Out again

[Sanddancer]

I see the non consideration lot are out and about on the cut again, and I don't mean hire boaters, just those that don't know about slowing down when passing moored boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

I see the non consideration lot are out and about on the cut again, and I don't mean hire boaters, just those that don't know how to moor their boats properly.

[Parahandy]

I have been trying to group these sorts for the 36 years that I have been afloat , I conclude most are People whom you would think would know better

[OldGoat]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I see the non consideration lot are out and about on the cut again, and I don't mean hire boaters, just those that don't know how to moor their boats properly.

You got there first again... It takes a bit more effort to moor up with springs and keep the lines tight - most folks don't bother and whinge instead.

[cuthound]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I see the non consideration lot are out and about on the cut again, and I don't mean hire boaters, just those that don't know how to moor their boats properly.

Mooring correctly isn't always the answer to speeding boats.

I moor with spring lines on my mooring,  but as the cut is shallow there, speeding boats cause my boat to violently bob up and down vertically as they suck the water from under it. 

I do agree with the OP that hirers are not the worst culprits though.

Edited April 16, 2018 by cuthound
Clarification

[dmr]

I suspect those you go on and on about springs and mooring properly are occasional leisure boaters who always use rings at visitor moorings. Mooring on the bank in the rough is very different. We have huge pins but even these can and do pull out on a soft bank. A related issue is that inconsiderate speeding boats force us to use bigger and bigger pins which do even more damage to the canal bank.

.................Dave 

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, dmr said:

A related issue is that inconsiderate speeding boats force us to use bigger and bigger pins which do even more damage to the canal bank.

 

Dave, I think the problem here is that pins are simply too small. Even those large dressmaking pins still won’t be much good in my opinion. Have you tried using say, nails?

[system 4-50]

34 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Dave, I think the problem here is that pins are simply too small. Even those large dressmaking pins still won’t be much good in my opinion. Have you tried using say, nails?

Tried it at Easter. Only held for 3 days.

[dmr]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Dave, I think the problem here is that pins are simply too small. Even those large dressmaking pins still won’t be much good in my opinion. Have you tried using say, nails?

Well, that's moderately clever and humorous, but system 4-50 trumps it.  I did think religion was a banned topic here, or maybe he had a genuine bad mooring experience at Easter 

.................Dave

[ditchcrawler]

6 hours ago, Parahandy said:

I have been trying to group these sorts for the 36 years that I have been afloat , I conclude most are People whom you would think would know better

Which ones, the tying properly of not slowing down? Long as the centre line  from the roof is nice and tight all should be fine 

[Parahandy]

Its the Pegs in the Wet Ground Brian , as someone said earlier it can be an absolute Nightmare .

[StephenA]

17 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Dave, I think the problem here is that pins are simply too small. Even those large dressmaking pins still won’t be much good in my opinion. Have you tried using say, nails?

We have a standard pin that was bent by a boat going past us on the Oxford once... we weren't on board at the time and didn't realise until we came to pull it out of the rather elongated slot it was sitting in.....

[DaveR]

During the last voyage on Legacy, I set up the car sat-nav to see how engine revs changed the boat speed. Accepting that it may not be completely accurate at slow speed the numbers are, however, indicative of how the boat reacts to engine revs.

I found that my usual running speed of 1500 rpm gave a speed of 3.5 mph

Coming down to 1100 rpm gave a speed of 2.8 mph

Tickover 900 rpm gave 2.1 mph

I think that many boaters reduce their engine speed and do not realise how little that takes off their top speed. In addition many reduce the engine revs just as they approach moored boats and let the high momentum carry them on. Being able to increase the revs on the other side of the moored boat indicates to them that they have slowed down.

Stands back and puts on flak jacket.

 

[Naughty Cal]

29 minutes ago, DaveR said:

During the last voyage on Legacy, I set up the car sat-nav to see how engine revs changed the boat speed. Accepting that it may not be completely accurate at slow speed the numbers are, however, indicative of how the boat reacts to engine revs.

I found that my usual running speed of 1500 rpm gave a speed of 3.5 mph

Coming down to 1100 rpm gave a speed of 2.8 mph

Tickover 900 rpm gave 2.1 mph

I think that many boaters reduce their engine speed and do not realise how little that takes off their top speed. In addition many reduce the engine revs just as they approach moored boats and let the high momentum carry them on. Being able to increase the revs on the other side of the moored boat indicates to them that they have slowed down.

Stands back and puts on flak jacket.

 

I do think that people perceive a drop in engine revs as a drop in boat speed.

We have passed moored boats at our tick over which is about 3mph and been thanked for slowing down, yet a narrowboat that was following us with more revs on at a slower speed was shouted at for not slowing down as the occupant of the moored boat had not heard a drop in engine revs.

[mrsmelly]

At the moment we are moored at Branston quite tightly on to chains so we move little if at all. Several boats have passed this morning. Actualy its realy a H and H boaters day today as its quite windy so we are staying put. Three boats in a row came past at warp factor three then the last two as I do on dead tickover, there are five boats moored here at present so not a mile of boats. Its down to etiquete. Its not too windy for tickover some people just cant be arsed to be considerate. Yes you should tie up correctly although its impossible to stop movement on pins especialy when everywhere is as soft as it is at present due to amount of rain we have all had.

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, DaveR said:

During the last voyage on Legacy, I set up the car sat-nav to see how engine revs changed the boat speed. Accepting that it may not be completely accurate at slow speed the numbers are, however, indicative of how the boat reacts to engine revs.

I found that my usual running speed of 1500 rpm gave a speed of 3.5 mph

Coming down to 1100 rpm gave a speed of 2.8 mph

Tickover 900 rpm gave 2.1 mph

I think that many boaters reduce their engine speed and do not realise how little that takes off their top speed. In addition many reduce the engine revs just as they approach moored boats and let the high momentum carry them on. Being able to increase the revs on the other side of the moored boat indicates to them that they have slowed down.

Stands back and puts on flak jacket.

 

Completely agree. I use the app Ullyse Speedometer to occasionally measure my speed as it has a low speed setting. It shows similar results to your sat nav, and even shows the boat slowing when going through bridgeholes.

You are correct, most people ease back on the throttle far to late for it to make much difference to their speed over the ground.

Using the speedometer app I found I needed to drop the revs about 4 boat lengths before the moored boat to slow down from 3 mph to 2 mph.

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

At the moment we are moored at Branston quite tightly on to chains so we move little if at all.

Get us some pickle while you're there! 

[mrsmelly]

5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Get us some pickle while you're there! 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejut

[Tacet]

9 hours ago, DaveR said:

I found that my usual running speed of 1500 rpm gave a speed of 3.5 mph

Coming down to 1100 rpm gave a speed of 2.8 mph

Tickover 900 rpm gave 2.1 mph

 

No disrespect to Dave who, I am sure, reports the numbers on the clocks, but are these figure plausible? 

At both 900 rpm and 1500 rpm it requires 428 rpm per mph where as it falls to 393 rpm per mph at 1100 rpm.  I suppose these are clumsy units - so perhaps it would be neater to say that it takes 25,714 engine revolutions to move one mile (at 900 and 1500 rpm) whereas it only takes only 23,571 revs to travel a mile (at 1100 rpm).

Assuming the engine rpm is directly proportional to propeller rpm, I would have expected reduced efficiency at higher speeds.

 

[cuthound]

40 minutes ago, Tacet said:

No disrespect to Dave who, I am sure, reports the numbers on the clocks, but are these figure plausible? 

At both 900 rpm and 1500 rpm it requires 428 rpm per mph where as it falls to 393 rpm per mph at 1100 rpm.  I suppose these are clumsy units - so perhaps it would be neater to say that it takes 25,714 engine revolutions to move one mile (at 900 and 1500 rpm) whereas it only takes only 23,571 revs to travel a mile (at 1100 rpm).

Assuming the engine rpm is directly proportional to propeller rpm, I would have expected reduced efficiency at higher speeds.

 

Engine rpm is directly proportional to propellor rpm (obviously) but the depth and width of the waterway seriously affect efficiency (by adding drag), and hence speed over the ground.

[howardang]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

No disrespect to Dave who, I am sure, reports the numbers on the clocks, but are these figure plausible? 

At both 900 rpm and 1500 rpm it requires 428 rpm per mph where as it falls to 393 rpm per mph at 1100 rpm.  I suppose these are clumsy units - so perhaps it would be neater to say that it takes 25,714 engine revolutions to move one mile (at 900 and 1500 rpm) whereas it only takes only 23,571 revs to travel a mile (at 1100 rpm).

Assuming the engine rpm is directly proportional to propeller rpm, I would have expected reduced efficiency at higher speeds.

 

Dave doesn't mention whether his readings were taken using the same stretch of waterway. If not, they may wel be innacurate because of differences in canal depth, wind strength etc. Speed readings can fluctuate widely if these criteria vary

Howard

 

[dccruiser]

12 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

At the moment we are moored at Branston quite tightly on to chains so we move little if at all. Several boats have passed this morning. Actualy its realy a H and H boaters day today as its quite windy so we are staying put. Three boats in a row came past at warp factor three then the last two as I do on dead tickover, there are five boats moored here at present so not a mile of boats. Its down to etiquete. Its not too windy for tickover some people just cant be arsed to be considerate. Yes you should tie up correctly although its impossible to stop movement on pins especialy when everywhere is as soft as it is at present due to amount of rain we have all had.

I passed you in reverse because i knew you would be on watch  

Rick

[Bunny]

On 16/04/2018 at 13:01, OldGoat said:

You got there first again... It takes a bit more effort to moor up with springs and keep the lines tight - most folks don't bother and whinge instead.

Agree , spring your lines and cross your pins . After 14yrs of rarely being asked to slow down, I was 'remonstrated with' 4 times last year . Even this year I've been told to slow down by a chap who had ropes like string attached to toothpick pins , I was in reverse and stopped. Bunny .

[Cheshire cat]

6 hours ago, Tacet said:

No disrespect to Dave who, I am sure, reports the numbers on the clocks, but are these figure plausible? 

At both 900 rpm and 1500 rpm it requires 428 rpm per mph where as it falls to 393 rpm per mph at 1100 rpm.  I suppose these are clumsy units - so perhaps it would be neater to say that it takes 25,714 engine revolutions to move one mile (at 900 and 1500 rpm) whereas it only takes only 23,571 revs to travel a mile (at 1100 rpm).

Assuming the engine rpm is directly proportional to propeller rpm, I would have expected reduced efficiency at higher speeds.

 

I agree. Something not quite right but the figures are roughly what I would work to. 1500rpm normal cruising speed and 900-1000 for passing boats depending on what they are attached to.

[DaveR]

Propeller efficiency decreases with speed. Propeller slip changes quite dramatically as the boat speed through the water increases. So engine revs are not in any way directly proportional.

The readings I noted earlier, were done on the same stretch of canal but, as mentioned in subsequent posts, who knows what the depth of water was at each observation point. We have all heard the change in engine note when the boat reaches a part of the canal/river where the water depth is much greater - usually at the same time the boat speed increases.

When allowed, in deep water, I have turned up the speed to the full 2200 rpm and achieved 5.5mph.