Eco Watercraft electric waverunner makes no sound, burns no fuel, zaps no fish
By Tim Stevens 
posted May 26th 2009 10:13AM
posted May 26th 2009 10:13AM
[Via TreeHugger]
posted May 26th 2009 10:13AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'll take 2
I'm guessing you've never been on a real jet-ski then? Maybe you could combi the engines and make one that would move faster than a row boat...
Or maybe I wanted a second so my girlfriend could ride with me.
Your way works too I guess...
to me, half the fun of a jet ski is the loud engine and noise they make... adds to the 'speed' experience IMHO...
Isn't it kind of dangerous that this doesn't make any sound? If the rider can't see you because you're swimming and you can't hear it coming there's a greater chance of an accident.
Like a sailboat?
They've been around a few thousand years, and we've been ok.
@ Jason
Nope. Sailboats are larger and slower, meaning that they create more noise and don't hit things as fast
@ Jason
Nope. Sailboats are larger and slower, meaning that they create more noise and don't hit things as fast.
What about a kayak? I've seen those things go quite fast.
its the riders responsibility to avoid the swimmers. its not a difficult task.
i guess the big question here is: how long will a charge last on this thing... and/or how long does it take to recharge? when we are out at the lake, we will take turns riding ours around for 4-5 hours... a 1 or 2 hour ride time just wouldnt cut it unless the recharge is relative to refilling the tank.
@ Microdot
lasts for 3 hours, but did not state at what speed/usage.
@henrydhanse Nope.I don't think that sailboats are necessarily slower or larger, and they definitely make less noise.
Try swimming in the way of an international 14 - then we'll know which ones faster and quieter.
Try swimming in the way of a moth or an 18ft skiff - then we'll know which ones faster and quieter.
The difference is that sailboats aren't likey to be zipping around at high speed as close to the shore as these things. It's all well and good saying that it's the drivers responsibility to keep an eye out for swimmers but they're travelling at high speed and may not see someone floating at or just below the water level until it's too late.
I was going to make a joke about how we're going to have to require these things to have noisemakers on them so idiots can hear them coming. But jakem beat me to it!
At least I hope he was joking...
Sailboat? How about windsurfers or the guys who use the kites to sail? I lived in San Francisco and those guys would cut across the bay by the Golden Gate bridge often faster than the cars across the bridge itself. You're not going to hear one of those coming at you.
And then Sailboats are quite fast, and they do zip right near the shore the same as one of these ones would. A good run on a Hobi16 sailboat will get you a lot of speed.
With all that said... Jakem, if you are swimming and ANY high speed craft is heading your way without seeing you, I don't think if you can hear them or not is going to help significantly. I suppose if you did, you can try waving your hands. But by the time you realize you are in trouble, a jet ski is likely to be on you giving you little time to react. When you're swimming it is not like you have a long field of view. Nor is it likely that even if you hear a jetski you would assume to look for it on the off chance it is coming at you. When it does it so loud you worry, that is the time hearing it is useless.
That disregards the fact that you're not suppose to jet ski around swimmers or swimming areas in general. And even then, it is your right as a vehicle operator to be aware of people in the water. Sort of typical recreational rules. In the end, You'll probably save more lives on an eco-jetski. The ass who runs over someone is probably going to do it no matter what type of jetski he is on.
If you're swimming in the water you usually cant hear a normal jetski coming anyway, and by the time you do hear it you cant swim out of the way fast enough.
What kind of loser Swims anymore??? Pppphhhhtttt!!
I bet you also walk like a pedestrian! That's what electric bikes, cars and Segways are for.
It isn't like these things make no sound at all. Most lakes have clearly defined swimming areas. If you are outside of those marked off areas, you should be more cautious.
That's the slowest waterski I've ever seen....
Call me when it gets some balls, until then you'll see me polluting, making noise, and having FUN
Yeah I totally agree. We just have 2 of the little SeaDoo RTI's and they're WAY faster than this thing looks.
They should at least provide an option for simulated sound of a fueled Jet ski to fake a high-powered engine. Those deafening sounds makes great adrenalin rush...he he
According to this: http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-rides-electricity-propels-zero-emission-eco-jetski-to-50mph/
The top speed is 50mph which I think is pretty respectable for a consumer jetski. I think the lack of noise makes it seem slower.
Looks pretty slow!!
This is cool, but how long will it last???
I would expect you should be able to run it at least 5 hours of "ON" time as in moderate driving speed or anything lower might not be good enough.
Will it be able to pull someone a tube or skis?
If it can sign me up. If not I will skip it and stick to my gas engine :)
One would think he would open it up. It looks far to slow for towing anything, let alone just riding.
Yeah, he didn't even really get it up on a plane. So much for power turns, wake/swell jumping, towing, or an enjoyable time...
@ the ridiculous SHO comment, have you not seen the Sea Doo RXT iS ?
I have now. Wants.
I just looked for it and on the site it has a vid of the RXT-X racing a Ferrari F430 to 50 mph...RIDICULOUS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYk0O93ay8
not as cool as that water jet pack...
Am I the only one imagining a bunch of Navy Seals using these on a night time raid of a Somali pirate "mothership"??
Ok, maybe I am the only one... too much CoD.....
Other than that, I wonder if they plan on some sort of water turbine version of regenerative braking... or solar cells- to give a little trickle charge. It's one thing to have to pull over and use your mobile to call for roadside help, far another to be stuck in wet trunks with a dead battery pack..
Otherwise known as a surf board.
Well when we're out on a houseboat with jetskis in tow, when we want to use one, we just gas-up and go. To recharge this we would have to be running a generator --- kinda defeats the purpose, so this would only be useful where there's some convenient place to plug in.
Pff. The sound is the best about them. Screw fuel!
Awesome, it's a start.
I agree Rick, and that seems to be the thing that people are forgetting here. This is first gen stuff here folks. This is just the start. When Benz or Ford started selling cars there was a HUGE contingent of people saying things just like most of you are now about the horse. The first gen never wins over everyone.
I for one welcome this new tech. I can't wait to see what comes next.
great idea, but the guy is kind of a stiff, looks like he never rode a jet ski before and the thing looks hella slow. otherwise i think its a better turn than the way they're going these days, i grew up with the 550/650 engines that only made it to maybe the low to mid 30mph's and it was a blast, the 750's and 1100s bumped it up to awesomeville, the new jetskis are ridiculous however, 1st of all they're engine is bigger than my car, second they're supercharged/turbo'd now, 3rd they're limited in speed, how can a 1800cc supercharged jetski barely push the 60's when our old 700/750cc jetskis could push 55-60, if your going to limit it then why waste gas by having such a big engine and boosting it?
Acceleration
you clearly haven't ridden on a big-boy's jet ski...
1800cc'ers are pushing 85 MPH (GPS, I've done it this summer and last) and will get you 0-60 about twice as fast as a little 650 would...
(full disclosure: I own and operate a 639 Tigershark but regularly drive my neighbors turbo'd ski's for the pure adrenaline rush)
"an electric motorcycle can be just as much fun as a petrol-powered version"
Ummm no.
Navy Seals and Counter Terrorists are gona love theses. :) just think u could easly sneek up to secured beaches and boats with no problems.
Im gona have to buy a dozen of theses paint them black and blue and sell them for 300k each to the navy lol
I find the comments very interesting. I think engadget readers seem to be more practical about these kinds of "environmentally friendly" products. Meaning, if they don't work well, fuck the product.
I feel like if this were on digg, people would like it a lot more due to their lack of understanding and love of making things useless by making them "good for the environment".
Or maybe there's a few people here who live in places like the San Juan Islands where the county banned jet skis because of the noise factor. That's right. It's against the law to operate jet skis in the county. Now imagine a niche player marketing these ... in what is one of the wealthiest counties in the country. Sometimes products are made for reasons other than extending adolescence.
Eco-capitalism at it's finest.
Lack of range and show charging is an even bigger problem on a boat that on a land vehicle.
Burns no fuel? The waverunner itself might burn none, but how is the electricity it uses made?
Maybe it should come with a solar cell or portable windmill in case the local power grid uses nonrenewable energy sources. But in that case, would it charge fast enough to use before sunset?
Time to cloud the issue with facts. (warning: this may hurt) A study by the Los Angeles dept of Water and Power concluded that over a 100,000 mile life cycle, a normal gas powered car would produce 3,000 pounds of pollutants, while a electric powered car from today’s power plants would produce just under 100. These numbers are from coal burning power plants. Power plants running on natural gas, solar, wind or nuclear vastly improve the net pollution output even more. For example a single large wind turbine can produce enough energy to power 3,000 electric cars.
See? You're right. http://www.lastgascar.com/the-5-biggest-electric-car-myths/
The "Meaning, if they don't work well, fuck the product." attitude is ridiculous. These are the same people that say wind turbines don't produce enough electriity to warrant the cost. Sure, maybe they dont now, but technology evolves. Look at the first electronic computers vs what we have now. It all starts somewhere. It wont be a viable source unless we invest money in researching how to make it better.
Yes, saying they 'burn no fuel' is incredibly misleading. Electric is much much better I agree, but it certainly does 'burn fuel'.
ghey