Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  VERADO: Pedestal Mount

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   VERADO: Pedestal Mount
jimh posted 12-12-2004 12:40 PM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
For details on the Verado engine mount, please see:

VERADO™ Outboard
Pedestal Mount

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/verado/veradoMount.html

This message thread is linked from the Reference Section article and should be used for posting comments or questions related to the Verado engine mount.

Dick posted 12-12-2004 02:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
Jim

Very well done.

Dick

wwknapp posted 12-12-2004 10:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for wwknapp  Send Email to wwknapp     
The idea of a two speed motor for both tilt and trim is older than the Verado. My 1998 Yamaha F50 does it that way with a single cylinder and it works quite well. Did take me back when I first heard it thinking there might be something wrong. Since Yamaha has been using pretty much the same design mechanism in the 40's and 50's (as well as others) since at least the mid 80's, Mercury would have plenty of chance to observe the design. Presumably they did not claim this as new.

Walt

Sal A posted 12-13-2004 05:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for Sal A  Send Email to Sal A     
Thank You Jim.

jimh posted 12-13-2004 12:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The two-speed trim and tilt function on older engine mounts with three rams is built into the hydraulic system. When you operate the trim switch, it runs the electric motor in one direction or the other, pumping hydraulic fluid into the system at a steady rate. The arrangement and size of the rams and their pistons determines the speed of movement of the engine. When you hit the trim switch you are applying current to a relay which then applies current to the motor.

In the Verado system, I believe that the speed to be used is determined by looking up the preferences stored in memory that were set by the user, then comparing the current position of the engine as indicated by the digital trim sensor, and then generating the proper voltage/current a relay which in turn controls an electric motor. When you hit the trim switch you are probably signaling an interrupt to the processor which then detects the state of the trim switch, and passes the trim switch information on to another process to actuate the motor control relays. The processor also signals the SmartCraft gauge display to jump to the display page for the engine trim indication. The processor probably polls the trim switch line until it notices that it is back to the neutral position, then terminates the process to the relays, which then interrupt the current to the electric motor. Or something like that...I don't really know!

It also might sense how much current the motor was drawing, which would be an indication of the load on the hydraulic rams, and adjust the speed to high if the load was light. A light load would be indicative of the position of the engine, that is, when underway and at high throttle the load would be high so move slowyly.

Or it could even be simpler: if the engine is not running, use high speed. If the engine is running use low speed. You could also build in a protection to prevent the engine being tilted up beyond a certain point if it was running. This would stop you from tilting the engine out of the water while it was running. Those Verado engines are quiet, so that might be a realistic problem to solve!

Even with all that software in the loop, you can probably just hit the relays or the motor with 12-Vdc and get the trim pump to move. I wonder if they have an hydraulic by-pass valve so you can move the engine manually if there is a problem?

wwknapp posted 12-13-2004 11:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for wwknapp  Send Email to wwknapp     
jimh:

The Yamaha F50 does not have three rams, it has one single large hydraulic cylinder that handles the entire job of tilt and trim. The motor definitely has two rpm settings and is in some manner controlled so that it runs the single cylinder slower in the various down positions for more precise control, then when a certain angle is reached the motor rpm is increased for faster tilt. I've not dissected how Yamaha is doing it, but it does have a sensor for trim. I have a meter reading on the console for that. And the two motor speeds are directly related to the current motor angle.

Yamaha has been using the single cylinder system since at least 1984 on the 40 hp, I was trying to identify a older version recently and went through all the parts manuals I had. The same, or a similar one was also on the 50 hp. Some of those models over the years list as tilt, and some list as tilt and trim. Larger Yamaha's do have the sort of three cylinder system you describe.

I've not measured current draw on the motor. It would not be at all hard for a small two speed solid state speed controller to be incorporated into the relay system.

Unless the Verado has a goto setting for trim what you describe would be a whole lot of overkill.

I sure would find the hydraulic override and what sort of tool it takes. I can think of situations it might be critical to be able to do that. Of course manually tilting up such a heavy motor might be a interesting workout. I have the necessary large blade screwdriver for mine onboard all the time on my Montauk. Without that release you can't budge that motor. It's also something I exercise regularily so it won't corrode tight.

Walt

jimh posted 12-18-2004 08:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Will the unusual mounting of the VERADO engine create any problems when the engine is used in a twin engine installation?

It seems to me that if you have a pair of VERADO engines on the transom, you could not run one engine tilted down and one tilted up at the same time. You might want to do this if you had an engine failure. Typically one would raise the dead engine from the water to reduce drag. With a pair of VERADO engines it would seem that the lower unit of the raised engine would begin to arc around when steered and might hit the cowling of the other engine.

Curiously, in the patent the inventors cite the new arrangement as an advantage when one engine is tilted because of the way the tie bar will remain stationary (as the steering axis does not change when the engine is tilted). Perhaps the range of steering is limited so that the engines cannot bang into each other when one is elevated and the other is not.

Also, how will this affect use of the VERADO engine with a conventionally mounted auxiliary. It seems likely that most 6- to 9-HP auxiliary engines will have transom mounts that are conventional, i.e., their steering axis will pivot with the tilt axis. I realize that in most fishing applications the main engine remains in the down position, but if you were trying to "get home" on the auxiliary engine only, you might prefer to tilt the main engine out of the water to reduce drag. I wonder how this will work?

Also, the integrated steering cylinder seems to have a very short lever arm or tiller on its rudder post. As a result, the range of movement of the tie bar will be quite small. The tiller arm on most small auxiliary engines will probably be longer. The result of this will be a limit to the range of movement of the tiller arm of the auxiliary engine, producing a range of steering that is less than that of the VERADO engine.

LHG posted 12-18-2004 05:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Jim - I have seen the tie bar arrangement on twin engine Verado installations, and that part of it is quite conventional.

Like with Mercury's current 75-250 transom bracket, for twin engine installations, a steering tongue is bolted on, which holds the conventional, rotating, tie bar. The Verado works the same way. I actually saw one engine full tilted, and the other one down. The tiebar accomodates this.

In addition, it should be noted that on the 270 Outrage and 31 Fountain where I observed this, only one engine has the short little steering cylinder. The other one is totally steered by the tie bar, and has a flat dummy plate replacing the steering cylinder.

jimh posted 12-18-2004 05:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Larry--What I am concerned about is how the engines behave when one is tilted and the other is not. When the wheel is turned the lower unit of the tilted engine will swing in an arc. This could easily lead to one engine hitting the other it would seem, if the steering were rotated far enough. It may be that the amount of rotation is limited so that the interference between the lower unit and the cowling does not occur.

It would be interesting to check this out next time aboard a twin Verado powered boat.

The use of a single hydraulic actuator is show in Cetacea Page 77

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage77.html#77-06

When the engines are tilted, either one or both, the tie bar remains completely stationary because nothing in the steering axis moves with engine tilt.

Peter posted 12-18-2004 06:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I hadn't even thought about that potential problem with a twin installation and I've had to come home once on one engine when the gears in an end-of-the-OMC-era made counter-rotating gearcase were turned into powdered metal.

The closer the motors are spaced together, which is touted as a performance advantage for the slim L6 configuration, it would seem that the greater the range of steering motion could be limited in an emergency operation where one motor is disabled.

In reading the passage in the patent about the prior tie bar being angled relative to horizontal when one motor is tilted up I did not really understand what the problem was and the patent seemed to fall a bit short on describing it. I have a tie bar arranged exactly as shown in the figure of the prior configuration in the patent as do most if not all twin engine configurations. The connections at the end of the tie bar are pivotable and so there is no problem steering the operational motor with the inoperable motor tilted that I can detect.

What happens if the disabled motor is the one connected to the steering assist pump? Does the steering assist pump operate if that motor is switched off? Do you have to leave the ignition on?

LHG posted 12-18-2004 06:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
So the assumption is that Mercury engineering is completely incompetent, and it takes continuousWave based Classic Whaler owners to point out the horrible defects in the Verado design. I simply don't know enough about these engines to further comment. But I'll bet Mercury is not pleased.

Hopefully, the folks at Boston Whaler have given the people from Mercury and the Verado design teams an indication of these Verado discussions here, and they will come in and comment under some alias.

jimh posted 12-19-2004 12:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Looking at the photograph (see hyperlink above) of the Verado steering tie bar, it shows there is quite a tiller extension rigged with the tie bar arrangement. This should cure any problem in terms of amount of tiller arm motion when steering an auxiliary engine because the longer tiller arm on the Verado side of the tie bar will match better with the tiller arm on the conventionally mounted auxiliary.

That is an interesting point on the electric-hydraulic boost pump. I think that system connects directly to the battery for power. It should be workable without the engine running. However, if the electric motor draws considerable current, you would lose the power boost if the battery voltage began to go down.

The Verado steering has already been shown to be adaptable to dual-helm installations and to third-party autopilots.

See:

http://www.nautamatic.com/Manuals/VeradoManVerD.pdf

for some interesting information.

wwknapp posted 12-19-2004 12:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for wwknapp  Send Email to wwknapp     
LHG:

I'll bet that if Mercury is reading this group, that they are not pleased with your outburst.

Mercury would have no business getting angry over questions about the functioning of the equipment they are offering. In fact, if I was contemplating buying this equipment and got such anger back I'd turn and walk out, end of sale for anything from them. I'm the person with the money and have every right to ask about and get straight answers about any question I might have.

I would also say Mercury should not hide behind a alias. I belong to other groups that discuss technical subjects and we always welcome anyone from the manufacturer who can shed light on our questions. As long as they don't get into sales or advertizing.

The stern of outboard boats is designed and equipped around the standard type of steering and tilt arrangement. The geometry of this mount has implications concerning this. We have only brought up some of them.

For instance, on pontoon boats the outboard is mounted on a narrow pod. I think the pod would have to be modifed considerably to clear the motor if it was tilted up while the steering was to one side. And, at least some pontoon boats are using engines of the size of the current Verado. I've seen a number such where I boat. Pontoon boats are a larger market down here than things like large Whalers.

Or, on a Whaler, mount a swim platform. It's a real question if a standard platform would be cleared by a tilted Verado.

Finding out how much of this sort of thing Mercury considered when they designed the motor will tell a lot about the future of that motor. My own experience with all kinds of products is that they are designed primarily with a single use focus. Questions bring out the areas not considered and those that were.

Walt

elaelap posted 12-20-2004 10:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
All I know is that I sure wouldn't repower with a Verado for several years 'til the bugs are worked out. Let the folks who buy new Whalers (and other boats without motor options) be the test marketeers...many of them won't even know (and often won't be told by the dealers) that their motors are first-run off the development/assembly line. It's great that Mercury is going ahead with research and innovation, but don't ask me to test the things in real life situations for them...

Tony

LHG posted 12-20-2004 02:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Then Tony, you should also indicate you wouldn't even think about re-powering with an Evinrude E-TEC, a Yamaha or Honda 150 4-stroke, or a Suzuki 200-250 4-stroke, or Yamaha 250/300 HPDI.
elaelap posted 12-21-2004 10:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
Well, I guess you're right, Larry, not that I really know much about any of those motors. If they're brand new, right off the development/assembly line, I'd sure wait a couple of years, get feedback from sharp, knowledgable folks like you and others at this website, and then make my choice. To repeat a comment I made a month or so ago (which doesn't reflect very well on my judgment), my wife was very taken by the looks of the Ford Taurus when it first came out, and we bought one the year they were introduced. That car spent as much time in the shop as on the road, luckily under a pretty good warranty. Never again for me!

I'll repeat what I've said dozens of times at this site--I have absolutely NO brand loyalty when it comes to outboard motors (though I've purchased two new Yamaha four strokes in swift succession for my two Whalers and have been very pleased with both). I ended up with Yamahas because my local dealer, who sells three other brands, suggested them for my classic Whalers, and the fit has been perfect. Maybe he sold them to me because he made more money off the deal...I really don't care. Both motors came with long warranties; I have them 'tuned' every 150 hours or so at the same dealer (which many of you will say is totally unnecessary, and you're probably right); and I change the oil myself every 70 hours. If that same dealer had suggested Mercury motors, I would have gone that route and undoubtedly been very happy as well.

What I really DON'T understand, Larry and a few others, is your almost frantic, often unreasonable, defense of all things related to Mercury outboard motors. I've owned certain items that have evoked in me, because of their incredibly high quality of manufacture, a certain level of brand loyalty--Leica cameras, Browning (made in Belgium) firearms--but unless I were a major shareholder or corporate executive of these companies I couldn't possibly relate to getting all emotional if I heard that someone thought Nikons or Smith & Wessons were better. And Larry, your patriotic plea to buy Mercury because by doing so you're buying American is flawed; in fact, I learned from YOU that Mercury has used Japanese Yamaha powerheads for decades!

Finally, I'm sick and tired of reading accusations that anyone who dares to criticize Mercury outboards is a troll.
This kind of stuff truly borders on the paranoid. Many longtime CW members have good faith reasons to prefer motors other than those manufactured by Mercury, and when they discuss this matter it is totally counterproductive, not to mention ill-mannered, to accuse them of purposefully disrupting this website.

It gives me no great pleasure to post these comments, Larry. I still consider myself a relative novice about Boston Whalers, trailer boating, and outboard motors (even though I've put almost 600 hours on my two Whalers over the past two and one half years), and I've learned a great deal about these subjects from you since I became an active CW member. I have a great deal of respect for your motorboating knowledge and experience, but your radical, sometimes irrational statements whenever outboard motors are the topic of conversation make me wonder about your expertise in other areas. In the interest of full disclosure, do you have some particular ownership interest in the Mercury company that we all should know about?

Tony

Tom W Clark posted 12-21-2004 10:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Larry wrote: Then Tony, you should also indicate you wouldn't even think about re-powering with an Evinrude E-TEC, a Yamaha or Honda 150 4-stroke, or a Suzuki 200-250 4-stroke, or Yamaha 250/300 HPDI.

I won't be buying a Verado or an E-Tec any time soon for exactly the reasons stated by Tony above. It may well be they will be great, innovative motors and I hope that's the case, but we'll see.

But for the record, Suzuki has been making four stroke outboards for years. Yamaha has been making HPDI outboards for years. Honda has been making four stroke outboards for decades.

Tony,

I respectfully suggest you leave Larry alone. His own words speak volumes about who he is. No further editorialization is necessary.

LHG posted 12-21-2004 03:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Well Merry Christmas to all you guys, too, the ACLU types included.

I'm no longer going to waste my time with hateful comments like this. And I apologize for the fact that Mercury bought your beloved boat company.

elaelap posted 12-21-2004 06:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
My membership in the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments, Larry, other than to help ensure your right to say any damn thing you please, whenever you please, no matter how doggoned irrational. Please re-read my comments and forgive me if they appear to be "hateful." It's just that kind of reaction from you that I'm talking about. I don't know you outside of this forum, and I certainly don't "hate" you because you're a little nutty on the subject of outboard motors. I've raised my children with the concept that "hate" is self-destructive, even when directed at a real enemy, and I don't consider you to be an enemy at all (unless you're actually the guy who engineered Brunswick's takeover of Boston Whaler :-) ).

Merry Christmas, dude. It's the strange ones like you and me that keep us all interested, you know...

Tony

LHG posted 12-21-2004 08:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Happy Winter Solstice might be more appropriate. Point missed again.

And I would like to say "you're welcome" in reponse to everyone's outpouring of thanks for taking the time to go out, find, photograph, pay for, and mail to JimH, some pictures of the Verado pedestal mount so that this informative article could be written, and this thread initiated for subsuquent discussion, and provide an opportunity to further trash the engine (and me) by Yamaha owners. This I do not need.

Peter James Morgan posted 07-02-2005 01:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter James Morgan  Send Email to Peter James Morgan     
Thanks are due to Larry and Jim for the effort they have made to provide the information - patent links and photograph, etc. - that kicked off this thread.
I've read both the Volvo Penta and Verado claims, and I have just one observation, one contention and one question.
Observation: Patents are granted by the patent office on condition that there is no prior art — that no-one has evidence for a similar technology that is older than the patent.
Contention: The Volvo Penta patent is compelling evidence of prior art, on record right there in the US Patent Office's own records.
Question: Why did the US Patent Office examiner grant the patent to Brunswick, given that the drawings demonstrate the same principle and most of the claims are virtually identical?
I'd love to read the subsequent comments of Jim, Peter, or Larry and anyone else.
There's a furore going on right now over the granting by both the South Africal and the New Zealand Patent Offices over their granting to Microsoft of patents involving XML files, and there has been compelling evidence posted on the Net showing that there was indeed prior art. The US Patent Office has refused Microsoft a patent on this.
Peter J. Morgan, Auckland, New Zealand
Peter posted 07-02-2005 09:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
It has been a while since I have looked at the patent but my recoolection is that the Brunswick patent claims differ by claiming the particulars of an integral jack plate (means for adjusting the height of the outboard relative to the transom). That was not shown by the Volvo patent so their claim was novel and not obvious (basic requirements for a patent) in the eyes of the patent examiner.

What it all means is that anybody can use the basic pedestal concept if they so choose because the Brunswick patent doesn't cover that but they would not be able to use the pedestal with the jacking mechanism. I am doubtful however that others will choose to use the basic P-mount because it is likely to be more expensive to make and has certain drawbacks relative to the standard bracket mount. Mercury does not use it for the I4 version of the Verado. If it had significant advantages, they would use it throughout the lineup in my opinion.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.