Ready for summer? ECO electric jetski is
Click above and scroll down to watch the video
If you think the silence of an electric car on the road is a big surprise (and it is), how paradigm-shifting is an electric jetski? A pretty big deal, if you ask us. The benefits of going electric on the water are many, and EcoWatercraft - the makers of the new ECO Jetski - answers the "Why Electric?" questions this way:
In 1998 it was reported that a seven hour ride on a 2 stroke Jet Ski kicks out more pollution than an old model car driving 100,000 miles. Jet skis are one of the top pollutants to water in the United States. It was estimated in 2001 that air pollution from Jet skis imposes at least 240 million dollars a year in healthcare costs to Americans. The ECO will produce absolutely zero emissions. No more gasoline expelled into the water or toxic fumes making swimmers nauseous.
EcoWatercraft claims that their water ride is the first electric jetski ever, but that's not exactly true. Icontech made an inflatable (and slow) battery-powered jetski a few years back. The ECO seems to be the real deal, though, as it can go 50 mph and has enough juice to last three hours (complete details are hazy). The team behind the vehicle is committed to combining battery power with speedy vehicles (see also the Electric Motorsport GPR-S), and company founder Barrett Taylor told AutoblogGreen that the ECO is "a real 3 person jetski with the most technologically advanced electric propulsion system in the world."
[Source: EcoWatercraft]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff 11:55AM (5/26/2009)
3 hours?? Maybe at triathalon speeds, but those things take a lot of power to cruise at any significant speed. And the heavier it gets the harder it is to get it up out of the water and plaining along the surface. I've got my money on a half hour's running time at speed. That's not gonna satisfy the vast majority of the market for personal watercraft. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening until there's a big leap in battery tech.
Reply
Chris 12:10PM (5/26/2009)
I was a bit surprised they would be able to squeeze 3 hours out of them, I expected 1 hour. This would be good for jet ski rental companies and weekenders but still low capacity just like every other battery powered vehicle. Very misleading to state that the jet ski is "100% emissions free" unless the power came from solar or wind power.
Reply
Phil L. 1:54PM (5/26/2009)
This has the potential to be a game-changer in some markets. In my area, personal watercraft are being banned or heavily restricted in some areas - mostly due to noise (well, and irresponsible operators).
If you can eliminate the noise side of the equation, this could open up situations where electric watercraft are welcomed - but gas powered models aren't. Like the EV dirt bike market, some buyers will take them seriously simply because they can be used where gas alternatives can't.
Reply
brn 4:21PM (5/26/2009)
This is another example of a do-it-yourselfer putting together an EV. It's relatively easy, but impractical for commercial purposes. More power to them, but hardly a game changer.
Reply
solution 4:49PM (5/26/2009)
Quote FTA: "In 1998 it was reported that a seven hour ride on a 2 stroke Jet Ski kicks out more pollution than an old model car driving 100,000 miles."
What is this crazy nonsense? 100,000 mi / 30 mpg = 3,333 gallons of fuel. That's 83 SUV sized fuel tanks. Show me that 2 stroke that gobble up that much fuel in 7 hours.
Also, 3 hour range? More like 10 minute range at full power...
Reply
pkuhl 2:32PM (6/02/2009)
I agree that on mpg alone, it doesn't match. I had the same initial response as you. It may be that they are also considering oil that is leaked into water and that somehow the skis are worse than cars when it comes to leakage.
It would be nice if there was a link to the initial report and what they were talking about.
JustZisGuy 11:56AM (10/13/2009)
If the two types of engines (two stroke, four stroke) produced the same amount of pollution per unit of fuel then your comment would make sense. They don't. Two stroke engines are pretty nasty - a not insignificant amount of oil and fuel simply ends up thrown out the tail pipe.
solution 6:58PM (5/26/2009)
Yep, they are nasty stuff. I was comparing by fuel use only, not the rest of the nasty stuff (particulate matter, unburned gasoline, motor oil emissions) It would be nice for ecowatercraft.com to include sources to where they got this information from.
tim 7:37PM (5/26/2009)
GREAT JOB!!! I can see they are using the longer hull so they can easily get 3 hours out of a pack and due to the low power necessary for the jet impeller, my question is to see that RPM they are running? And next how much? This is ideal for rental companies also, most people I know use them a lot for the first summer than maybe an hour or two once or twice a week, so they have a good market IMO.
Reply
skicat 10:12AM (5/27/2009)
You can change the power source but u can't change the idiots who ride them. They are a constant irritant on the lake where I ski. Doing donuts and screwing up the water, following to close behind boats (and me while I'm skiing!) to play in the wake. Even this guy's a moron. What was he doing passing so close to the stern of that sailboat? Totally illegal.
Reply
Qatman 4:56PM (5/27/2009)
...and the triathlete's desire to breathe " pure oxygen ", one would need a "nose hose" from from an oxygen bottle to effect that wish. Atmospheric oxygen compromises about 22% of the air we breathe. So much for public education in California.
Reply
Charles 11:40AM (6/03/2009)
3 hour running time?
Wait till you see the extension cord for this hing!
Reply