New Engine

[Tony Brooks]

Hang on Tony, what you say is probably true if you have lithium batteries but NOT if you have lead acid, although it will probably look a bit like it to an uninformed observer. The charging current into lead acids will drop fairly fast, but it has little to do with alternates overheating. It is simply that after a while, the LA BATTERIES start limiting the charging current to an ever-increasing degree. You still have to run the engine for hours each day with the best quality and largest alternator you can fit. It is the batteries, not the alternator.

 

I also not that you talk about "at tickover".  Charging at tickover is asking for alternators to overheat because the cooling fans are not shifting as much cooling air as they would at higher speeds.

 

Sorry, but I would also take issue with suggesting Bosch and Iskra are "pretty good examples." As far as I am concerned, they are basically automotive units. There are far better quality ones available but at a price, like Balmar.

[Quattrodave]

17 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

My domestic alternator is officially rated as 100 amps, but over an hour of charging it can only put out 35 amps at tickover revs. Any more output than that means it overheats.

 

If you have a fresh (cool) air supply to the front of the alternator it will last longer and charge better.

[Tony1]

25 minutes ago, Quattrodave said:

 

If you have a fresh (cool) air supply to the front of the alternator it will last longer and charge better.

 

I tested both my alternators on a freezing january morning with the engine cover board removed, and a fan blowing into them, with a strong breeze across the stern, so they could not have have had more cooling help during the tests, but both of them were unable to put out even half of the rated power before they overheated. 

I've basically accepted their limitations, and set up a charging system that draws as much current as is safely possible at tickover. 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Hang on Tony, what you say is probably true if you have lithium batteries but NOT if you have lead acid, although it will probably look a bit like it to an uninformed observer. The charging current into lead acids will drop fairly fast, but it has little to do with alternates overheating. It is simply that after a while, the LA BATTERIES start limiting the charging current to an ever-increasing degree. You still have to run the engine for hours each day with the best quality and largest alternator you can fit. It is the batteries, not the alternator.

 

I also not that you talk about "at tickover".  Charging at tickover is asking for alternators to overheat because the cooling fans are not shifting as much cooling air as they would at higher speeds.

 

Sorry, but I would also take issue with suggesting Bosch and Iskra are "pretty good examples." As far as I am concerned, they are basically automotive units. There are far better quality ones available but at a price, like Balmar.

 

In fairness Tony I did add above that a more powerful alternator would only really be a benefit if lithium batteries were installed, but I do feel that over  the next 10-20 years, a majority of boaters will install lithium as they get cheaper and better understood- so it could be relevant to the OP, in terms of future proofing the charging capabilities of a new engine. 

 

I cant argue with your knowledge of which are the best quality alternators, I would hope the OP will do some research before making a decision on that, and seek advice here. My advice would be look at the website of Ed Shiers, who has more practical knowledge of these matters than any marine electrician I've spoken to in the last 3 years. 

 

Re the tickover thing- I mention tickover because it's the worst case scenario, but it has to be covered. Whatever charging system the OP uses will have to be able to charge safely at tickover without overheating, because they will spend long periods at tickover- eg when going through locks,  passing lines of moored boats, etc. 

I know the alternators can do more at higher rom. In fact I have an extra B2B installed that I only switch on when I am moored up and I can run the engine at a steady 1300rpm. The extra B2B can draw an additional 20 amps from the domestic alternator at 1300 rpm. But when out cruising I cant use the extra B2B, because cruising involves lots of engine tickover, and at tickover the domestic alternator will overheat if I try to draw those extra 20 amps from it. 

This is only an issue with lithiums as you say. With lead acids you are committed to many hours more of engine running over, say, a week- so a 50 amp alternator is as useful as a 200 amp model.   

 

But for me, the issue here for the OP is about future proofing. When I installed lithiums I found that my canaline 38 was crippled by the inability to upgrade the alternator- it needed an crank upgrade before I could install a decent alternator.

With such a huge financial investment for a brand new engine install, and with lithium batteries becoming more popular, I think it is worth the OP knowing that the 38hp engines come as standard with what could turn out to be a major limitation, in terms of the alternators and belts setup. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Tony1

[MtB]

50 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

If I were ordering a new engine, I would specify that they ditch the standard supplied alternator and install with a top quality model (I think Bosch and Iskra are pretty good for example), because that might be cheaper than replacing it further down the line when you go lithium, as most boaters will end up doing over the next 10-20 years.

 

 

There is a skool of thought that says by then the canal system will have broadly shut down through lack of maintenance and an accumulation of catastrophic structural failures. So in 20 years there might not be any boaters to be going lithium.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

But for me, the issue here for the OP is about future proofing.

 

 

I'm not sure that anyone buying a boat which has a 4107 engine (Perkins ceased manufacture in 1974) is likely to be considering what batteries to put on the boat in 20 years time

[Tony1]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm not sure that anyone buying a boat which has a 4107 engine (Perkins ceased manufacture in 1974) is likely to be considering what batteries to put on the boat in 20 years time

 

I would politely disagree. Anyone considering an investment of £7-8k in their boat for a brand new engine is clearly thinking in the long term, certainly at least 10 years.

Surely if the hull is looked after properly, another 10 or 20 years is more than realistic as an expected lifespan? 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the OP is likely to consider lithium batteries in 20 years time, because different technologies will be available by then. But if they are a liveaboard then better batteries my be on their mind within the next 5 years.

 

The key issue here is that I think it is worth pointing out the limitations of the charging systems that come as standard with brand new 38hp engines, because it is such a huge investment, and it can be very expensive to upgrade. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

There is a skool of thought that says by then the canal system will have broadly shut down through lack of maintenance and an accumulation of catastrophic structural failures. So in 20 years there might not be any boaters to be going lithium.

 

 

 

I guess we all have to make out own assessments of the likelihood of the canals becoming a load of unnavigable sh*te in say 15 years time. It is certainly a genuine concern.

But again I will repeat what I see as the key issue- the OP needs to be aware that if they consider lithium batteries and charging upgrades in the next few years, the 38hp beta and canaline engines will make that an expensive and difficult thing to do. 

That said, if the OP is not a liveaboard, I do think that would alter things a bit. 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Tony1

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

The key issue here is that I think it is worth pointing out the limitations of the charging systems that come as standard with brand new 38hp engines, because it is such a huge investment, and it can be very expensive to upgrade.

 

Broadly speaking I agree with your suggestion - a Beta 38 is just the obvious choice. Everything else is an 'also ran'. And to put a big-bustud (technical term) alternator on a Beta 38 requires a different crankshaft IIRC for the multi-vee pulley necessary. This is dead easy and cheap to specify at the ordering stage but spectacularly expensive and difficult to fit as a later stage upgrade. 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Broadly speaking I agree with your suggestion - a Beta 38 is just the obvious choice. Everything else is an 'also ran'. And to put a big-bustud (technical term) alternator on a Beta 38 requires a different crankshaft IIRC for the multi-vee pulley necessary. This is dead easy and cheap to specify at the ordering stage but spectacularly expensive and difficult to fit as a later stage upgrade. 

 

I might be wrong, but I thought that the Beta 43 (not the 38) was the smallest Beta that could drive really big alternators (including a second one) via polyvee pulleys?

 

And neither of them should be doing heavy load charging below 1200rpm, and certainly not at idle.

[Tony1]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Broadly speaking I agree with your suggestion - a Beta 38 is just the obvious choice. Everything else is an 'also ran'. And to put a big-bustud (technical term) alternator on a Beta 38 requires a different crankshaft IIRC for the multi-vee pulley necessary. This is dead easy and cheap to specify at the ordering stage but spectacularly expensive and difficult to fit as a later stage upgrade. 

 

 

The Op doesnt say if they live aboard or not, but it may be the key factor.

A recreational boater will tend to spend more hours each week actually cruising than a year-round liveaboard does (and there will be exceptions, of course- this is a generalisation). So with many hours of charging being done each week, a recreational boater may not gain a huge benefit from lithium batteries, and in that case the standard beta 38 alternator setup might be fine.

But if the OP is a liveaboard, and possibly cruising for fewer hours each week, they might at some point consider ways to generate charge more quickly, and without the hours of 'conditioning' charge needed to keep lead acids in good condition.

So I would guess that at some stage over the next few years they may look at the idea of upgrading their batteries to lithium- and that is when the limitations of the crank and alternator setup would become an expensive thing to fix. 

But anyway, its something that is at least at least worth pointing out.  

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Tony1

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

The Op doesnt say if they live aboard or not, but it may be the key factor.

A recreational boater will tend to spend more hours each week actually cruising than a year-round liveaboard does (and there will be exceptions, of course- this is a generalisation). So a recreational boater may not gain a huge benefit from lithium batteries, and in that case the standard beta 38 alternator setup might be fine.

But if the OP is a liveaboard, and possibly cruising for fewer hours each week, they might at some point consider ways to charge their batteries without the hours of 'conditioning' charge needed to keep lead acids in good condition. So I would guess that at some stage over the next few years they may look at the idea of upgrading their batteries to lithium- and that is when the limitations of the crank and alternator setup would become an expensive thing to fix. 

So its something that is at least at least worth pointing it out.  

 

 

 

As a liveaboard my lithiums were pretty much redundant 9 months of the year as the solar kept the LA batts fully charged. In the winter though, they were invaluable. 

 

But as a leisure boater these days I totally love 'em, for reasons I can't explain.

[Tony1]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

As a liveaboard my lithiums were pretty much redundant 9 months of the year as the solar kept the LA batts fully charged. In the winter though, they were invaluable. 

 

But as a leisure boater these days I totally love 'em, for reasons I can't explain.

 

I'm just not a lead acid person at all. My lead acids were 4 years old and could only hold about 50Ah when I moved aboard. So the solar would fill them up, but only with 50Ah. So I would use 25Ah between teatime and 11pm, and then I was going to bed with the batteries at 50%, which didn't seem ideal.

As a liveaboard, the lithium batteries were a completely different thing- the solar charges them more efficiently, so on a marginal cloudy day, every scrap of solar power ends up going into them- there is no resistance to charging as there seemed to be with the lead acids. 

My opinion is admittedly coloured by the fact that I had poor lead acid batteries, but I will never willingly go back to using lead acids as house batteries. 

 

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

As a liveaboard, the lithium batteries were a completely different thing- the solar charges them more efficiently, so on a marginal cloudy day, every scrap of solar power ends up going into them- there is no resistance to charging as there seemed to be with the lead acids. 

 

This bit I don't understand. In summer my solar had my own knackered bank of LA fully charged by about 10am and they stayed that way all day. Who cares how 'efficiently' they got charged or inefficiently? They didn't go flat overnight and that was all I needed. 

[Tony1]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This bit I don't understand. In summer my solar had my own knackered bank of LA fully charged by about 10am and they stayed that way all day. Who cares how 'efficiently' they got charged or inefficiently? They didn't go flat overnight and that was all I needed. 

 

In my case there were two issues really:

 

The first thing was that the lead acids would no longer hold a decent amount of charge, so no matter what the panels threw at them, they were always down to about 50% in the late evening, and I was having to switch off the fridge at 11pm to make sure I would still have some power left in the morning, eg for a bit of diesel CH if it was chilly. 

 

On days when the solar is more marginal, lead acids batteries do not absorb the solar charge as readily as lithiums.

So in mid-September, I was not ending up with as many Ah of charge in the lead acids as I would have in the lithiums. Yes in high summer its all fine, you get enough solar even for lead acids. But getting into Autumn and with more cloudy weather, the lithiums seem to perform a lot better. 

I dont know how it works, but they just seem to soak up every bit of solar charge like a sponge. 

I never got a chance to try them properly side by side, but my admittedly very unscientific impression was that over say a two hour solar charge in exactly the same conditions, I would end up with more Ah in the lithiums than I would in the lead acids.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Tony1

[ditchcrawler]

[The Wind Lass]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I'm not sure that anyone buying a boat which has a 4107 engine (Perkins ceased manufacture in 1974) is likely to be considering what batteries to put on the boat in 20 years time

Many boats have old Perkins engines in them. My boat was built in the 90s and the hull is good quality, thick steel deemed excellent by the surveyor. I plan to take good care of the hill so this little boat might be around in 20 years. Though not sure I’ll be the owner. Hopefully all of us posters here will last that long…

[Alan de Enfield]

48 minutes ago, The Wind Lass said:

Many boats have old Perkins engines in them. My boat was built in the 90s and the hull is good quality, thick steel deemed excellent by the surveyor. I plan to take good care of the hill so this little boat might be around in 20 years. Though not sure I’ll be the owner. Hopefully all of us posters here will last that long…

 

If it was built 1998 onwards, be aware that you cannot just put in 'any old engine' and, any you do put in must be no more than (from memory) 10% greater HP than the original, and, it must meet the emission standards.

 

My point about replacing an ICE engine in a 30 year old boat is that in the current situation it will be obsolete and not allowed to be used before it wears out.

[dmr]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If it was built 1998 onwards, be aware that you cannot just put in 'any old engine' and, any you do put in must be no more than (from memory) 10% greater HP than the original, and, it must meet the emission standards.

 

My point about replacing an ICE engine in a 30 year old boat is that in the current situation it will be obsolete and not allowed to be used before it wears out.

 

What is the proposed deadline for removing IC engines from boats, you have quoted it often, is it 2050 or something like that.?

With a bit of serious continuous cruising it's quite possible to wear out a brand new engine in 10 to 15 years so this new engine could be a good investment.

 

One thing that I do predict and fear is that right on Guardian readers will become hostile to any boats producing visible smoke, so a newer cleaner engine would be a good idea in that respect too.

 

If the op does fit an engine that is 11% more powerful than what she has now do you think we should report her to the EEC? 😀

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, dmr said:

If the op does fit an engine that is 11% more powerful than what she has now do you think we should report her to the EEC?

 

Nope, that would be pretty pointless as it is the UK RCR not the EU RCD that would be infringed.

 

 

12 minutes ago, dmr said:

With a bit of serious continuous cruising it's quite possible to wear out a brand new engine in 10 to 15 years

 

But is it not perceieved wisdom that the majority of CCers do far fewer miles per annum than dedicated 'holiday boaters'. CCers tend to stay at each place for several days (up to the maximum allowable), as they have 'nowhere else to go and plenty of time to get there', whilst the 'leisure' boater who maybe only has the equivalent of 4-6-8 weeks of cruising (holidays and weekends) per annum will move most days and probably with a greater distance between moorings to see as much as possible of the system.

[The Wind Lass]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If it was built 1998 onwards, be aware that you cannot just put in 'any old engine' and, any you do put in must be no more than (from memory) 10% greater HP than the original, and, it must meet the emission standards.

 

My point about replacing an ICE engine in a 30 year old boat is that in the current situation it will be obsolete and not allowed to be used before it wears out.

Ah, ok. It’s 1996 but the new engine will be fewer HP than the old, so ok there. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, The Wind Lass said:

Ah, ok. It’s 1996 but the new engine will be fewer HP than the old, so ok there. 

 

Then you can install whatever you want.

[magnetman]

It must be an odd dilemma deliberately making a boat look older at sale due to not having an RCD. One wonders if there is an excess of boats built in 1997. 

[dmr]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Nope, that would be pretty pointless as it is the UK RCR not the EU RCD that would be infringed.

 

 

 

But is it not perceieved wisdom that the majority of CCers do far fewer miles per annum than dedicated 'holiday boaters'. CCers tend to stay at each place for several days (up to the maximum allowable), as they have 'nowhere else to go and plenty of time to get there', whilst the 'leisure' boater who maybe only has the equivalent of 4-6-8 weeks of cruising (holidays and weekends) per annum will move most days and probably with a greater distance between moorings to see as much as possible of the system.

 

That is partly true, which is why I said serious CC'ers, but this forum does get very hung up on continuous moorers and rule benders/breakers whilst in reality there are a fair few CCers who want to cruise all or most of the system and travel extensively, at least during the summer months.

We are now home moorers, at least in winter, but will be off "continuous cruising" next month. We will have a few stops of up to a week in a some favourite places but otherwise will probably move almost every day.

[magnetman]

It makes no sense to charge people who use the infrastructure more a higher fee than those who use it less.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by magnetman

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It makes no sense to charge people who use the infrastructure more a higher fee than those who use it less. That could never make sense. 

Why?

 

Locks/paddles wear with use; the more you use them, the shorter their lifetime. Boats moving through locks use water, which CART have to replace, which costs them money.

 

Of course there's an alternative view that "real CCers" are using the canal system as intended and keeping lesser-used bits open, and if anything should be charged less.

 

Both are perfectly valid points of view which make sense to those who hold them 🙂

 

CART also point out that they have to spend money on tracking CCers/CMers and enforcing the rules, though they don't seem to do a very good job of it.

Edited March 7, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Missed the tongue in cheek smiley.