Choice between Icom and Standard Horizon fixed mount VHF's

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Reiheld

...... Do we need to rethink our higher-is-better assumption?

Nope, height trumps everything.

If you have to increase the coax run, just buy better (i.e. lower loss) coax but remember, height is king, all else is supplemental.

[ka4wja]

Chip, et al,
1) I'm 99.99% sure that is a typo in the M-605 spec sheet....
The receive current draw is 0.8amps, not 8.0amps!!



2) And, hsi, I know this was meant tongue-in-cheek....

Originally Posted by hsi88

For the same money why not get the SH GX6500 commercial grade radio and get an AIS transponder in addition to NMEA 0183/2000...certainly a step above the IC M605... ;-)

But, quite honestly, I prefer a radio to be a radio.... And, not have an AIS transponder built-in...(I know this goes against the modern norm...
Actually, I don't even like the idea of an AIS receiver built-in...but, it's certainly not a big deal...

Yes, these are just my opinions, and my own thoughts....and this doesn't mean that you cannot "integrate" things together, just that I prefer to have some things that are more mission-critical, to be more dedicated to one major job...
(you can have your AIS transponder integrated seamlessly into your on-board electronics, including your VHF radio, and have the capability to send a VHF-DSC call to an AIS target, etc., such as with Vesper and Icom, but, you still have separate devices that will work find separately, as well...)



3) And, puffcard, while I love the story about your Icom VHF surviving the lightning strike, I wouldn't recommend everyone trusting a lightning-struck radio...
(I sent my original M-602 into Icom, after a direct strike myself, in late 2006....and while Icom did a minor repair and checked it out, and gave it a 90-day warranty....it's my back-up VHF, stowed in a locker....'cuz, I won't trust it to be my primary VHF....and I'd caution everyone the same...not a big deal if you're just a day sailor / coastal sailor, where you can get by without a VHF radio for a day, and can easily buy a new one, but for those of us that sail offshore / more remote locales, please consider relegate a "lightning stuck" radio to a back-up, not your primary radio...)



Fair winds...

John

[ka4wja]

Reiheld,
Put your new antenna up as high as you can....and use as short length of high-quality cable as you can (+/- 10' of coaxial cable will make no real difference, so no need to get too extreme in this regard!)
But, please do take caution in regard to the coaxial cable connectors, and their assembly/installation (as this is what makes or breaks the whole system!)

I think you'll be happy with the S/H 2200 radio and new antenna, if your run of coaxial cable is less than 40' to 50' (which I assume it is), you can place the antenna in the most convenient location, as high up as possible!!
I agree with the others....unless you get VERY unlucky, an antenna 14' high is nothing to worry about in regards to lightning...

Originally Posted by puffcard

VHF reception is dependent on antenna height and a lesser degree the dB gain of the antenna. I would put the antenna as high as you can mount it and then dock next to a bunch of big sailboats.

But, if you're concerned, just disconnect the coaxial cable from the back of the radio when laying the boat up for a few days, etc...not usually done for daily use, but I unplug mine if I'm leaving for a week or two...


Just curious though, you DO have a ground system on board, for safety sake???
I assume a good AC / DC electrical ground to the water?? Thru the engine / prop shaft?? etc.??
I say this, as you mention it is a home-built houseboat....so assume you're wired to ABYC standards, in order to get insurance, and since most marinas require insurance, etc...



Now, if you want the low-down on VHF radio range, VHF Radiowave propagation, etc....please have a look here:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ge-149499.html
(if you read the whole thing, and understand/remember only part of this, you'll still know more than 90% of your fellow sailors!)



Fair winds..

John


P.S. just understand that you will not be able to read much of the AIS data on the small 2200 radio display when in sunlight, but it appears that the radio will be in your pilothouse, so this is probably a moot point, for you...

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

(...)

But, quite honestly, I prefer a radio to be a radio...

(...)

Yep. Yours is a good and time proven take.

My only and biased (because mine) objection is when you want to quickly and surely raise one of those AIS ships.

On our AIS/VHF combo you simply highlight the AIS ship and press CALL. The rest is done by the unit.

So there is no need to look up mmsi, no need to type the mmsi into the vhf, etc. etc.

I know some vhf units do the same when cable connected to some ais units. Just that not many do, and not many people are good at wiring such stuff up.

At times too, equipment space is at premium (on small boats, that is).

Cheers,
b.

[OrangeCrush]

If I may be so bold as to reawaken an old thread, I'm wondering if anyone has any updated opinions or advice as I try to choose between an Icom m424g and Standard Horizon gx2400.

I want to replace the old Standard Horizon fixed VHF on my boat, mainly to have a wired remote station in the cockpit but also for the added safety of DSC and GPS in case I ever need to make a distress call. I already have Vesper AIS on a splitter and I'm not planning on replacing the coax or antenna at this time since they are only about 10 years old and the transmission quality is excellent.

Both the Icom m424b and SH gx2400 have internal GPS, both are about $500 with the wired remote station. The SH gx2400 has AIS which as I mentioned I don't need. The Icom m424b seems to have better reviews from what I've read. The SH has NMEA2000 integration which I gather would also be mainly redundant but it would allow me to see distress signal locations on my plotter. Then again most of the negative reviews of the S/H unit relate to NMEA2000 integration issues and there will be a bit of added cost/work getting it connected to the NMEA backbone.

So, my questions are as follows:

Is it worth some added cost/frustration to integrate the S/H VHF with NMEA2000? Or is the "isolated" internal GPS of the Icom effectively nearly as good? Any other benefits of integrating them that I'm not aware of?

Any pros or cons (compatibility/redundancy) to having two AIS systems on line?

If the S/H offers a major feature that the Icom doesn't (AIS) at the same price point, is it fair to assume that the Icom has a higher overall quality for what it does do?

Any other units or factors I should consider? (for example Ray63 is similar but much more money)

Your perspectives are greatly appreciated!

[toddster8]

I've been using the GX2400 for a couple of years now, integrated into the NMEA2K backbone, along with a B&G system and an EM-Trak AIS transceiver/Splitter. (New boat, since this thread started.)

So yes, there is some redundancy. Which seems to me to be a good thing. There have been a couple of times when one device or the other lost GPS signal. However, since then I've installed external antennae, so that should be pretty darned rare going forward.

The only tricky thing about integrating with the NMEA system was that you have to go into some sub-menu in the GX and change "device numbers" on the bus, so that everything it sees has a unique number.

It has a couple of other features that I wanted: automatic fog horn and hailer. Oddly, it no longer seems to have the plain old "horn" feature that the GX2000 did. I have never really used its AIS feature - it's just there as a backup. I do use the "remote speaker" feature of the RAM - probably just because of the installation, it's a little hard to hear the RAM (down by the helmsman's knee) under way, so I put a remote speaker under the solar arch, closer to the helmsman's ears.

It is a tad bit annoying when, upon receiving a DSC alert, every device on the chain starts bleating. One has to scramble around and clear the alert individually on *counts* Five devices, between the cockpit and the nav station.

I generally take down my log book position from the GX screen, because it is always on and in characters big enough to see without my readers. (There may be a way to get the chart plotter to display it that way, but I haven't dug into it.)

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Reiheld

Thanks to the encouraging words here, I have gone and bought $5 worth of fancy collar for our $2 dog of a homemade houseboat. We now have boxes containing an 8' Shakespeare antenna and a SH 2200 VHF radio, which we will attempt to assemble next time we have a day not otherwise committed. Silly question coming: We had figured to mount the antenna forward, to minimize cable run, on the top deck rail over the pilot house, which is 14' above the waterline. Then came the post about the lightning strike frying the electronics. Gulp... This IS a wooden boat. Do we need to rethink our higher-is-better assumption?

Lightning will fry electronics even if they aren't connected to the mast. Lightning will fry electronics even if you don't get hit with the main bolt. Lightning goes where it wants. That is why we have insurance.

For VHF height trumps all. Period. It is a line of sight signal (not 100% true but pretty close). More height means longer sight line. The higher your mast is the more higher grade (lower loss) antenna cables matter.

If you are trying to eake out that last 0.02 knots of performance then putting antenna on stern rail is an option but understand you are intentionally trading communication performance for sailing performance.

[Kettlewell]

Agreed--put the main vhf antenna at the top of the mast for best range, but I have had good results using the short 36" stainless steel whip type, like the Shaespeare 5215 or similar https://shakespeare-marine.com/produ...-vhf-antennas/. Very important to have the right cable for the length with good connections on the ends too. The short whips are more forgiving if you happen to hit them on a low bridge. We've had them tik, tik, tik across the steel on low bridges before.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Nope, height trumps everything.

If you have to increase the coax run, just buy better (i.e. lower loss) coax but remember, height is king, all else is supplemental.

Well . . . with respect, I think that's overstating the case a bit.

Height is key for some things, but the biggest cause of problems with marine VHF comms is bad feedline and/or bad connectors.

Height gives greater max range with stations with relatively low antennae, but achieving the longest range is not really the greatest value in marine VHF comms -- it's getting a clear signal out to other vessels which are close enough that you have a real need to communicate -- 10 miles or so.

Height will not be an issue communicating with coast guard because they have super high antennae themselves, meaning plus or minus 10 or even 20 meters of antenna height on your boat makes no material difference.

Bad feedline, on the other hand, or bad connectors (both issues are extremely common on cruising boats), can kill your comms at all ranges and with all stations.

First and foremost I would advise using an excellent antenna, excellently installed, with quality coax and really well installed connectors. Once you have that, other stuff is much less important -- including antenna height.

Height is more important than power, and you can even sacrifice some power to attenuation in the feedline in an otherwise excellent installation, as the 25 watts we are given is intentional overkill. I use fat RG214 with silver plated conductors run to the top of my 23 meter mast, but I could have used thinner cable without any issues. I don't need more than 1 watt transmission power for almost any call. I once got a "weak but readable" signal report from 60 miles away -- using 1 watt transmission power. I was communicating from Cherbourg, in France, with the Solent Coast Guard's station on the Isle of Wight which has a super high antenna.


EDIT: Oops, I see I was responding to a post from 2017.