Love the innovation and wish them success but $4,900 for a single prop kinda makes it outta the price range for most recreational boaters. Could definitely see some of the offshore fisherman getting a return with long term fuel economy.
Wow $4900 per prop? Yeah that would price this prop right out of the market for your average recreational boater. Hell I choked a little when I paid $600 each for a 4 blade Merc Rev 4. $1200 total. $10,000 for a pair of props? Oooffff
@@ScarabChris But think about the much higher MPG, around 40 % more effective in mid range, so maybe a third less cost for fuel. Sum that up for a typical life cycle for the boat, and maybe its cheaper than a normal prop.
This prop is made for people who have a lot of disposable income, most boaters will not see a return on investment with them at this price point, but if you wait a couple years I’m sure you will be able to find a knock off for a tenth of the price, I prefer to buy American but not when being gouged.
Now would this scale up to container ships? Think of the savings in shipping and environmental side to saving that kinda fuel in a large ship like that.
Yes it could be scaled up to a container ship or cruise ship but the big problem would be the cost would be 10 times whatever the normal prop cost was and likely more than that. I'm going to Google that because I'm curious now!!!
@@MrDilley777 I guess it would depend on a few factors but I could still see it being such a benefit to the environment alone. Hopefully cost come down but doesn’t seem to be the trend at the moment.
Ship fuel is significantly expensive, so much so that they even have multi-fuel ships that can switch fuel between the cheaper and more eco-friendly fuels when they sail into areas with tighter emissions requirements. If they're willing to spend enough money to make a ship multi-fuel, they will definitely spend on a prop that will save them significant amounts of fuel. Keep watching, if the prop is really that good for the shipping application then they will start using it.
@@8180634 I think they would have to engineer a new machine to CNC this thing because of the complex shape. I googled the cost of one of the old design cruise ship props that about 18 ft in diameter and it was 1.5 million pounds of English currency and that means 2.3 million in dollars. Now times that by 10 equals 23 million dollars and if you have two or three props then 46 million for two and 69 million for three. I think you'll need a coupon or get it on sale (How about Not). It would be kinda cool if they made a electric coffee stirrer and drink or blender out of it!!!
Thats a great video! Its 4,900$ for a prop for a 300 outboard so I would have to burn about 5,000 gallons of fuel to break even with a 25% increase in efficiency. Something to think about for sure.
Good point, but for me range is priceless. 25% further gets me to the prime fishing grounds and back without worrying about running out of gas, or having to carry extra gas and waste deck space.
Just looking at the prop i can see it will out preform a conventional prop. Its the loop. Its like having a kort nozzle built right into the prop; but without the limitations of a kort nozzle.
I’m guessing the MPG breakeven on this 5k investment is between 5-8 years based on typical engine use. That’s reasonable and not dissimilar to buying a hybrid car or installing solar panels on your home. However, during those 5-8 years you also get better torque and performance within the mid-range. It would be interesting to know if engine durability is increased over time as less RPM’s are needed. That could make the cost benefit a no-brainer
Buying a hybrid car is never about the cash savings when upgrading, you would (almost) always save a ton of money by just staying in the car you're in until it needs to be refreshed. Simply, the fuel efficiencies cannot overcome the cost of the new technology. It's exactly the same here; that 5k for a new prop (EACH), would pay for an awful lot of fuel.. hell, that's almost my slip cost for an entire year. So, Sharrow had better start finding some way of working with dealers to get these props included with the purchase of a new boat. Otherwise, I don't see many but the early adopters and visionaries getting these and that's not good for them. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing these props when they come down in price
It also has to be said $5k is BULLSHIT LEVEL CHEAP when it comes to boating. Even the smallest boat. On larger boats $5K is literally nothing, not even a rounding error.
@@darthkek1953 Beyond some level. I just finished refurbishing a 1991 21′ Boston Whaler for 25K with a 2018 Yamaha 200. Five grand is not a discernible upgrade for me. Of course if you're buying a brand new boat for 250k, then yeah, 5k is nothing.
@@patricio-gomez1 you're really not the target audience for this. I admire penny-pinching boaters and good for you but this is not for you. People spend what you spend on TINY upgrades to their yachts. Aquaholic spoke to one guy who spent $5,000 on Princess-branded cushions.
The theory behind this is exactly why azipods are used exclusively in the cruise ship business: to improve maneuverability (docking), reduce cavitation & turbulence, and include an outer ring which helps in preventing the directed thrust from escaping sideways. In essence, this is what Sharrow's prop is trying to emulate: a more jet-like laminar flow. Fuel efficiency is the icing for "small boats" but it's huge for ships which drink enormous amounts of fuel. I was a marine/ offshore/industrial electrician for many years, and I can tell you that the number one headache-nightmare the Chief Engineer & Captain shared was fuel economy and the related problems which accompany "going faster". I watched a marine documentary recently, in which the propeller took two years to make and cost $7 million US dollars!!! A ship's fuel usage is measured in tons per hour, not gallons. My mind is reeling with the possibilities that this design presents.
you should than also know that a good designed prop has millions to save, and every percentage is strived for. yet they don't use enclosed props for the most consuming vessels. they use them for very specific slow speed reasons. as you say the outer rings make the flow more like a jet. well that is only needed for low speed where the propeller slip is big (tugs, fisher trawlers, cruise boats spending most of the time in ports / shallows)
Nice prop, good for open water. For those of us in shallow/rocky waters, we need to calculate the value of this performance increase vs. repair/replacement costs. My home waters are so rocky and unpredictable that I've switched to a Comprop just because of the annual damage costs.
Have you thought of switching to a jet lower unit? All you gotta replace then is seals and bearings. Higher upfront cost but saves a lower unit from smashing rocks
even a bump into the sand and this is destroyed...and you aren't getting it repaired by anyone other than the manufacturer who likely will tell you to buy a new one....
I love this kind of innovation, it’s definitely not a product for the common people priced 5 grand, but it’s been making waves all over the internet (no pun intended). Hopefully it becomes a commodity on boats everywhere some day.
Which is a real shame. Kind of defeats the purpose. I'm sure they can mass-manufacture these things and actually help the environment, rather than making it a luxury just for the richest.
The key here is reducing cavitation. Reducing cavitation is where the performance differential occurs. This type of propeller would be great for small high speed props. There are a variety of ways to reduce cavitation. Container ships do it by reducing the speed of the propeller. Military ships do it by adding blades and also by having variable pitch propellers.
Sorry I'm not holding it. You're just going drink it anyway. The performance speaks for itself. You can try arguing with me. Except that I'm much to busy! Laughing! 🤣🤣🤣🤣😘
Reducing cavitation and essentially reducing slip. Slip numbers are a big deal in the performance boating world I am immersed in. They had a weird way of labelling it: "Advance Rate". When you look on their website there are more charts that show how much less slip it has. I've seen some large slip numbers from certain tests, so if you can get that down it's all good.
I would be very interested to see these props on a strait shaft yacht vs the same yacht model with IPS drives. My vote for platform would be a Grand Banks 60.
They won't do a fair test, or test them in labs, because you'll see the same results all toroidal props and screws have; epic failure. See my other posts for an explanation as to why. It's basically a midwit prop. Someone who has a little bit of brains but doesn't think it through. They ignore the additional mass of screw, and extra strain and wear and tear on the motor to turn the extra 25% mass that doesn't give an extra 25% gain, if anything they usually decrease your speed by about 10% in long term use. (For an extra 25% petrol!)
@Edelweiss I'm not really sure what the mass of the prop has to do with its efficiency. Surface area relates pretty directly to drag, but mass only matters when you are trying to change the speed of the mass. That's one of the reasons ships were getting bigger for years. Drag increases by the square while mass increases by the cube. I think by big concern with these props is the torque applied to the shafts. The driveline is built and tested for a particular amount of torque. Increasing that by 25% could drastically increase the rate of failure.
It would be interesting to see if you could run a smaller displacement outboard with the sharrow prop on the same hull with the standard props and achieve similar performance.The cost v benefit justification might look better then. It could even change boat design if we didn’t have to run such large capacity four strokes to achieve adequate performance
Where I am there is about a $10K price jump from a 200hp to 300hp outboard, so a Sharrow prop on the smaller engine could very well get you the same performance (except top speed) as the 300hp with a $10K saving over all.
A 100 hp difference is way more than this prop can account for. Maybe 300 to 250 on a twin. And this will only be interesting for those who ONLY want the mid range efficiency. Also, at this stage, they have not spoken one work about how that case would affect the boat in the rough stuff. That power is about more than just good cruise speed and top end.
I have a Donzi classic with a 540 bull dog bbc with a lot of go fast goodies done to the motor and at 82 mph how much more speed would I get at that price I hope 90 and the Mazco HP 4 blade at a 27 pitch prop at 6 grand rpm. This prop gets good fuel mileage at 3500 rpm I get really good fuel efficiency. So I wonde if this new prop would beat out this prop at all speeds. So let me know and if it does I will buy one if not I will leave it on the shelve at the boat store. So let me here all your numbers for this prop ?
Most don't have a clue how much different your boat will perform with the perfect prop vs just an average prop. To me the real test I would like to see is on a light hull with big power. My reasoning is because I have had a 110 mph boat that would barely do 70 with the wrong prop. The pitch wasn't even much difference just the blade design and microscopic finish. You gotta spend the big bucks to get the best. This just seems like it would ventilate so you could run more pitch than a solid blade.
Bigger than a yup. This is a direct comparison test. And it's about the fundamental difference in design. The base prop should have been the normal tweaked and worked 3 blade that's always put on a boat. Not the random stock prop.
I'm curious how a prop like this would act on my boat in my picture, now I'm running a 11x13 left hand elephant 🐘 ear 2 blade prop, with 19-21%overdrive in my V-drive!...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠
I dont think the sharo would work in a surfacing situation. Its top end efficiency was basically matching the stock prop in the test. I think if it was to grab air it wouldn´t work as well as a cleaver or similar. Be good to see a test....but as with conventional props, stock vs surfacing are totally different. I guess a sharo surfacing style would be another leap of design that would need alotta tuning to get right...if it even works, could be great though...but so is a well tuned cleaver !
Just found this video. Very interesting and informative. Worked on smaller warships in the sixty's, just trying to eliminate cavitation noise and damage. Would really be interested to here the boffins take on these in a larger format.
This makes a lot of sense for me in retrospect. First, each blade having two surfaces effectively moves more water less. That is a hydrodynamic advantage. Second, looping the blade will disperse the tip vortex more effectively, which will delay cavitation. Third, Internal stresses are more optimally distributed.
In my youth I owned a propeller repair shop and was a OEM certified for repairing most manufactured propellers. I have seen a lot of advancements through the different changes and inventions with the propeller through the years. It is wonderful to think there are still individuals that strive for perfection which is what makes us great. The only thing that I can see which is a deterrent is that it is so highly technologically involved and priced that the majority of people out in the world will not be able to afford the advantage. Those that Will be able to take advantage of the propeller. Will be probably military applications those that are drug runners and those that have the excess money to spend so they can brag that they have the best even though most of them probably cannot tell the difference. But it is great that there still are individuals that strive for the perfection and think out of the box so keep on doing what you’re doing.
Cost ???? This would definitely be a Big decider ?? It already cost enough money to put a boat in the water. Then you need to think about changing the Propeller 🤔 Nice product for a limited market ??
@@OneOut1 No. Idle describes the action of the engine when the throttle is fully retarded, whether or not the prop is engaged. Neutral describes the condition of the transmission when the prop is disconnected from the engine. The engine can be idling, whether the prop is being driven or not - similar to a car transmission.
Impressive and surprising. As a life long boater and gear head my first thought would be "less blade surface" would mean more ventilation (prop slippage) particularly in rough sloppy seas. I went from 3 blade to 4 blade props because my props would lose bite in really sloppy conditions. I have a 11,000 pound center console, 35+ feet in length with twin 250's.
The name of the game here is trying to eliminate as much cavitation as possible. Liquids and gas have really weird behavior if you look at them closely during extremes, such as spinning a bent piece of metal really fast into them.
@@JohnDoe-ji5wg Not necessarily. It comes down to the actual improvement in the real world and on top of that, how much you actually use the boat. Most private boaters won't benefit from that big a cost when their boat is roughly double the price of the prop. The price has to come down if they want more private boaters to purchase it.
@@JohnDoe-ji5wg If you know anything about props, its not like there is a single prop that solves all your problems. Most private boaters have at least 2-3 props with different pitch and diameters in order to optimize fuel efficiency or the hole shot. When I first saw the price of $500, I thought that roughly double the price of a standard prop, so its not too bad. Then I read the fine print and that is just the 10% down payment for the prop and changed the situation. Unless the company has a prop swap program, I doubt there are many buyers other than commercial boats who can afford it and willing to buy multiple props to optimize their efficiency. There are always some rich private boaters with $100K+ boats which won't affect their wallets, but the rest of us are giving it a "hell no" at that price.
I am fascinated by toroidal propeller technology and I brought it up and a Boat Drag Race at the Wild Horse Pass South of Phoenix. I spoke with racers and most had no clue what I was talking about. But, I ran across two guys that did know and had some unique input. The first was a big cargo ship captain. He said that the props that you use for thrust and that the toroidal props will be the future but it is NOT the best for speed. He said that boat speed is at the tip of the propeller so Drag Race Boats have a surprisingly small and not very broad blade. I got to talk to a long time boat drag racers and he kind of confirmed this and said that he used the toroidal prop does not work and he claimed that he tested in on his top fuel boats. He claimed the toroidal prop will not get the boat going from a dead stop to instantly high speed but in both cases boats are topped off at the same speed at the end. He also said that the drag race boat props are unique in that they have a very small pitch of about 6%.
Would it make sense to make a shroud to go around or behind the prop to see if Bernoulli's principle would help create more thrust? Like "air entrapment" but with a liquid.
At the 6:45 mark they make sure to mention they squeezed .4mph faster top speed out of the sharrow (plenty of room there for error, bias, temperature changes between props etc) but notice how they leave the positive 1.5 gph loss colored green and don't mention it. That 1.5gph should be red. Also how are you going to have higher GPH but the same MPG. Also the range is lower I just noticed. Seems like a biased test and this seem like simply a commercial to me not an honest test.
Strength is a concern as to much Strength will bend a prop shaft or shear splines in on the crank with impact Would love to try these on my surf launch charter boat in South Africa
I keep reading about better reverse thrust, but is the forward thrust better as well? i would assume so due to the lower planing speeds, but it isn't stated i think
This is the same test as the other week surely ? Still not a fair comparison. Different pitch. I’d also say that the prop slip numbers are worth looking at for wot between the two props. Something doesn’t add up there at all
The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
to be a balanced test you must have identical rpm ranges. Either over prop the Sharrow or under prop the Yamaha as any time you increase pitch slightly you increase MPG. Equal it out and show us again please !
The Sharrow props are designed specifically for the boat. I wonder how much improvement you could get by tuning your traditional props? It seems to me that minimally you need a little more pitch if WOT is near 6000 RPM.
The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
Was thinking the same. The SWS propellors could use a bit more pitch since the engies rev to 5900 RPM. That could explain the small difference in top speed.
I see really a good reason for the Sharrow Prop: the reduction of the blade-tip vortex. On the other hand, it has more effective blade surface, which makes the comparison a bit biased. Did somebody make a comparison between Sharrow prop and a slightly larger conventional prop having the same pitch? Maybe the difference in performance can be reduced but the price (of the conventional one) remains realistic. My engineering knowledge tells: larger prop -> better propulsion efficiency (until a given point where the drag overweights the benefits).
This is really cool, Id love to throw one on my 19' deckboat. Only problems are, first and foremost, price! $5k for a prop on a 150 is insane and prices me out of the market. Next issue is a actually prefer aluminum props and these are SS. I spend a lot of time on Lake of the Wood, Ontario Canada, and that lake is notorious for eating props and lower drive units. if possible, I want the prop to give before the bottom end does and aluminum is a better bet there. If warranty was lifetime replacement and covered rocks, Id consider it lol. Seriously tho, if they brought out an aluminum line at a substantially better price point (under $2K) Id do it in a heartbeat. Another thing to consider I suppose would be potential theft. I think Id be afraid to leave the prop on the motor anytime I wasnt with it lol
Indeed, very impressive stats, but as you have mentioned they need to find a creative way to bring the cost down. At that point its nearly a no brainier to purchase one.
A prop design like this just might be an improvement for the bigger boats as well, some of the high power boats such as the Pershing could benefit from this new design.
The reason this prop design works at all is basically a real life cheat code where if you make something have precise curvature and bends just the right way, you will see little to no cavitation compared to regular ones. Making something this accurate is profusely expensive, especially for larger ships.
At 9:00 there is one thing to correct here, Sharrow did not invent this prop. The design has existed for a long time, Sharrow simply patented and produced their version of the toroidal prop. It was actually invented in 1890 and subsequently updated/patented by others through 1960….these early designs weren’t mass produce due to the cost of manufacturing back then. Economies of scale and new manufacturing technology has now allowed this amazing invention to come to life at scale, but even now we can see how much this costs with the new technology, so imagine what the cost was back then.
Will the loop blades improve the duo-prop? I’m especially interested in a duo-prop system with looped blades. I have a 8.1 L Volvo penta with a duo-prop. Hypothesis: If there is an in-line counter rotation of props, then there is more cavitation from a duo-prop circle tip; therefore, a Sharrow Duo-Prop will show greater improvement than a conventional propeller.
You'd probably be looking at 12k in prop costs. Not sure it would be worth going that route for a specialty prop. Not to mention repairing one of these, would highly unlikely result in satisfactory results. CNC machining is a great thing, but very expensive and lengthy process when it's on a 4 axis or most likely 5 axis machine. Casting is definitely the best way to market these, but at a $5600 cost per pop, it's not realistic for probably 99% of the market out there.
Interesting concept. Like a merge between a speed prop (Less blades) and a power prop (more blades). Common to see 2 blades on racing (top speed, low haul power), 3 blade (standard all rounder) and 4 blade (low to mid speed haul power and efficiency, lower top speed efficiency). 6 blade with the best of both worlds. Nice :)
I wonder how a single Sharrow prop would compare with a a Volvo Duo prop or Merc bravo 3. I'm guessing massive performance gains. Hey BoatTest, get him to give you a few props for a Bravo 1 and get some baseline runs on the 3, swap drives, and see how it compares. My guess is you'll get the speed of a single prop with the dock manners and hole shot of the dual prop.
i think this is very helpful for electrification of boats to get a better range out of the battery and out of the solar panels. this is something where electrification can shine. if you run out of fuel, you are stuck. if your battery runs out of juice, you still get a few kilowatt peak from your solar panels. when you combine this with a hydrofoil concept, you get something really cool and efficient.
Would love to see if these are worth the investment on the pocket battlewagon center consoles (heavy, 25 foot twin engine deep Vees with big fuel tanks...contenders, grady whites, regulators) ...I love my twin four strokes and i love how efficient they are, but if i could get %30 more range out of them at 4000rpm this would be a no brainer really considering the price of fuel and the distances I run. These are cool.
Can you do some testing with it with the correct pitch? I guess you need one or two inches less to get the engine to its recommended max rpm. This test isn’t fair on the standard prop when you don’t get them to the same max rpm.
@@adamportner8102 The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
@@vmcmark7578 You have a point there. My comment though was about that the props in the video doesn’t have matching characteristics with very different max rpm, which is the easiest way to compare props pitches. Similar to when trying 3- or 4-blade props on the same boat. Therefor I don’t think the numbers in the video gives a correct comparison.
@@gunnarfernqvist4896 Have you ever seen a TV that was square, not just flat? That was how it was done then. The test boats had their motors ""WITH-IN THE WOT RPM"" range with both ""TYPES"" of propellers correct? The power units wouldn't be getting harmed by being ""LUGGED"" because they were spinning to the factories spec. Why can't YOU just THINK that the performance gain at a lower RPM, IS A GOOD THING......some times SOMEONE DOES HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL. Perhaps they should have added pitch to the OEM PROPS to get the RPM's down & then everyone would yell that it needed a different pitch, to let it spin more. Tennis anyone??
I have no idea why nobody's saying this, but I don't know why anyone would think it would be a fair comparison to compare props of different materials.
@@garyweber1724 dont tempt me. My dumbass watched a documentary on how the big ones are made and got it into my head I could print with possible metal core supports and then seal her up the same way you would a hand carved fishing lure
Toroidal propeller! First designed in 1963/64 and over the years have seen different designs and some now patented like this design and each designed to suit different performance needs 😀
What I don't understand is if it works in boats why does it not work in aircraft? There's an MIT patent (strange considering that sharrow already has one) for a toroidal drone prop and they claim it works better than normal props, specifically in loudness and in efficiency, but people in the drone community have attempted to test the prop (by designing ones that are as close as possible) and they all fly terribly. The MIT 'paper' is two pages long and provides no data and despite saying its quieter and playing a noise boosted audio of a normal prop, they muted the clip of the toroidal one. So it seems that even for MIT it does not work.
@@definingslawek4731 Good question. While not a propeller designer by trade but a few things could prevent this type of propeller being installed on aircraft. #1 cost of manufacturing, the prop profile is cnc machined compared to casting a propeller blade. #2 would not allow for variable pitch control. #3 weight factor, the design of the toroidal propeller to handle high torque loads and high rotational speeds at a significantly larger diameter, the sheer bulk of the prop would be substantial compared to thin bladed aircraft props, I just don't think this is a good match for an aircraft. #4 cost of repair is another factor.) There could be more points to consider, but to me these 5 points would prevent aircraft usage. Can you think of any other points 🤔
We're planning on selling 10,000 props next year, but we actually sold 500 because we don't understand the concept of lower margins, and higher volume. Jesus please for the love of god scale this business up, bring the production cost down, profit margin down, and volume up. You'll make more money in the long run!
thx Capt’n Steve for all of the run downs over the past year..Absolutely the finest of all test boat in real time. Finally technology has come to props in boats, what’s next?👍
There's a market for it, I can see a fishing charter boat where the use is much higher than the weekend warrior. I see parallels with this prop to the anchor by Ultra Marine with their use of higher quality materials and craftsmanship. The downside, nobody sees the propeller. They need to pair it with an ornament or logo of some kind to market their brand as premium. Like the "Intel Inside" campaign.
I've been watching the development of this prop over the last few years and it is the real deal. Basic prop design hadn't changed in over a hundred years. Sure, there were enhancements and refinements but a radical approach was needed and this is it. Will this prop be for everyone - no, not at the price they are charging at this time. For someone like me with a 20' bow rider who puts maybe 50 hrs on it a year there is no way to justify it even at $5/gal for gas. However for larger boats and those that use them frequently the pay back would be months or possibly weeks. Imagine a transport ship using millions in fuel per year. The ROI would be weeks if not less and then there is the improved handling and reduced engine wear to boot. My hat's off to this guy.
If you watch the video closely at 4 minutes to 4:48 The port engine appears to be trimmed up If this was during the standard Yamaha mid range testing Having your one engine trimmed up would explain the extra 1000 Rpm needed for optimum performance potentially I don't know that looks fishy 🤔
@@darthkek1953 these props aren't for "yachts ". They are marketing to performance and high end fishing boats. You keep commenting about how these are for "yachting".... why?
@@stngstr My interest group is that, that's why I'm interested in the answer to it too, and their web does does talk about the segment. Performance and high-end fishing boats seem obvious will-win markets too.
Question. With a conventional propeller don't you back off your speed once you have planed? Your 0.8 miles should only be a few hundred feet max correct?
I realize r&d isn’t cheap but 10x the cost of an expensive conventional prop is a bit excessive. For that kind of money I’d expect it to wash the boat at the end of the day.. Based on a bit of rough math I figure it would save me 80 gallons per year and at that rate it would take 16 years to break even. No doubt it’s an innovation, but practicality has to come first.
Right idk how they came to decide that their invoation merits $4,900 vs the conventional manufacturers prop of $700. Also the question has to be asked that would Yamaha warranty an engine that has this prop mated to it.
Ever heard of the Fan Showdown? Be interesting to see this submitted, and vice versa, it would be interesting to see the best from the Fan Showdown, turned into props and tested on boats.
I've worked the backwaters and offshore waters of Sarasota Bay and the Gulf of Mexico for over 40 years as a full time quide, the last 20 years in Twin Vee Catamaran out of Longboat Key. Those props would have paid for themselves within 2 years of use and would have been far more convenient than the standard Suzuki props I was using.
give it 10 years so metal 3d printing can mature :) you can 3d print that shit for 200 dollars of material cost... so that would be 400 dollar manufacturing price and 800 dollar MSRP... at that price point you recoup your investment in 1 or 2 tank fill ups on a 150 horsepower boat.
Very impressive innovation. I wonder how this prop design could benefit military applications such as adaptations for submarine and large fuel burning surface vessels. If the prop creates less drag it would in fact run quieter in the water. I think this kind of innovation is over due. The marine propeller has had very few design changes in the last 100 years that we could say are as significant as the Sharrow.
Most military vessels including subs have very specialized drives that have more money put into research of the drive system then civilian boats have put into all things combined. And I mean all civilian boats everywhere every brand every everything. Uncle Sam has more money in just the drive system research. Most technology innovations start for military applications and eventually make there way to the civilian market decades later.
I was wondering about the same thing, there's a lot of pictures of submarines and other naval vessels that have their propeller/drive areas tarped over with black very specifically to hide the shape. I immediately wondered if they also use something like this. Getting rid of those vortices on a sub/ship drive would really be desirable.
Sweet.....till the day it whackes a piece of drift wood....also....how does it help up to cavitation? Does it just get hot and turn purple like a normal stainless prop.....or does it bend and lose it's shape when it gets hot ? Seems like the missing center portion of each blade might be a compromise in overall strength
Only issue i have with these props is if they get the smallest chip or bend in them they instantly loose all these benefits, they are also ridiculously expensive compared to the oem props or even aftermarket ss props. Awesome prop though such a radical design.
Toroidal props are a game changer. More efficient, reduced vibration. This reduced vibration mean less wear on all parts AND less noise. Yes the boat props are very expensive at this time but that will change as it does with all good tech. Toroidal drone prop designs exist and are being 3d printed.
All of those numbers are good but you should show a ROI calculation. Those props are cool and all but at 5k that's a lot of gas. You would only have to burn 4k+ gallons of gas to pay for it.
The last time this was brought up in the comments they took the video down - I am guessing the creators of this prop don't like discussing that aspect.
I burn roughly 250 gal a trip. 4k+ gal of fuel is not that hard to hit in a commercial or heavy use setting. At 250 a trip thats 16 trips. 8 weeks in summer time.
@@12aquaholic but you are not factoring in the difference between the two performance levels. You are not saving 250 gallons per trip with these props.. maybe 25 gallons on a tank which would take 160 trips to burn 4k gallons.
Seen similar style of prop decades ago. Strangely enough there is a storyline in an old 1943 movie about a Russian guy trying to get his radical new design of propellor, for an ice breaker, cast in the UK.
Disappointing rollout of this prop. Doesn’t seem to have the financial backing to mass produce or distribute this prop. Current cost is absolutely not practical, with an indefinite wait time. No application for Bravo 3, with the highest amount of stern drives on the market. But we do like Captain Steve
its a prototype. they are a startup company fishing for investors imo. they sell the prop as a one off so they can demonstrate interest for investors. once the money rolls in a proper production line will be setup. just look at tesla. they did a conversion of a lotus and made a fashion statement. now its world known brand that everyone wants a taste. this has same potential.
@@fastfreeks That has changed in the world of aircraft and supercars they are now creating suspension and steering control arms from the 3D printed metal technology available now. Plus there are new composites like basalt and carbon fibers available. th-cam.com/video/OCto6qSjIXw/w-d-xo.html
An aerospace company has finished building a huge space rocket completely made from metal 3D printing. Lighter, stronger, easier and faster to build. Edit: There's also been fully functional and long lasting turbochargers made from 100% metal 3D printing. The whole turbo was made in one print.
3d metal printing is for when ur making 1 part... u could cast it, would be way faster... but probably machining it all the way is the best.. also way expensive.. but printing is aswell.. machining is like printing but ur taking material away instead of adding it..
@@larsvegas1505 Hi Lars thats the reason it makes sense you only use the material you need. Casting metal into a high stress thin component like this is pretty difficult and the moulds would be a nightmare and involve a lot of fettling... rather blades would have to be formed bent, forged? assembled on the hub, heat treated possibly and then largely hand finished. Metal printing means you can use one type of machine to produce most variations of size fit and possibly materials on demand ..and you can minimise the amount of surface treatment/fettling required.
Looking at the shape of the Propeller. This would already tell you it would create more propulsion. It basically has 6 propeller blades instead of 3, and the loop design helps to trap the water instead of slashing through the water as with a standard propeller. It was interesting to see the 2 different designs come to together on the graph as the RPM was near maximum. My thoughts would be ? As the speed of the water increases, the advantage of one prop to another starts to show no difference. The only disadvantage I can see with the Loop Design ? It would prone to wearing out more quickly than the standard prop.
I'm not a prop head, just a guy who likes Popular Mechanics. At first glance, I saw Michaelangelo's helicopter, but upon closer inspection, we see some biomimicry in the form of a beetle's wings! The real genius of this design is for all of the aerial drones you're going to have buzzing (or not buzzing anymore) over the water like real living mosquitoes! At the end of the day, this is just one more piece of unobtainium for the guys you wouldn't give a scalpel to
you should have run them at the same MPH and then compare stats. The same MPH would probably give the same bow lift and handling characteristics. Flawed data IMO.
I’ve had an opportunity to run these on a twin Yamaha 250 set up on a 26ft edgewater CC. For over a year now. The slow speed maneuverability is awesome with one concern: the engines sound and shift like they don’t not immediately have the torque at idle to spin up the props. It lasts only a split second but it makes me a bit nervous to hear the engines bog ever so slightly as they go into gear (both fore and aft) had the engines checked and all good according to Yamaha certified tech. I’m wondering if some applications require a tweak in engine tuning to operate these and maintain smooth operation and long term durability. Please address this!
Deducting the $1,000 per propeller that I have (I would like to get a different set) and 30% savings (Mine would be different). I would still have to wait more than 3 years for the props to pay themselves off. That's if I use the boat 100 hours per year... That's for Sharrow aluminum and I have twin 4 blade Stainless now. Sharrow props will definitely have to come down in price before I'm interested. Plus, Yours figures with the Saltwater Series II props has the boat with a 28% prop slip. Now that slip is totally unacceptable and would need different props or different mounting of the engine/adjusting drive height, or both. Yamaha actually allows 28% prop slip for best numbers???. When World Cat 325CC gets 16% prop slip with the same engines...... And how do you get your Ranges if the boat has a 279 gallon gas tank? Thanks
To all of the people out there with inventions to develop. Notice the question about how Sharrow developed his propeller when all of the great minds with much greater education and training in the relevant fields of engineering and physics of the past century or so didn't. Sharrow realized early on that he had a great idea, but lacked the relevant knowledge to make the idea into a fully functioning engineered, optimized, and practical product. Sharrow was wise and humble enough to admit this and he hired people who could finish the job. That is what separates many great ideas which go nowhere fast and ideas which bear fruit. Sharrow and the rest of his design and manufacturing team should be proud of themselves.
I guess if you can afford to have a World Cat you can afford these props at 5 grand a piece, but for us common people no one can justify the cost. Hopefully the genius that made these props figures that out and lowers the cost.
@@adamportner8102 Slowly at first. But those who can afford a tricked out Freeman, Worldcat or Cigarette may be willing to pay a (relatively) small price to upgrade the performance of their boats.
Who's going to be the first big center console to bolt up 5 or 6 of these? I want to hear that difference at speed. Smooth and quiet like a Rolls I hope.
I have designed props for both watercraft and aircraft. By having a looped foil you are in essence having a wing tip on a wing. You see them turning up now pointing up down or both on aircraft. The benefit is they tend to reduce drag however extending the airplane wing plan further would do the same and create lift vertically. Wingtips pointing up and down don't really do that, however they do aid in keeping spillage on the main wing therefore indirect contribution to Lyft. They could simply have a longer wing and get a better benefit but then there are clearance issues in a busy airport. The birds that soar the best have the longest wings with the pointiest wingtips. Birds that have to fly in and out of trees do it differently by having multiple wingtips dispersing the vortices that way they can be more compact. The albatross and the frigate bird have extremely long pointy wings and are the best soaring birds.
Hi, in the table given at 4:05, you have the wrong conversion from miles to km, 23.8MIH=38.3KMH. But if you are counting nautical miles, the conversion is completely different for both results. Otherwise great video.
Most sailboats props can be folded/feathered so they don’t cause as much resistance under sail, this doesn’t look like something that could easily achieve this, likely meaning it’s not as desirable as traditional approaches. Otherwise though it’s a super cool design
"Most boat buyers want to know what the top speed of the boat is, even though they almost never run the boat there" .... it was at this point that every bass boat owner stopped watching. lol
@@atthebrink74 Only time I'm not running WFO is in no wake zones. Last thing a good motor needs is a prop that's dragging down on RPM's. That means it's lugging, even a little, leads to blown power heads. Ask any seasoned owner, or tech, that lugged motors don't live long lves.
This is just a bad test. I'm sure they can adjust the pitch to make max rpms and yes I run wot often in my bassboat. Currently 74mph with tournament load.
Love the innovation and wish them success but $4,900 for a single prop kinda makes it outta the price range for most recreational boaters. Could definitely see some of the offshore fisherman getting a return with long term fuel economy.
Wow $4900 per prop? Yeah that would price this prop right out of the market for your average recreational boater. Hell I choked a little when I paid $600 each for a 4 blade Merc Rev 4. $1200 total. $10,000 for a pair of props? Oooffff
@@ScarabChris But think about the much higher MPG, around 40 % more effective in mid range, so maybe a third less cost for fuel. Sum that up for a typical life cycle for the boat, and maybe its cheaper than a normal prop.
This prop is made for people who have a lot of disposable income, most boaters will not see a return on investment with them at this price point, but if you wait a couple years I’m sure you will be able to find a knock off for a tenth of the price, I prefer to buy American but not when being gouged.
@@rxwhat33 The US Navy special ops, etc. doesn't give a shit.
You are correct, The state of our country is proof positive that indeed they do not give a shit.
Now would this scale up to container ships? Think of the savings in shipping and environmental side to saving that kinda fuel in a large ship like that.
Yes it could be scaled up to a container ship or cruise ship but the big problem would be the cost would be 10 times whatever the normal prop cost was and likely more than that. I'm going to Google that because I'm curious now!!!
@@MrDilley777 I guess it would depend on a few factors but I could still see it being such a benefit to the environment alone. Hopefully cost come down but doesn’t seem to be the trend at the moment.
Ship fuel is significantly expensive, so much so that they even have multi-fuel ships that can switch fuel between the cheaper and more eco-friendly fuels when they sail into areas with tighter emissions requirements. If they're willing to spend enough money to make a ship multi-fuel, they will definitely spend on a prop that will save them significant amounts of fuel. Keep watching, if the prop is really that good for the shipping application then they will start using it.
@@8180634 they probably have already tested it….
@@8180634 I think they would have to engineer a new machine to CNC this thing because of the complex shape. I googled the cost of one of the old design cruise ship props that about 18 ft in diameter and it was 1.5 million pounds of English currency and that means 2.3 million in dollars. Now times that by 10 equals 23 million dollars and if you have two or three props then 46 million for two and 69 million for three. I think you'll need a coupon or get it on sale (How about Not). It would be kinda cool if they made a electric coffee stirrer and drink or blender out of it!!!
Thats a great video! Its 4,900$ for a prop for a 300 outboard so I would have to burn about 5,000 gallons of fuel to break even with a 25% increase in efficiency. Something to think about for sure.
But, bragging rights, priceless.
Got to be crazy on acid to spend 5000$ for a prop
$5K ... you can have it manufactured at a metal fab for less. 3D print it and then cast it.
Good point, but for me range is priceless. 25% further gets me to the prime fishing grounds and back without worrying about running out of gas, or having to carry extra gas and waste deck space.
What about environmental impact, or does that not matter to you?
Just looking at the prop i can see it will out preform a conventional prop. Its the loop. Its like having a kort nozzle built right into the prop; but without the limitations of a kort nozzle.
I’m guessing the MPG breakeven on this 5k investment is between 5-8 years based on typical engine use. That’s reasonable and not dissimilar to buying a hybrid car or installing solar panels on your home. However, during those 5-8 years you also get better torque and performance within the mid-range. It would be interesting to know if engine durability is increased over time as less RPM’s are needed. That could make the cost benefit a no-brainer
It’s going to be WAY less than 5 years, unless you hardly ever use your boat
Buying a hybrid car is never about the cash savings when upgrading, you would (almost) always save a ton of money by just staying in the car you're in until it needs to be refreshed. Simply, the fuel efficiencies cannot overcome the cost of the new technology. It's exactly the same here; that 5k for a new prop (EACH), would pay for an awful lot of fuel.. hell, that's almost my slip cost for an entire year. So, Sharrow had better start finding some way of working with dealers to get these props included with the purchase of a new boat. Otherwise, I don't see many but the early adopters and visionaries getting these and that's not good for them. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing these props when they come down in price
It also has to be said $5k is BULLSHIT LEVEL CHEAP when it comes to boating. Even the smallest boat. On larger boats $5K is literally nothing, not even a rounding error.
@@darthkek1953 Beyond some level. I just finished refurbishing a 1991 21′ Boston Whaler for 25K with a 2018 Yamaha 200. Five grand is not a discernible upgrade for me. Of course if you're buying a brand new boat for 250k, then yeah, 5k is nothing.
@@patricio-gomez1 you're really not the target audience for this. I admire penny-pinching boaters and good for you but this is not for you. People spend what you spend on TINY upgrades to their yachts. Aquaholic spoke to one guy who spent $5,000 on Princess-branded cushions.
The theory behind this is exactly why azipods are used exclusively in the cruise ship business: to improve maneuverability (docking), reduce cavitation & turbulence, and include an outer ring which helps in preventing the directed thrust from escaping sideways. In essence, this is what Sharrow's prop is trying to emulate: a more jet-like laminar flow. Fuel efficiency is the icing for "small boats" but it's huge for ships which drink enormous amounts of fuel. I was a marine/ offshore/industrial electrician for many years, and I can tell you that the number one headache-nightmare the Chief Engineer & Captain shared was fuel economy and the related problems which accompany "going faster". I watched a marine documentary recently, in which the propeller took two years to make and cost $7 million US dollars!!! A ship's fuel usage is measured in tons per hour, not gallons.
My mind is reeling with the possibilities that this design presents.
you should than also know that a good designed prop has millions to save, and every percentage is strived for. yet they don't use enclosed props for the most consuming vessels. they use them for very specific slow speed reasons. as you say the outer rings make the flow more like a jet. well that is only needed for low speed where the propeller slip is big (tugs, fisher trawlers, cruise boats spending most of the time in ports / shallows)
However, arnt jet pumps considered not very efficient?
Nice prop, good for open water. For those of us in shallow/rocky waters, we need to calculate the value of this performance increase vs. repair/replacement costs. My home waters are so rocky and unpredictable that I've switched to a Comprop just because of the annual damage costs.
Have you thought of switching to a jet lower unit? All you gotta replace then is seals and bearings. Higher upfront cost but saves a lower unit from smashing rocks
@@WackemAndStackem there is considerable parasitic horsepower loss with a jet and slow speed driving characteristics are awful.
even a bump into the sand and this is destroyed...and you aren't getting it repaired by anyone other than the manufacturer who likely will tell you to buy a new one....
You hit rocks with your prop yearly?!
you would be also replacing your shaft yearly by the sounds of it!
I love this kind of innovation, it’s definitely not a product for the common people priced 5 grand, but it’s been making waves all over the internet (no pun intended). Hopefully it becomes a commodity on boats everywhere some day.
Which is a real shame. Kind of defeats the purpose. I'm sure they can mass-manufacture these things and actually help the environment, rather than making it a luxury just for the richest.
@@millanferende6723 that's just how things are priced when innovative and new. Give it some time. It's not going to be 5k forever
@@millanferende6723maybe you can figure out how to produce such a complex shape out of a hard metal for significantly less. Gotta be easy right? 🤪
The key here is reducing cavitation. Reducing cavitation is where the performance differential occurs. This type of propeller would be great for small high speed props. There are a variety of ways to reduce cavitation. Container ships do it by reducing the speed of the propeller. Military ships do it by adding blades and also by having variable pitch propellers.
I was thinking it doesn't produce tip vortex because it doesn't have blade tips
oh they say that at the end
USN: "You think you've reduced cavitation? Hold my beer..."
Sorry I'm not holding it. You're just going drink it anyway. The performance speaks for itself. You can try arguing with me. Except that I'm much to busy! Laughing! 🤣🤣🤣🤣😘
Reducing cavitation and essentially reducing slip. Slip numbers are a big deal in the performance boating world I am immersed in. They had a weird way of labelling it: "Advance Rate". When you look on their website there are more charts that show how much less slip it has. I've seen some large slip numbers from certain tests, so if you can get that down it's all good.
I would be very interested to see these props on a strait shaft yacht vs the same yacht model with IPS drives. My vote for platform would be a Grand Banks 60.
which you just happen to have available for a guinea pig? ; )
*straight
They won't do a fair test, or test them in labs, because you'll see the same results all toroidal props and screws have; epic failure. See my other posts for an explanation as to why. It's basically a midwit prop. Someone who has a little bit of brains but doesn't think it through. They ignore the additional mass of screw, and extra strain and wear and tear on the motor to turn the extra 25% mass that doesn't give an extra 25% gain, if anything they usually decrease your speed by about 10% in long term use. (For an extra 25% petrol!)
@Edelweiss I'm not really sure what the mass of the prop has to do with its efficiency. Surface area relates pretty directly to drag, but mass only matters when you are trying to change the speed of the mass. That's one of the reasons ships were getting bigger for years. Drag increases by the square while mass increases by the cube.
I think by big concern with these props is the torque applied to the shafts. The driveline is built and tested for a particular amount of torque. Increasing that by 25% could drastically increase the rate of failure.
It would be interesting to see if you could run a smaller displacement outboard with the sharrow prop on the same hull with the standard props and achieve similar performance.The cost v benefit justification might look better then. It could even change boat design if we didn’t have to run such large capacity four strokes to achieve adequate performance
Where I am there is about a $10K price jump from a 200hp to 300hp outboard, so a Sharrow prop on the smaller engine could very well get you the same performance (except top speed) as the 300hp with a $10K saving over all.
@@lancer2204 5k savings.... The prop cost 5 grand.
@@saltysteel3996 $5K saving on each outboard/prop combo. For a twin hull it would be a $10K saving, which I communicated poorly.
@@lancer2204 Also for a given trip you need less fuel and less weight for the smaller engines.
A 100 hp difference is way more than this prop can account for. Maybe 300 to 250 on a twin. And this will only be interesting for those who ONLY want the mid range efficiency. Also, at this stage, they have not spoken one work about how that case would affect the boat in the rough stuff. That power is about more than just good cruise speed and top end.
I wonder how it would work on non-plaining Diesel trawlers with twin 120 or 135 HP?
Its simple physics, no tip vortex no loss so its overall going to be better. Like windows down on car will cause less miles this is like windows up.
I have a Donzi classic with a 540 bull dog bbc with a lot of go fast goodies done to the motor and at 82 mph how much more speed would I get at that price I hope 90 and the Mazco HP 4 blade at a 27 pitch prop at 6 grand rpm. This prop gets good fuel mileage at 3500 rpm I get really good fuel efficiency. So I wonde if this new prop would beat out this prop at all speeds. So let me know and if it does I will buy one if not I will leave it on the shelve at the boat store. So let me here all your numbers for this prop ?
Most don't have a clue how much different your boat will perform with the perfect prop vs just an average prop. To me the real test I would like to see is on a light hull with big power. My reasoning is because I have had a 110 mph boat that would barely do 70 with the wrong prop. The pitch wasn't even much difference just the blade design and microscopic finish. You gotta spend the big bucks to get the best. This just seems like it would ventilate so you could run more pitch than a solid blade.
yup
Bigger than a yup.
This is a direct comparison test. And it's about the fundamental difference in design. The base prop should have been the normal tweaked and worked 3 blade that's always put on a boat. Not the random stock prop.
I'm curious how a prop like this would act on my boat in my picture, now I'm running a 11x13 left hand elephant 🐘 ear 2 blade prop, with 19-21%overdrive in my V-drive!...from Wyoming USA 🇺🇸 🤠
I dont think the sharo would work in a surfacing situation. Its top end efficiency was basically matching the stock prop in the test. I think if it was to grab air it wouldn´t work as well as a cleaver or similar. Be good to see a test....but as with conventional props, stock vs surfacing are totally different. I guess a sharo surfacing style would be another leap of design that would need alotta tuning to get right...if it even works, could be great though...but so is a well tuned cleaver !
Just found this video. Very interesting and informative. Worked on smaller warships in the sixty's, just trying to eliminate cavitation noise and damage. Would really be interested to here the boffins take on these in a larger format.
Wouldn't be surprised at all if nuclear submarines weren't already using similar prop geometry secretly.
Why isn't this on the helicopters already?
Hard to believe that the military hasn't already tried this so called, new technology.
@@ReiniGrauer They dont but it I am sure they have experimented with them.
@@ReiniGrauer Even extraterestrials are using it to prop their ships .. !
@@davidniquot6423 funny
This makes a lot of sense for me in retrospect. First, each blade having two surfaces effectively moves more water less. That is a hydrodynamic advantage. Second, looping the blade will disperse the tip vortex more effectively, which will delay cavitation. Third, Internal stresses are more optimally distributed.
These props are CNC machined in Detroit now. This should make them cheaper. Check out Titans of CNC’s video of the new production of Sharrow props.
In my youth I owned a propeller repair shop and was a OEM certified for repairing most manufactured propellers. I have seen a lot of advancements through the different changes and inventions with the propeller through the years. It is wonderful to think there are still individuals that strive for perfection which is what makes us great. The only thing that I can see which is a deterrent is that it is so highly technologically involved and priced that the majority of people out in the world will not be able to afford the advantage. Those that Will be able to take advantage of the propeller. Will be probably military applications those that are drug runners and those that have the excess money to spend so they can brag that they have the best even though most of them probably cannot tell the difference. But it is great that there still are individuals that strive for the perfection and think out of the box so keep on doing what you’re doing.
Yep, just looked at their site, $5400 pre-order for a prop. Ouch! I mean, it is really cool but... OUCH!
Cost ????
This would definitely be a Big decider ??
It already cost enough money to put a boat in the water.
Then you need to think about changing the Propeller 🤔
Nice product for a limited market ??
Why are ones props spinning when in idle. Isn't idle in neutral?
@@OneOut1 Docking and no wake zones?
@@OneOut1 No. Idle describes the action of the engine when the throttle is fully retarded, whether or not the prop is engaged. Neutral describes the condition of the transmission when the prop is disconnected from the engine. The engine can be idling, whether the prop is being driven or not - similar to a car transmission.
Impressive and surprising. As a life long boater and gear head my first thought would be "less blade surface" would mean more ventilation (prop slippage) particularly in rough sloppy seas. I went from 3 blade to 4 blade props because my props would lose bite in really sloppy conditions. I have a 11,000 pound center console, 35+ feet in length with twin 250's.
lying sob's take the video to 10.03 an hit play them props are in reverse turn video speed to slow an look
The name of the game here is trying to eliminate as much cavitation as possible. Liquids and gas have really weird behavior if you look at them closely during extremes, such as spinning a bent piece of metal really fast into them.
Why the graphs did not show what happens with the sharrow at 5900rpm? Top speed was (alledgedly) obtained at 5500rpm and for Yamaha at 5900rpm.
Percentage wise that is a MASSIVE improvement.
Price wise, its a MASSIVE amount to pay ($5000) for a prop.
savings wise,@@ahndeux , you are saving a MASSIVE amount of fuel, and it's gonna pay for itself in time.
@@JohnDoe-ji5wg Not necessarily. It comes down to the actual improvement in the real world and on top of that, how much you actually use the boat. Most private boaters won't benefit from that big a cost when their boat is roughly double the price of the prop. The price has to come down if they want more private boaters to purchase it.
@@JohnDoe-ji5wg If you know anything about props, its not like there is a single prop that solves all your problems. Most private boaters have at least 2-3 props with different pitch and diameters in order to optimize fuel efficiency or the hole shot.
When I first saw the price of $500, I thought that roughly double the price of a standard prop, so its not too bad. Then I read the fine print and that is just the 10% down payment for the prop and changed the situation.
Unless the company has a prop swap program, I doubt there are many buyers other than commercial boats who can afford it and willing to buy multiple props to optimize their efficiency. There are always some rich private boaters with $100K+ boats which won't affect their wallets, but the rest of us are giving it a "hell no" at that price.
I am fascinated by toroidal propeller technology and I brought it up and a Boat Drag Race at the Wild Horse Pass South of Phoenix. I spoke with racers and most had no clue what I was talking about. But, I ran across two guys that did know and had some unique input. The first was a big cargo ship captain. He said that the props that you use for thrust and that the toroidal props will be the future but it is NOT the best for speed. He said that boat speed is at the tip of the propeller so Drag Race Boats have a surprisingly small and not very broad blade. I got to talk to a long time boat drag racers and he kind of confirmed this and said that he used the toroidal prop does not work and he claimed that he tested in on his top fuel boats. He claimed the toroidal prop will not get the boat going from a dead stop to instantly high speed but in both cases boats are topped off at the same speed at the end. He also said that the drag race boat props are unique in that they have a very small pitch of about 6%.
Great video! I saw these props years ago but this is the first time I’ve seen a test!
Thanks for watching! We just finished testing them again but a big surprise coming soon!
Would it make sense to make a shroud to go around or behind the prop to see if Bernoulli's principle would help create more thrust? Like "air entrapment" but with a liquid.
I remember seeing almost the exact same prop back in early 1980's. It was longer but essentially the same.
At the 6:45 mark they make sure to mention they squeezed .4mph faster top speed out of the sharrow (plenty of room there for error, bias, temperature changes between props etc) but notice how they leave the positive 1.5 gph loss colored green and don't mention it. That 1.5gph should be red. Also how are you going to have higher GPH but the same MPG. Also the range is lower I just noticed. Seems like a biased test and this seem like simply a commercial to me not an honest test.
Im curious in freshwater use…once you “find” a stump will it bend more than a regular prop? Are they built as strong and durable?
It seems like it would be a lot stronger since it essentially has a truss connected to the blades.
Strength is a concern as to much Strength will bend a prop shaft or shear splines in on the crank with impact
Would love to try these on my surf launch charter boat in South Africa
I keep reading about better reverse thrust, but is the forward thrust better as well? i would assume so due to the lower planing speeds, but it isn't stated i think
This is the same test as the other week surely ? Still not a fair comparison. Different pitch. I’d also say that the prop slip numbers are worth looking at for wot between the two props. Something doesn’t add up there at all
The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
to be a balanced test you must have identical rpm ranges. Either over prop the Sharrow or under prop the Yamaha as any time you increase pitch slightly you increase MPG. Equal it out and show us again please !
The Sharrow props are designed specifically for the boat. I wonder how much improvement you could get by tuning your traditional props? It seems to me that minimally you need a little more pitch if WOT is near 6000 RPM.
The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
Was thinking the same. The SWS propellors could use a bit more pitch since the engies rev to 5900 RPM. That could explain the small difference in top speed.
I see really a good reason for the Sharrow Prop: the reduction of the blade-tip vortex. On the other hand, it has more effective blade surface, which makes the comparison a bit biased. Did somebody make a comparison between Sharrow prop and a slightly larger conventional prop having the same pitch? Maybe the difference in performance can be reduced but the price (of the conventional one) remains realistic. My engineering knowledge tells: larger prop -> better propulsion efficiency (until a given point where the drag overweights the benefits).
This is really cool, Id love to throw one on my 19' deckboat. Only problems are, first and foremost, price! $5k for a prop on a 150 is insane and prices me out of the market. Next issue is a actually prefer aluminum props and these are SS. I spend a lot of time on Lake of the Wood, Ontario Canada, and that lake is notorious for eating props and lower drive units. if possible, I want the prop to give before the bottom end does and aluminum is a better bet there. If warranty was lifetime replacement and covered rocks, Id consider it lol. Seriously tho, if they brought out an aluminum line at a substantially better price point (under $2K) Id do it in a heartbeat.
Another thing to consider I suppose would be potential theft. I think Id be afraid to leave the prop on the motor anytime I wasnt with it lol
Indeed, very impressive stats, but as you have mentioned they need to find a creative way to bring the cost down. At that point its nearly a no brainier to purchase one.
@@f900ex5 they paired with yamaha for mass production... our wishes might be heard
Love this. prop from a submarin, reinvented for outboards. Smart move
A prop design like this just might be an improvement for the bigger boats as well, some of the high power boats such as the Pershing could benefit from this new design.
The reason this prop design works at all is basically a real life cheat code where if you make something have precise curvature and bends just the right way, you will see little to no cavitation compared to regular ones. Making something this accurate is profusely expensive, especially for larger ships.
At 9:00 there is one thing to correct here, Sharrow did not invent this prop. The design has existed for a long time, Sharrow simply patented and produced their version of the toroidal prop. It was actually invented in 1890 and subsequently updated/patented by others through 1960….these early designs weren’t mass produce due to the cost of manufacturing back then. Economies of scale and new manufacturing technology has now allowed this amazing invention to come to life at scale, but even now we can see how much this costs with the new technology, so imagine what the cost was back then.
Will the loop blades improve the duo-prop? I’m especially interested in a duo-prop system with looped blades. I have a 8.1 L Volvo penta with a duo-prop.
Hypothesis:
If there is an in-line counter rotation of props, then there is more cavitation from a duo-prop circle tip; therefore, a Sharrow Duo-Prop will show greater improvement than a conventional propeller.
I have DPs as well. Equally interested.
You'd probably be looking at 12k in prop costs. Not sure it would be worth going that route for a specialty prop. Not to mention repairing one of these, would highly unlikely result in satisfactory results. CNC machining is a great thing, but very expensive and lengthy process when it's on a 4 axis or most likely 5 axis machine. Casting is definitely the best way to market these, but at a $5600 cost per pop, it's not realistic for probably 99% of the market out there.
Looking forward to a Bravo Three prop.
Interesting concept. Like a merge between a speed prop (Less blades) and a power prop (more blades). Common to see 2 blades on racing (top speed, low haul power), 3 blade (standard all rounder) and 4 blade (low to mid speed haul power and efficiency, lower top speed efficiency). 6 blade with the best of both worlds. Nice :)
Can you show the cavatachion effect from the tip of the prop. ???
I wonder how a single Sharrow prop would compare with a a Volvo Duo prop or Merc bravo 3.
I'm guessing massive performance gains.
Hey BoatTest, get him to give you a few props for a Bravo 1 and get some baseline runs on the 3, swap drives, and see how it compares. My guess is you'll get the speed of a single prop with the dock manners and hole shot of the dual prop.
Sharrow makes a duo prop on their website page and that’s also huge… check it out.
@@JS-sx3bl I'm sure the price point is huge...
i think this is very helpful for electrification of boats to get a better range out of the battery and out of the solar panels.
this is something where electrification can shine. if you run out of fuel, you are stuck. if your battery runs out of juice, you still get a few kilowatt peak from your solar panels.
when you combine this with a hydrofoil concept, you get something really cool and efficient.
Would love to see if these are worth the investment on the pocket battlewagon center consoles (heavy, 25 foot twin engine deep Vees with big fuel tanks...contenders, grady whites, regulators) ...I love my twin four strokes and i love how efficient they are, but if i could get %30 more range out of them at 4000rpm this would be a no brainer really considering the price of fuel and the distances I run. These are cool.
How did they work out for you?
I don't own a boat but you've sold it to me! I like the idea of building a solar boat and cruising the Mediterranean during retirement.
Can you do some testing with it with the correct pitch? I guess you need one or two inches less to get the engine to its recommended max rpm. This test isn’t fair on the standard prop when you don’t get them to the same max rpm.
Exactly both props need to be as close to max rpm at full out throttle for the results to compared, otherwise this test shows you nothing.
@@adamportner8102
The most important ""RPM"" would be where the torque/horsepower lines meet on any/all motors, no matter what the factory recommended ""WOT"" operation RPM's say on the BIA TAG & if these guys are taking that into account while building a prop for a certain motor and or boat combination, then they SHOULD be considered to be ""PROPERLY PROPPED OUT"" as we used to say while trying to get the customers to understand why we COULDN'T just stand behind the counter and ""SELL THEM THE EXACT & PERFECT PROP"" for their boat without at least knowing what their exact ""WOT-RPM"" was on their hull/motor/load/usage/altitude/fuel/air temp ect ect ect that they were showing on the tach & they just go ""HUH, I DON'T KNOW, IT GOES THIS FAST"" and even with the biggest bank account, they COULDN'T BUY A CLUE!!! Propping is the most important & hardest thing to ever do on a boat & that is where the FUEL meets the WATER, PERIOD!!!
@@vmcmark7578 You have a point there. My comment though was about that the props in the video doesn’t have matching characteristics with very different max rpm, which is the easiest way to compare props pitches. Similar to when trying 3- or 4-blade props on the same boat. Therefor I don’t think the numbers in the video gives a correct comparison.
@@gunnarfernqvist4896 Have you ever seen a TV that was square, not just flat? That was how it was done then. The test boats had their motors ""WITH-IN THE WOT RPM"" range with both ""TYPES"" of propellers correct? The power units wouldn't be getting harmed by being ""LUGGED"" because they were spinning to the factories spec.
Why can't YOU just THINK that the performance gain at a lower RPM, IS A GOOD THING......some times SOMEONE DOES HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL.
Perhaps they should have added pitch to the OEM PROPS to get the RPM's down & then everyone would yell that it needed a different pitch, to let it spin more. Tennis anyone??
The difference the correct prop; is unbelievable
I'd like to see these tested on a Aquila 36 sport with the hydrofoil fitted to see what the difference is with and without these propellers
I have no idea why nobody's saying this, but I don't know why anyone would think it would be a fair comparison to compare props of different materials.
Kudos! This is an awesome achievement. Would love to see it evolve with smaller radius & pitches for smaller engines.
I cant wait to see this tech come to smaller displacement outboards. I know it's not much but my little 2.5 hp merc needs all the help she can get.
3D printer & start experimenting
@@garyweber1724 dont tempt me. My dumbass watched a documentary on how the big ones are made and got it into my head I could print with possible metal core supports and then seal her up the same way you would a hand carved fishing lure
As fuel prices skyrocket, these become rapidly more viable.
It's still 5000$ a prop. Can get a lot of fuel with that money.
@@Njazmo if your some one who does a lot of boating the saving can add up fast.
the video that i'm wainting for!!! Thankyou guys!
Toroidal propeller! First designed in 1963/64 and over the years have seen different designs and some now patented like this design and each designed to suit different performance needs 😀
What I don't understand is if it works in boats why does it not work in aircraft? There's an MIT patent (strange considering that sharrow already has one) for a toroidal drone prop and they claim it works better than normal props, specifically in loudness and in efficiency, but people in the drone community have attempted to test the prop (by designing ones that are as close as possible) and they all fly terribly.
The MIT 'paper' is two pages long and provides no data and despite saying its quieter and playing a noise boosted audio of a normal prop, they muted the clip of the toroidal one.
So it seems that even for MIT it does not work.
@@definingslawek4731 Good question. While not a propeller designer by trade but a few things could prevent this type of propeller being installed on aircraft. #1 cost of manufacturing, the prop profile is cnc machined compared to casting a propeller blade. #2 would not allow for variable pitch control. #3 weight factor, the design of the toroidal propeller to handle high torque loads and high rotational speeds at a significantly larger diameter, the sheer bulk of the prop would be substantial compared to thin bladed aircraft props, I just don't think this is a good match for an aircraft. #4 cost of repair is another factor.) There could be more points to consider, but to me these 5 points would prevent aircraft usage. Can you think of any other points 🤔
We're planning on selling 10,000 props next year, but we actually sold 500 because we don't understand the concept of lower margins, and higher volume. Jesus please for the love of god scale this business up, bring the production cost down, profit margin down, and volume up. You'll make more money in the long run!
thx Capt’n Steve for all of the run downs over the past year..Absolutely the finest of all test boat in real time. Finally technology has come to props in boats, what’s next?👍
whatever pays him evidently
@@rumnboats7612 praise god! best response ever too 🤫
$5,000 for a prop is insane. My luck it would fall off my lower unit and I’d be pissed. And how come they don’t have them for smaller outboards ?
There's a market for it, I can see a fishing charter boat where the use is much higher than the weekend warrior. I see parallels with this prop to the anchor by Ultra Marine with their use of higher quality materials and craftsmanship. The downside, nobody sees the propeller. They need to pair it with an ornament or logo of some kind to market their brand as premium. Like the "Intel Inside" campaign.
Very cool! I can't wait for these to get cheap enough to try out on my little boat!
See Titans of CNC on youtube, they introduce the new production technology via CNC of Sharrow props which should bring the cost per unit down.
I've been watching the development of this prop over the last few years and it is the real deal. Basic prop design hadn't changed in over a hundred years. Sure, there were enhancements and refinements but a radical approach was needed and this is it. Will this prop be for everyone - no, not at the price they are charging at this time. For someone like me with a 20' bow rider who puts maybe 50 hrs on it a year there is no way to justify it even at $5/gal for gas. However for larger boats and those that use them frequently the pay back would be months or possibly weeks. Imagine a transport ship using millions in fuel per year. The ROI would be weeks if not less and then there is the improved handling and reduced engine wear to boot. My hat's off to this guy.
If you watch the video closely at 4 minutes to 4:48 The port engine appears to be trimmed up If this was during the standard Yamaha mid range testing Having your one engine trimmed up would explain the extra 1000 Rpm needed for optimum performance potentially I don't know that looks fishy 🤔
They’re great but the cost is too steep
Like all new tech, price will come down once production ramps up.
It's boating... they're almost givaway level cheap compared to yachting costs.
@@darthkek1953 these props aren't for "yachts ". They are marketing to performance and high end fishing boats. You keep commenting about how these are for "yachting".... why?
@@stngstr My interest group is that, that's why I'm interested in the answer to it too, and their web does does talk about the segment. Performance and high-end fishing boats seem obvious will-win markets too.
Question. With a conventional propeller don't you back off your speed once you have planed? Your 0.8 miles should only be a few hundred feet max correct?
I realize r&d isn’t cheap but 10x the cost of an expensive conventional prop is a bit excessive. For that kind of money I’d expect it to wash the boat at the end of the day.. Based on a bit of rough math I figure it would save me 80 gallons per year and at that rate it would take 16 years to break even. No doubt it’s an innovation, but practicality has to come first.
Right idk how they came to decide that their invoation merits $4,900 vs the conventional manufacturers prop of $700. Also the question has to be asked that would Yamaha warranty an engine that has this prop mated to it.
This propeller design originates in Tasmania in 1971. It was developed by David B. Sugden, an engineer consulting to The Robbins Company
Ever heard of the Fan Showdown? Be interesting to see this submitted, and vice versa, it would be interesting to see the best from the Fan Showdown, turned into props and tested on boats.
i just came here from the latest fan showdown.
I've worked the backwaters and offshore waters of Sarasota Bay and the Gulf of Mexico for over 40 years as a full time quide, the last 20 years in Twin Vee Catamaran out of Longboat Key. Those props would have paid for themselves within 2 years of use and would have been far more convenient than the standard Suzuki props I was using.
I would like to see this scaled down to electric trolling motors(Min Kota) and smaller (below 20 HP) out board engines.
give it 10 years so metal 3d printing can mature :) you can 3d print that shit for 200 dollars of material cost... so that would be 400 dollar manufacturing price and 800 dollar MSRP... at that price point you recoup your investment in 1 or 2 tank fill ups on a 150 horsepower boat.
Have someone 3D-print one for you. 😊
Wondering how well these props work for electrical generation.
Very impressive innovation. I wonder how this prop design could benefit military applications such as adaptations for submarine and large fuel burning surface vessels. If the prop creates less drag it would in fact run quieter in the water. I think this kind of innovation is over due. The marine propeller has had very few design changes in the last 100 years that we could say are as significant as the Sharrow.
Most military vessels including subs have very specialized drives that have more money put into research of the drive system then civilian boats have put into all things combined. And I mean all civilian boats everywhere every brand every everything. Uncle Sam has more money in just the drive system research. Most technology innovations start for military applications and eventually make there way to the civilian market decades later.
I was wondering about the same thing, there's a lot of pictures of submarines and other naval vessels that have their propeller/drive areas tarped over with black very specifically to hide the shape. I immediately wondered if they also use something like this. Getting rid of those vortices on a sub/ship drive would really be desirable.
Made me think of the winglets on commercial and business jets...eliminate the tip vortex (turbulence) and gain efficiency.
A Sharrow prop test on a 200 HP Merc equipped Barletta Corsa 23U Tri-toon would be something I'd like to see.
Why is the port engine trimmed up so high at the 4:44 mark?
Wow, finally a radically different prop that actually delivers considerably better performance!
lying sob's take the video to 10.03 an hit play them props are in reverse turn video speed to slow an look
Sweet.....till the day it whackes a piece of drift wood....also....how does it help up to cavitation? Does it just get hot and turn purple like a normal stainless prop.....or does it bend and lose it's shape when it gets hot ? Seems like the missing center portion of each blade might be a compromise in overall strength
I love improving technology for the better of all !!! Godspeed indeed !!! ❤️❤️❤️
Im wondering how well they'd run in florida weeds.we have lots of weeds in our lakes
Only issue i have with these props is if they get the smallest chip or bend in them they instantly loose all these benefits, they are also ridiculously expensive compared to the oem props or even aftermarket ss props. Awesome prop though such a radical design.
you made that up
Toroidal props are a game changer. More efficient, reduced vibration. This reduced vibration mean less wear on all parts AND less noise. Yes the boat props are very expensive at this time but that will change as it does with all good tech. Toroidal drone prop designs exist and are being 3d printed.
Would love to see these on the new merc 600s!
While I agree, that would be a BEAST of an engineering job.
Yeah you go gurl.
I can’t tell if this is a paid commercial or an actual test, I’ll go with paid commercial since Sharrow is the one reaching out giving you your lines
All of those numbers are good but you should show a ROI calculation. Those props are cool and all but at 5k that's a lot of gas. You would only have to burn 4k+ gallons of gas to pay for it.
The last time this was brought up in the comments they took the video down - I am guessing the creators of this prop don't like discussing that aspect.
I burn roughly 250 gal a trip. 4k+ gal of fuel is not that hard to hit in a commercial or heavy use setting. At 250 a trip thats 16 trips. 8 weeks in summer time.
@@12aquaholic but you are not factoring in the difference between the two performance levels. You are not saving 250 gallons per trip with these props.. maybe 25 gallons on a tank which would take 160 trips to burn 4k gallons.
Seen similar style of prop decades ago. Strangely enough there is a storyline in an old 1943 movie about a Russian guy trying to get his radical new design of propellor, for an ice breaker, cast in the UK.
Disappointing rollout of this prop. Doesn’t seem to have the financial backing to mass produce or distribute this prop. Current cost is absolutely not practical, with an indefinite wait time. No application for Bravo 3, with the highest amount of stern drives on the market. But we do like Captain Steve
its a prototype. they are a startup company fishing for investors imo. they sell the prop as a one off so they can demonstrate interest for investors. once the money rolls in a proper production line will be setup. just look at tesla. they did a conversion of a lotus and made a fashion statement. now its world known brand that everyone wants a taste. this has same potential.
I'm waiting for the tesla electric motor conversion kit for my sundancer.
@@steveh1121 do you think electric is more likely to succeed in offshore environment?
@@adventuresofwillandshelby6013 i don't think it would be great for off shore just yet but for my pleasure boat would be great.
With that fuel savings.. how long would it take to make it worth while with fuel savings for a 5k prop. 30% better efficiency is crazy good figures
Seems like ideal component to make in a 3D metal printer
For smaller and electric motors...manufacture from a composite material.
3d metal printing isn't very strong probably break with the type of load that's on them.
@@fastfreeks
That has changed in the world of aircraft and supercars they are now creating suspension and steering control arms from the 3D printed metal technology available now. Plus there are new composites like basalt and carbon fibers available.
th-cam.com/video/OCto6qSjIXw/w-d-xo.html
An aerospace company has finished building a huge space rocket completely made from metal 3D printing. Lighter, stronger, easier and faster to build.
Edit: There's also been fully functional and long lasting turbochargers made from 100% metal 3D printing. The whole turbo was made in one print.
3d metal printing is for when ur making 1 part... u could cast it, would be way faster... but probably machining it all the way is the best.. also way expensive.. but printing is aswell.. machining is like printing but ur taking material away instead of adding it..
@@larsvegas1505
Hi Lars thats the reason it makes sense you only use the material you need.
Casting metal into a high stress thin component like this is pretty difficult and the moulds would be a nightmare and involve a lot of fettling... rather blades would have to be formed bent, forged? assembled on the hub, heat treated possibly and then largely hand finished.
Metal printing means you can use one type of machine to produce most variations of size fit and possibly materials on demand ..and you can minimise the amount of surface treatment/fettling required.
Looking at the shape of the Propeller.
This would already tell you it would create more propulsion.
It basically has 6 propeller blades instead of 3, and the loop design helps to trap the water instead of slashing through the water as with a standard propeller.
It was interesting to see the 2 different designs come to together on the graph as the RPM was near maximum.
My thoughts would be ?
As the speed of the water increases, the advantage of one prop to another starts to show no difference.
The only disadvantage I can see with the Loop Design ?
It would prone to wearing out more quickly than the standard prop.
I'm not a prop head, just a guy who likes Popular Mechanics. At first glance, I saw Michaelangelo's helicopter, but upon closer inspection, we see some biomimicry in the form of a beetle's wings! The real genius of this design is for all of the aerial drones you're going to have buzzing (or not buzzing anymore) over the water like real living mosquitoes! At the end of the day, this is just one more piece of unobtainium for the guys you wouldn't give a scalpel to
It isn't just faster, it's more efficient/better fuel mileage
you should have run them at the same MPH and then compare stats. The same MPH would probably give the same bow lift and handling characteristics. Flawed data IMO.
Why do they make a test with propellers that don't have the same rpm at top speed? This is absolutely important to compare propeller performance!
This thing checks all the boxes but they left one box off the list.....the cost box. It doesn't ck that box for me.
I figured it would be double the cost and was ok with that and went to the site to order one. When I saw $4,900...I was like huh?!?
@@Kiteboarding316 Me too...lol
@@Kiteboarding316 Just give it a few years. The price will eventually come down.
I’m sure the R & D costs for something like this are pretty insane.
I just went to the site and it was $500 for a Yammy 300 hp prop.
I’ve had an opportunity to run these on a twin Yamaha 250 set up on a 26ft edgewater CC. For over a year now. The slow speed maneuverability is awesome with one concern: the engines sound and shift like they don’t not immediately have the torque at idle to spin up the props. It lasts only a split second but it makes me a bit nervous to hear the engines bog ever so slightly as they go into gear (both fore and aft) had the engines checked and all good according to Yamaha certified tech. I’m wondering if some applications require a tweak in engine tuning to operate these and maintain smooth operation and long term durability. Please address this!
Deducting the $1,000 per propeller that I have (I would like to get a different set) and 30% savings (Mine would be different). I would still have to wait more than 3 years for the props to pay themselves off. That's if I use the boat 100 hours per year... That's for Sharrow aluminum and I have twin 4 blade Stainless now. Sharrow props will definitely have to come down in price before I'm interested.
Plus, Yours figures with the Saltwater Series II props has the boat with a 28% prop slip. Now that slip is totally unacceptable and would need different props or different mounting of the engine/adjusting drive height, or both. Yamaha actually allows 28% prop slip for best numbers???. When World Cat 325CC gets 16% prop slip with the same engines...... And how do you get your Ranges if the boat has a 279 gallon gas tank? Thanks
To all of the people out there with inventions to develop. Notice the question about how Sharrow developed his propeller when all of the great minds with much greater education and training in the relevant fields of engineering and physics of the past century or so didn't. Sharrow realized early on that he had a great idea, but lacked the relevant knowledge to make the idea into a fully functioning engineered, optimized, and practical product. Sharrow was wise and humble enough to admit this and he hired people who could finish the job. That is what separates many great ideas which go nowhere fast and ideas which bear fruit. Sharrow and the rest of his design and manufacturing team should be proud of themselves.
I guess if you can afford to have a World Cat you can afford these props at 5 grand a piece, but for us common people no one can justify the cost. Hopefully the genius that made these props figures that out and lowers the cost.
As demand rises prices usually come down.
I believe these were originally 14k when they first started production.
Well when they come down even more, let us common folks know.
@@michiganengineer8621 but at that price will demand rise?
@@adamportner8102 Slowly at first. But those who can afford a tricked out Freeman, Worldcat or Cigarette may be willing to pay a (relatively) small price to upgrade the performance of their boats.
Who's going to be the first big center console to bolt up 5 or 6 of these? I want to hear that difference at speed. Smooth and quiet like a Rolls I hope.
I have designed props for both watercraft and aircraft. By having a looped foil you are in essence having a wing tip on a wing. You see them turning up now pointing up down or both on aircraft. The benefit is they tend to reduce drag however extending the airplane wing plan further would do the same and create lift vertically. Wingtips pointing up and down don't really do that, however they do aid in keeping spillage on the main wing therefore indirect contribution to Lyft. They could simply have a longer wing and get a better benefit but then there are clearance issues in a busy airport.
The birds that soar the best have the longest wings with the pointiest wingtips. Birds that have to fly in and out of trees do it differently by having multiple wingtips dispersing the vortices that way they can be more compact. The albatross and the frigate bird have extremely long pointy wings and are the best soaring birds.
Wow, thank you for sharing this!
Literally revolutionary.
Better look up what literally means bud.
Awesome idea, once the price can come down I'd be in for sure, just can't put a $5k prop on a 15k boat.
Hi, in the table given at 4:05, you have the wrong conversion from miles to km, 23.8MIH=38.3KMH. But if you are counting nautical miles, the conversion is completely different for both results. Otherwise great video.
Would like to see this tested on some sailboats.
Most sailboats props can be folded/feathered so they don’t cause as much resistance under sail, this doesn’t look like something that could easily achieve this, likely meaning it’s not as desirable as traditional approaches. Otherwise though it’s a super cool design
Curious what they are like on 2 stroke.
"Most boat buyers want to know what the top speed of the boat is, even though they almost never run the boat there" .... it was at this point that every bass boat owner stopped watching. lol
I thought the exact same thing! Bass boats only have 2 speeds, idle and balls out full throttle.
@@atthebrink74 Only time I'm not running WFO is in no wake zones. Last thing a good motor needs is a prop that's dragging down on RPM's. That means it's lugging, even a little, leads to blown power heads. Ask any seasoned owner, or tech, that lugged motors don't live long lves.
This is just a bad test. I'm sure they can adjust the pitch to make max rpms and yes I run wot often in my bassboat. Currently 74mph with tournament load.
Anyone know how one can invest in this Company please ?
write to editorial@boattest.com we'll put you in touch with Sharrow marine if you are really interested. ;)