Bow thruster..

[Guest]

Before we start...

 

this is not about theoretical benefits, and not a thread for any body who has no practical experience or benefits of having a a BT fitted.

 

It is a thread asking about practical benefits of a BT as fitted to a 60 foot boat, reliabilty, manouverility advantages.

 

Cheers all...

[mrsmelly]

Before we start...

 

this is not about theoretical benefits, and not a thread for any body who has no practical experience or benefits of having a a BT fitted.

 

It is a thread asking about practical benefits of a BT as fitted to a 60 foot boat, reliabilty, manouverility advantages.

 

Cheers all...

 

Ok I couldnt wait any longer, we all know this is a wind up and Ive bitten, dratt and double dratt................

[Iain_S]

I occaisionaly drive one boat (60' broad beam) which is fitted with a bowthruster. It can be handy, but has been U/S for the last two weeks or so, and no one's bothered to fix it yet. I don't think anyone really misses it.

 

Iain

[lucypaddydog]

I am not too sure what a bow thruster is, but my husband was looking at one and after seeing the price I told him we didnt need one... I hope I was right!

[sociable_hermit]

Only of use if powerful enough to blow your boat sideways off a sand bank on the River Trent....

[Guest]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Edited June 5, 2009 by MJG

[RLWP]

Mods can you just delete my original post...

 

I was hoping for a serious discussion, a bridge too far on here perhaps.

 

Back to the mags (again!!)

 

Yeah or Nay?

 

Nay.

 

We have a 70' boat that I pride myself on maneuvering into all kinds of places without a BT. Favourite is into a double lock with one gate shut to end up on the closed side with space to let a following boat in.

 

Richard

 

But then, I like that kind of thing...

[ChrisPy]

I am not too sure what a bow thruster is, but my husband was looking at one and after seeing the price I told him we didnt need one... I hope I was right!

absolutely - if you can't (or won't) afford it, then it's unnecessary.

 

However if like me you can afford it and if you moor in a congested marina requiring a 10-point turn to get in or out (usually with a cross wind blowing up the harbour) then it's probably cheaper than incurring the wrath of my neighbours and paying out insurance excesses. Although the down time resulting from unnecessary failures in the vetus supplied equipment can be infuriating.

[Naughty Cal]

Girly thrusters................

[blueprince]

They're buggers, when they work, you get used to them, when they aren't you get used to that to, the problem is when they're there and then they stop working, you're usually in a solid object. do without and tie up if in doubt is my advice

[blackrose]

Before we start...

 

this is not about theoretical benefits, and not a thread for any body who has no practical experience or benefits of having a a BT fitted.

 

It is a thread asking about practical benefits of a BT as fitted to a 60 foot boat, reliabilty, manouverility advantages.

 

Cheers all...

I have a BT on my 12' widebeam and I've never regretted having it fitted.

I generally move my boat single handed so I find it very handy for manouverability.

However, although its tempting I try not to overuse it. Too much reliance ona BT could lead to problems if it stops working, although that argument could also be applied to any form of propulsion. If you get a coal sack wrapped around your (engine) prop you'll probably lose control too.

I've never quite understood the contempt that these bits of equipment evoke in so many inland waterways boaters, it seens very parochial to me - I'm sure they don't have this negative attitude in other types of boating.

Basically if you want one and can afford one then get one, if you don't or can't then don't. Simple really!

Edited June 5, 2009 by blackrose

[David Schweizer]

I have a BT on my 12' widebeam and I've never regretted having it fitted.

I generally move my boat single handed so I find it very handy for manouverability.

However, although its tempting I try not to overuse it. Too much reliance ona BT could lead to problems if it stops working, although that argument could also be applied to any form of propulsion. If you get a coal sack wrapped around your (engine) prop you'll probably lose control too.

I've never quite understood the contempt that these bits of equipment evolk in so many inland waterways boaters, it seens very parochial to me - I'm sure they don't have this negative attitude in other types of boating.

Basically if you want one and can afford one then get one, if you don't or can't then don't. Simple really!

I think that you have answered your own question Blackrose. some people seem to rely upon them entirely for any type of manouvre, rather than make any attemempt to use the tiller/engine to get them where they want to be.

 

Furthermore some people still manage to make a pigs ear of it with a bow thruster. Perhaps it is the apparent incompetence of some steerers that others hold in contempt, not the equipment itself. A bow thruster should assists the steerer, rather than replace them, but some people have not grqasped that one yet.

[alan_fincher]

Yes,

 

When you are passing some boats in tunnels, and you can hear the bow thruster going of as you approach, (not just once, but repeatedly), you do have to wonder, don't you !

 

We watched a guy follow us up a flight of locks on the Oxford, with an aluminium boat, equipped with both bow and stern thrusters. Every time he needed to come to the edge, he stopped dead, maybe 10 feet from the bank, then turned on the thrusters, (they seemed to be quite heavy duty ones, given the use he was putting them to). It worked just fine of course, (if a bit slow), but one got the distinct impression that if one had broke, then he would have been completely bu**ered.

 

I have no issue at all with BTs used in the way that either Mike or Chris describes, and can imagine they are a God-send if single handing a heavy wide beam in difficult condtions. I'd use one myself, at difficult moments, if so equipped, but in the unlikely event that I could afford a boat with one, it's not how I would chose to spend my cash.

 

The problem, I think, is that many come to rely on them, and their boating skills never advance as a result.

[bottle]

I could afford a boat with one, it's not how I would chose to spend my cash.

 

Hear! hear!

 

It is a rather large amount of money for a piece of equipment that may only be used for 0.000001% of the boats life, if that.

 

I to can see the reason for one on a wide beam if single handed but not on a narrow boat.

[Semitrad]

We have a 58 ft boat with a hydraulic bowthruster fitted. Nobody has mentioned how useful it is when reversing, a manoeuvre that is not easy to master without a lot of practice and experience. If, like us, you haven't got decades left to master these skills have one fitted, you won't regret it.

[Naughty Cal]

We have a 58 ft boat with a hydraulic bowthruster fitted. Nobody has mentioned how useful it is when reversing, a manoeuvre that is not easy to master without a lot of practice and experience. If, like us, you haven't got decades left to master these skills have one fitted, you won't regret it.

 

So if it breaks you cant reverse?

[WJM]

It depends what you you want from your boating. I don't have one and don't want one. I love the challenge of driving a great big heavy boat and I love trying to position it with accuracy. It can be very hard work sometimes but that is my 'thing'! But it is not for everybody though. If you don't like loading your life up with (pointless?!) challenges, then get a bow thruster!

[David Schweizer]

We have a 58 ft boat with a hydraulic bowthruster fitted. Nobody has mentioned how useful it is when reversing, a manoeuvre that is not easy to master without a lot of practice and experience. If, like us, you haven't got decades left to master these skills have one fitted, you won't regret it.

I understand the difficulty of reversing many modern boats, where the hull has been built for maximum accomodation, rather than for the ability to swim well. If you have a rectangular box with 5ft pointy bits at each end, reversing any distance without a bow thruster can be quite challenging. but a well profiled hull with long tapering swins should reverse with reasonable ease, without the need for too much mechanical assistance.

 

So one example wheere a bow thruster might be considered "essential equipment", could be the profile of the hull. I also sympathise with Chris Ploly's problem, manouvering boats in Bristol Harbour has never been easy, even when there is no wind.

Edited June 5, 2009 by David Schweizer

[blackrose]

So if it breaks you cant reverse?

Not if you've come to rely on the BT too much, but then you won't be able to go astern without your engine if that breaks down.

 

The argument on over use of a BT is a valid one, but iot is not an argument against BTs per se.

I often look out of my windows to see people who over use and over rely on their engines to moor up.

High revving engines and white water at the stern are completely unnecessary in most still water situations, yet I see it all the time, so does it then follow that we shouldn't have engines on boats?

Any piece of equipment can be misused, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad piece of equipment.

Edited June 5, 2009 by blackrose

[Naughty Cal]

Not if you've come to rely on the BT too much, but then you won't be able to go astern without you engine if that breaks down either.

 

The argument on over use of a BT is a valid one, but iot is not an argument against BTs per se.

I often look out of my windows to see people who over use and over rely on their engines to moor up.

High revving engines and white water at the stern are completely unnecessary in most still water situations, yet I see it all the time, so does it then follow that we shouldn't have engines on boats?

Any piece of equipment can be misused, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad piece of equipment.

 

Im not arguing that case. But for someone to say that they can not reverse without a bow thruster suggests that should the time arise where it breaks (as they do) they will be left up the creek with out the preverbial paddle.

 

To compare a BT with an engine is just nonsense. Or should we all revert back to the horse?

[Dipple]

The only bow thruster we have is a 3m wooden pole works a treat everytime

[Canalwatcher]

There are some situations, manouvering in tight spots where a pole at the bow, or bowhauling. are commonly used. Another option is to use a bowthruster which I find less hassle - particularly if single handed. Certainly not necessary to have one though.

 

I do get a little frustrated by the "bow thruster taliban" who imply you are some sort of sub species if you have one.

 

Mick

[David Schweizer]

Im not arguing that case. But for someone to say that they can not reverse without a bow thruster suggests that should the time arise where it breaks (as they do) they will be left up the creek with out the preverbial paddle.

 

To compare a BT with an engine is just nonsense. Or should we all revert back to the horse?

Not nonsense but nevertheless a valid point, A quick review of breakdown problems identified on this forum will reveal that Bow thrusters (at least some ) appear to be rather more prone to breakdown than engines.

 

Considering that almost every boat owned by menbers on this forum has an engine, but only a very small proportion have a bow thruster fitted, it wouild suggest that they do pose a fairly signifant problem for those who come to depend upon them for manouvering their boat.

[Dominic M]

"bow thruster taliban".

 

Mick

I've got £50 on them winning best newcomer at next year's Brit awards. How did you know?

[Chertsey]

I understand the difficulty of reversing many modern boats, where the hull has been built for maximum accomodation, rather than for the ability to swim well. If you have a rectangular box with 5ft pointy bits at each end, reversing any distance without a bow thruster can be quite challenging. but a well profiled hull with long tapering swins should reverse with reasonable ease, without the need for too much mechanical assistance.

 

So one example wheere a bow thruster might be considered "essential equipment", could be the profile of the hull. I also sympathise with Chris Ploly's problem, manouvering boats in Bristol Harbour has never been easy, even when there is no wind.

 

Yes, I think the biggest surprise of all when I started having a go at steering big old boats was how much easier it was to reverse and to steer in reverse. Their overall control and manoeuvrability is very impressive compared to smaller modern boats (never tried a big modern one).