Posted by rick_simonds (rick_simonds@…>)
I am pretty much completely replacing my electronics.
I’ve read everthing and started thinking “Why not a fishfinder?” The
display is much more capable and not a whole lot bigger than just a
display of the depth number. It can send and display NMEA data, like
GPS waypoint data. It can often give an indication of how soft the
bottom is. It gives a “graph” of the depth trend. It can more easily
find structure on the bottom (something I could use to find reefs and
wrecks for scuba diving.) It tells the water temperature. The topper:
If anything, it’s cheaper.
Oh, and it may even find fish.
Am I overlooking some reason not to install a fishfinder instead of a
depth finder?
Rick
Tallahassee
Posted by guestallan (guestallan@…>)
Ahoy Rick!
Hmmm… the only fishfinders I’ve seen have no depth alarm. So when
you are chatting with the first mate and not constantly watching that
screen you might just hear a thud and a scratching sound when you hit
the coral reef or get stuck in ICW mud! But as an ex-Pro Bass fisher
I will put one on my boat (when I buy one) cause I love to fish! But
I’ll have a good depth sounder with alarm as well. It’s called a
little insurance. But sooner or later we all go aground. It’s how
often and how much damages done that’s the question!!!
Gee now that I got rid of me power boat time to get back to
sailing… and nice Freedom 32’s for sale???
Cheers, Allan Guest
In FreedomOwnersGroup@yahoogroups.com, “rick_simonds”
<rick_simonds@…> wrote:
I am pretty much completely replacing my electronics.
I’ve read everthing and started thinking “Why not a fishfinder?”
The
display is much more capable and not a whole lot bigger than just a
display of the depth number. It can send and display NMEA data,
like
GPS waypoint data. It can often give an indication of how soft the
bottom is. It gives a “graph” of the depth trend. It can more
easily
find structure on the bottom (something I could use to find reefs
and
wrecks for scuba diving.) It tells the water temperature. The
topper:
If anything, it’s cheaper.
Oh, and it may even find fish.
Am I overlooking some reason not to install a fishfinder instead of
a
depth finder?
Rick
Tallahassee
Posted by Barry Stellrecht (yak@…>)
I had the exact same thought. In fact I was looking at the garmin
fixed mount gps/sounder models, although that was for a boat that
didn’t have a working depth sounder. My current boat does have a
working depth sounder, so I will probably just get the gps…although
I think it only costs $20 or $60 more to get the sounder electronics,
and then I could buy a transducer if I wanted to later…if the other
one crapped out on me.
I think you nailed the advantages. The only disadvantage is that if
you plan on using some integrated electronics system (like the
sounder/wind/speedo instruments, autopilot, chartplotter, radar, AIS,
etc.) you may find that the sounder that works with the system plays
better with the system than the fishfinders you are shopping for.
Although if you are cost-conscious, you probably won’t go for one of
those systems anyhow–they all seem pretty expensive to me.
Let us know how you like it if you do it…
Barry
On Jan 14, 2008 6:56 PM, rick_simonds <rick_simonds@…> wrote:
I am pretty much completely replacing my electronics.
I’ve read everthing and started thinking “Why not a fishfinder?” The
display is much more capable and not a whole lot bigger than just a
display of the depth number. It can send and display NMEA data, like
GPS waypoint data. It can often give an indication of how soft the
bottom is. It gives a “graph” of the depth trend. It can more easily
find structure on the bottom (something I could use to find reefs and
wrecks for scuba diving.) It tells the water temperature. The topper:
If anything, it’s cheaper.
Oh, and it may even find fish.