a longer waiting list -- and also the boatbuilders who use his hulls tend to be more expensive, more in demand, and have long waiting lists, typically a couple of years for the ones I looked at.
26 minutes ago, peterboat said:Doesn't matter to me I wont be on CRT waterways, Dave knows more about what's going on than you he rents his moorings from CRT
It's funny how your mates always know the best, except when it turns out they don't. But I'm sure Dave has a direct hotline to the top CART management who make decisions like this... 😉
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, peterboat said:
What amazes me is you believe they will listen to the consultation! I have just spoken to Dave our moorings owner he has been at the game for going on 40 years, he thinks we will all pay more, lots more, so you are going to get what you wish for. He thinks it will be a straight percentage rise with CCers getting stung the most
Please stop putting words into my mouth that I never said, it's getting irritating -- just because TWC does it all the time doesn't mean you have to,,, 😉
I must have said twenty times that I don't want everyone to pay more (though I think people like me should so the less-well off can pay less -- or less of an increase...) but as usual you keep ignoring this in your eagerness to prove me wrong.
You and your mate think a straight percentage rise for everybody will happen (though this doesn't fit with "CCers getting stung the most, does it?), though you don't seem convinced enough of this to take up my offer to make a donation to CWDF 🙂
I disagree because it makes no sense for CART to do this. I seem to remember a similar discussion before CART banned bag'n'binning, and you were wrong then. Let's see what happens this time...
-
12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
... which is why ten years ago I started calling the deal "certainty of under funding". I din't think the projections (with the exception of charitable income) were not achievable. Rather, I thought that BW deliberately changed its "steady state" model to reduce the funding gap (the gap between income and expenditure).
With regard to asking boaters for more money, I'm not sure its a request ...
It remains to be see if the number of licenced boats continues to fall as a result.
I think we're agreeing here -- the books were effectively cooked when CART was set up to make everything look unrealistically lovely without the government having to provide as much money as was actually needed. Now the chickens have come home to roost... 😞
"Asking" isn't the right term, "demanding" will be closer to the truth -- but being honest, what other option do CART have? There isn't a magic funding money tree to fill in the gap between their current income and what they need, so somebody has to pay to fill it -- and since the government seems unwilling to increase the grant, the poor bloody boaters are in the firing line... 😞
I'm sure some people will leave the canals as a result, but hopefully any losses will be concentrated among those who have been causing many of the problems (e.g. the CMers just looking for a cheap place to live who ignore the rules) rather than the boaters who are actually care about and use the canals as waterways -- the "real CCers" for example. Though I do fear that they'll be casualties caught in the CMers crossfire... 😞
-
37 minutes ago, MartynG said:
Seagull is the worst. Closely followed by Canada Goose.
Surely elephant (think Dumbo...) is the worst? 😉
These new log burner rules.......
in General Boating
Posted
Roll on human composting... 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/19/human-composting-industry-deathcare