I got a $1,000 electric boat from China two years ago. Here’s what it looks like now
My regular readers may remember that two years ago, I was winning so hard at life that I bought myself a brand-spankin’ new boat as a treat. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still on an independent journalist’s salary here though, so when I say that I had “boat money”, I mean I scraped together enough to buy a $1,000 electric boat directly from China. It’s now been two years since that Alibaba delivery, so let’s see how it’s held up and what it looks like now.
As a bit of a refresher first though, here’s what I got at the time. Inside of a surprisingly well-made steel frame and plywood-lined crate (that probably would have cost $1k by itself to have made in the US), my five-seater fiberglass boat awaited me.
It was powered by a cute little 500W inboard motor with a belt and pulley drive connecting it to a rudimentary prop fashioned out of 1/8″ (3mm thick) steel plate bent and welded onto a section of pipe.
The boat didn’t have batteries, so I added my own pair of 12V 200Ah LiFePO4 batteries to create a 5 kWh battery pack that was likely way bigger than I needed.
You can check out my unboxing and testing video here, which went viral with nearly four million people having now joined me at the beginning of this crazy adventure.
The boat seemed to work, in that it stayed above the waterline of our local lake and could move both fore and aft under its own power, fulfilling the major requirements of what it takes to be a motorboat.
However, its performance left a lot to be desired. The prop was only around 75% submerged, meaning there was a lot of cavitation and wasted power churning air through the water. Not only did that make it inefficient, but also slow.
It was hard to travel over a single knot, though I did briefly hit 2 knots on my GPS speedometer app (and I’m counting that, even if I can’t be sure it wasn’t a fluke).
In other words, the boat was surprisingly decent, yet the performance was underwhelming.
For a while now, I’ve been chipping away at a few upgrades to the boat each time I visit my parent’s house, where I keep it. It’s been a fine little boat for my dad to take the grandkids out on and teach them about boating, but it has been due for some deferred love, maintenance, and upgrades.
First of all, here’s how it has aged. Without regular cleaning, there was some serious marine grime building up, but the fiberglass has actually held up surprisingly well in two years of harsh Florida sun and UV.
After two years, the chrome railings had a decent amount of corrosion and what looked like pitting, though it pretty much all buffed right out when I disassembled the canopy to clean everything really well.
After buffing the shine back into the rails, I applied a clear coat so that the rails will hopefully keep their shimmer and I won’t have to re-scrub the life back into them next year. The rest of the boat’s hull and canopy got a simple soapy scrub down.
As I put the canopy back together, I finally made a big addition I’ve been planning ever since I got the boat: solar panels. I put a pair of 100W solar panels on the canopy and wired them into an MPPT solar charge controller that feeds back into the batteries. The panels don’t charge quite as quickly as the boat drains, but it has meant that I never need to pull the boat out to charge it anymore since it just slowly charges up all day while it’s floating around at the dock.
Solar panels on electric boats are a game changer, especially those used for only a few hours a week, such as a Sunday cruise. You can run your battery nearly empty on the water in a day, then let it charge itself up over the next few days.
The next big upgrade I’ve been planning is more power. To get there, I had a slick idea that would let me replace the old rudder and motor in one fell swoop.
The rudder was horribly rusted out at this point, though amazingly that terribly inefficient propellor looked nearly as good as new, so I suspect they actually used stainless steel to fabricate it.
Since the design of the propellor shaft meant that its angle forced the propellor to be too high, I decided to simply replace that entire system with an alternative. Instead of yanking out the propellor shaft and needing to seal the stuffing box, I left the existing seals in place and just cut off the propellor. It ain’t pretty, but it’s below the waterline. It was also a rare case of the easiest solution and the safest solution converging on the same answer, since the shaft is already perfectly sealed against water ingress.
I found an 80 lb thrust Minn Kota trolling motor used online and snagged it for around $200 (it cost over $1,400 new for this American-made motor). It has what Minn Kota refers to as an indestructible shaft, which I believe since it was hard as hell to cut it down to length using a pipe cutter, which was necessary to preserve the wires that run down the shaft.
I removed the rudder and replaced it with the entire trolling motor, now with its shortened shaft, and welded up some new linkage to connect it to the old rudder controls. After yanking out the Minn Kota’s control board and wiring it into my batteries, I had a Frankenstein setup that I figured would give me much more power and also some effective thrust vectoring since I could control the direction of the motor from the wheel, like a real outboard.
I hadn’t yet run the wires up to the helm, so the boat temporarily required a crew of two when I put it back into the water. My dad took the wheel while I stayed in the ‘engine room’ in the back to control the throttle.
It was immediately apparent how much more powerful the boat was now, actually leaving a wake. Unfortunately, it was also immediately apparent why boats have rudders, since this flat bottom boat now had the worst case of oversteer I’ve ever seen.
With the powerful thrust, the boat basically shoved its ass-end all over the place with just a bit of nudging. The cool thing was that it could literally turn in its own length, though we were basically always turning until we could find neutral on the wheel.
My dad described what we had done as “like putting an outboard motor on a pie tin”, and I have to say that felt pretty accurate. It made for some great laughs (see the testing video here, highly recommended!) but was barely controllable. It felt like a bumper car on water.
To fix it, I added a simple bolt-on rudder on the motor shaft. Putting the boat back in proved that there was more control, but it still tends to oversteer a bit. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun as hell, but it’s still doesn’t have the precision control I was hoping for. Oh well, it’s good enough for a $1,000 Chinese boat with nearly half as much added into it as part of the upgrades!
Now, the boat is solar-powered, so it never needs charging, and the power is much better to allow for some actually fun cruising at speeds of up to approximately 5 knots. I don’t think we’ll be pulling a water skier anytime soon, but we’re definitely leaving a wake now.
The last thing I need to do is add a pair of bilge pumps (it’s got two sponsons that create low points on either side, so I need two pumps). I had been putting off that project because I never thought I’d really need them, and it was more of a precaution in case of some type of freak accident where I rammed something submerged that holed the hull. I was also dreading putting a hole in a perfectly good fiberglass boat for the pump outlet, even if it was going to be well above the water line.
However, what I didn’t account for was Hurricane Milton, which put so much rain into the boat at such a steep angle that it actually started working its way under the rear bench and filling up the “engine room” area below deck. The boat is self-bailing, at least in normal rain, and has a central scupper that funnels rainwater down through the hull. With around a foot (30 cm) of freeboard, it’s never been an issue, even in hard Florida rains. But a Cat 3 hurricane is a different animal, and once enough water worked its way under the rear bench and the sideways wind/rain duo started tipping the boat, physics took the wheel and the below picture is how things looked after the storm passed.
Fortunately, this was pretty much the only damage my parents’ place took. The boat had probably 100 gallons 380 liters) of water below deck and so my dad couldn’t right it by himself. It sat that way for around six weeks until my next visit, when we pumped the water out. The hull was still secure and she floated right back to her former self.
Having survived two years of use and a Category 3 hurricane, it was time to finally give the old girl’ a name. I asked my subscribers for their recommendations and received hundreds of great ideas (including dozens of Boaty McBoatface) but finally decided on what I felt was the best name of all.
As you read this, the Sunny Side Up still floats, basking in the battery-charging sun and cruising the local private waterways at speeds fast enough to get a fist shaken at you in a no-wake zone.
She ain’t the prettiest boat out there. Nor the fastest. But she’s mine, and she’s beautiful to me.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
China’s EV automakers have surged ahead of the competition in global EV sales, and a new report shows just how far ahead they are.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) just dropped its third annual Global Automaker Rating, showing that Chinese carmakers dominate the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) space. China now accounts for over 11 million EVs sold annually – over half of global EV sales.
Its massive domestic market has helped Chinese automakers build serious momentum. They’ve scaled up, improved tech, and are now setting the pace globally. Companies like Geely and SAIC have already hit 50% EV sales share, meeting their 2025 targets a full year early. In fact, Chinese automakers took the top five spots for ZEV class coverage, and five out of the top six for EV sales share.
Meanwhile, automakers in the US and Europe are trying to catch up. But they’re facing a dual challenge of falling behind on tech while navigating shaky regulatory environments.
The report also confirmed a big milestone: In 2024, BYD officially surpassed Tesla in global battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales for the first time. BYD’s BEV sales jumped 25%, and its combined BEV and plug-in hybrid sales climbed an impressive 47% year-over-year. Still, both BYD and Tesla remain in the “Leaders” category.
Automakers boosted energy efficiency, charging speed, and driving range thanks to newer, high-performance models.
“Our assessment revealed widespread improvement in BEV technology performance across the industry,” said Zifei Yang, ICCT’s global passenger vehicle lead. “GM and Honda made significant advancements by introducing high-performance models to their previously limited offerings, while companies like Geely, Chang’an, and Chery improved substantially with new high-performance EV lines.”
India’s Tata Motors also hit a turning point. For the first time, it graduated from ICCT’s “laggard” group to “transitioner,” thanks to new EVs and big moves on battery recycling and repurposing. While Japanese and South Korean automakers are still lagging behind, Honda and Nissan are inching forward. Honda launched its first US BEV, and Nissan finally clarified its ZEV targets.
One newer addition to this year’s report: a green steel metric. Since steel is the second-largest source of emissions in vehicle manufacturing (after batteries), ICCT now tracks which automakers are cutting emissions in the supply chain. European brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and VW earned high marks for sourcing renewable-powered green steel.
ICCT’s CEO, Drew Kodjak, summed it up: “The rapid evolution of the EV market in China has created technological and manufacturing advantages for companies there. For the wider global auto industry, this is no longer just about meeting future goals – it’s about remaining competitive today in a market that’s charging up.”
The full Global Automaker Rating, covering 21 major automakers, is now live on ICCT’s website.
Read more: EV prices dipped in May – and Tesla Model Y led the slide
Now is a great time to begin your solar journey so your system is installed in time for those longer sunny days. If you want to make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate partner
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Bloomberg just released the most embarrassing report about Tesla, Waymo, and self-driving
Bloomberg has just released an embarrassingly bad report about the self-driving space, in which it claimed Tesla has an advantage over Waymo by misrepresenting data.
There are currently many eyes on Tesla’s imminent launch of its “robotaxi” service in Austin, Texas.
We have just published a new report today to highlight how the launch is a game of smoke and mirrors, meant to reframe the optics of Tesla’s self-driving effort following years of broken promises.
At the same time, Bloomberg Intelligence released its own report, claiming that Tesla is ahead in self-driving technology, but the firm misrepresented data to support its claim.
The report compares Tesla’s and Waymo’s self-driving efforts, going so far as to claim that “Tesla is closer to vehicle autonomy than peers.”
Here are the two main charts that Bloomberg circulated from the report:
The problem is that the report is misleading by comparing completely different data.
Steve Man, the Bloomberg Intelligence analyst behind the report, based his report on Tesla’s own quarterly misleading “Autopilot Safety Report.”
The report is widely considered to be unserious for several main reasons:
- Tesla bundles all miles from its vehicles using Autopilot and FSD technology, which are considered level 2 ADAS systems that require driver attention at all times. Drivers consistently correct the systems to avoid accidents.
- Tesla Autopilot, which is standard on all Tesla vehicles, is primarily used on highways, where accidents occur at a significantly lower rate per mile compared to city driving.
- Tesla only counts events that deploy an airbag or a seat-belt pretensioner. Fender-benders, curb strikes, and many ADAS incidents never appear, keeping crash counts artificially low.
- Finally, Tesla’s handpicked data is compared to NHTSA’s much broader statistics that include all collision events, including minor fender benders.
All these facts combined render the comparison between Tesla’s accident rate using “Autopilot technology” and NHTSA’s US average completely useless.
Yet, Bloomberg decided not only to use it but also to compare it to Waymo’s data to claim that “Tesla is 10 times safer”:
The problem with this is similar to the comparison with the US average, as the Waymo data includes all police-reported incidents, which is a much wider net than Tesla’s data, in addition to the previously mentioned issues.
To highlight how big a potential discrepancy there is in the data, NHTSA underscored in a report last year how Tesla is not aware of many crashes involving Autopilot and that only 18% of police-reported crashes involve airbag deployment:
Gaps in Tesla’s telematic data create uncertainty regarding the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot engaged are involved in crashes. Tesla is not aware of every crash involving Autopilot even for severe crashes because of gaps in telematic reporting. Tesla receives telematic data from its vehicles, when appropriate cellular connectivity exists and the antenna is not damaged during a crash, that support both crash notification and aggregation of fleet vehicle mileage. Tesla largely receives data for crashes only with pyrotechnic deployment, which are a minority of police reported crashes. A review of NHTSA’s 2021 FARS and Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) finds that only 18 percent of police-reported crashes include airbag deployments.
Knowing full well the comparison is not fair and completely misrepresents the situation, the usual Tesla stock pumpers on X widely shared Bloomberg’s misleading report positively, and even CEO Elon Musk shared the misleading data:
Electrek’s Take
This is embarrassing for Bloomberg. It’s such a blatant error and misrepresentation that it is suspicious. They should issue a correction right away.
Tesla fanboys are now pushing this to try to prove that Tesla’s robotaxi is safe to launch amid Tesla doing everything it can to hide its self-driving crash data ahead of the launch. This is a dangerous report from Bloomberg.
Additionally, it’s not just the primary claim regarding the accident rate that is misleading. The report also contains several glaring errors.
In this chart, Bloomberg claims that Tesla is at “3 billion miles of data collected since launched”:
It looks like they simply use Tesla’s “cumulative miles driven with FSD (Supervised)”, which includes driver supervision, and the driver remains responsible for correcting FSD at all times.
In comparison, they talk about 22 million miles for Waymo. It looks like Bloomberg only used Waymo’s rider-only mileage in San Francisco, which is currently at 22 million miles, but when accounting all markets, Waymo is currently at more than 71 million miles:
It’s not clear why they would only use mileage in San Francisco for Waymo when they used Tesla’s global customer FSD mileage for Tesla.
Again, these are also “rider-only” miles, which means that there are only people riding inside the Waymo vehicles, compared to Tesla’s mileage being completely supervised by customer-drivers at all times.
We simply don’t know how many “rider-only” miles Tesla has, since it only started with one or two cars in Austin over the last few weeks. It is likely to have no more than a few hundred or a few thousand miles.
Regardless, it’s completely nonsensical to claim that Tesla is “ahead of its peers” in self-driving, especially Waymo, based on this report.
Tesla is currently only trying to launch something that Waymo has been doing for years.
The other argument the report attempts to make is that Tesla’s “self-driving” vehicles are approximately 7 times cheaper than Waymo’s.
Again, the problem is that Tesla’s vehicles are not self-driving. Tesla has yet to prove that, and that’s why it is using “plenty of teleoperation” in this launch in Austin. Mapping, optimizing for geo-fenced area, and teleoperations are the real limiting factors here. Not the cost of the vehicles.
Suppose Tesla has anything less than a 100-to-1 vehicle-to-teleoperator ratio. In that case, its system is not profitably scalable and I wouldn’t be surprised if it has a 1-to-1 ratio for the foreseeable future – at least on its current hardware.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike