Sharrow MX3 Prop on a Robalo R302 

yamaha licensed them fev months ago... i think they will become a standard option for all yamaha outboards.

Uh, no: Most efficient, would be a single blade... but due to balance this is not a good option. One only needs more blades when one starts being impacted by cavitation due to excessive RPM to diameter ratio. So, lower the RPM and you will always be better, but this also makes a propeller with a lower optimum range of thrust. There is no free lunch. Sharrow propellers effectively eliminate the vortice loses and also increase the angle of attack effective at the tips so one delays cavitation at the tip while maintaining thrust. This is an ENORMOUS loss standard propellers have which it does not and why at mid range one sees the largest improvements as this loss is delayed significantly.

The question isn't whether they would pay for themselves in fuel savings, it's whether the fuel savings would adequately defray the costs to the point you can justify it for the improvement in NVH, speed, time to plane, and low speed maneuverability and range. When you are spending $300k on a boat then $10k may be worth it even without the fuel savings for those other improvements.

no kickbacks. we have always supportive innovators and believe this is one of those those innovations that finally challenges the regular prop. We like the prop and we will continue testing it for you all. they are now have a partnership with yamaha so we think it's not going anywhere.

@@BoatTEST Thx for responding and the Yamaha connection is interesting, and helps to validate this. It's difficult to get credibility until either it takes off or a major player steps in.

yamaha picked them up. they should be out soon.

At $5k per prop, there absolutely must be a trial program so owners can try before they buy.

closer to $10k each last I looked

This is an infomercial, that's why

@@Bubbles99718 Correct

From what I've read, it is about $5K each.

I think they fall in the category of, " if you have to ask, you can't afford them."

@@alanploetz7100 Its a luxury boat... if you have to ask, you can't afford the boat, get a kayak.

A lot, in Canada it’s around 9000 each prop vs 1600 for an enertia prop

@@captainbobette Holy crap! That buys a lot of gas!!

@@chrisdabfabbott if you have the boat for a long time and you use it a lot, it will probably pay itself back in fuel saved

@@napalmhotdog4365 not to mention the reduced wear on the engines if you're running them at lower rpm's for the same speeds.

This is my only issue with these tests. Nobody, and I mean nobody, pushes the rpm’s to 3500 and hopes the boat will get on plane. Power up on plane and then come back to the rpm you want, and I want to see the Sharrows tested like that. I believe they are more efficient, just not as much as these tests show.

@@ekbusdriver I like the concept of getting rid of the propeller tip vortex, but it looks to me like a modified 6 bladed propeller, and that should be more efficient. If there is less slip at RPM then you are accelerating the water faster which equates to more thrust. Moving the water at a higher rate also reduces the drag imposed on the boat, does not pull the stern of the boat down into the water as much, this would alow the boat to plane at a lower speed. But more blades are not as efficient at high speed.

You pay $100,000 on a boat and spend $5k on fuel... yet bitch about a propeller... on a luxury item... You sir, are an idiot