PDA

View Full Version : 2-stroke vs 4-stroke outboards



Alan Peck
09-14-2001, 01:45 PM
Does anyone know the legal status of 2-stroke versus 4-stroke outboards. The 4-stroke engines are considerably heavier and more expensive.

I am planning on a 25HP on small boat (15')and I really don't want the extra weight.

Is there a plan to outlaw the use of 2-stroke engines or to stop the manufacture of 2-stroke engines some time in the future?

Or perhaps certain bodies of water or perhaps states will ban the use of 2-strokes?

Any information would be appreciated.

Alan Peck
09-14-2001, 01:45 PM
Does anyone know the legal status of 2-stroke versus 4-stroke outboards. The 4-stroke engines are considerably heavier and more expensive.

I am planning on a 25HP on small boat (15')and I really don't want the extra weight.

Is there a plan to outlaw the use of 2-stroke engines or to stop the manufacture of 2-stroke engines some time in the future?

Or perhaps certain bodies of water or perhaps states will ban the use of 2-strokes?

Any information would be appreciated.

Alan Peck
09-14-2001, 01:45 PM
Does anyone know the legal status of 2-stroke versus 4-stroke outboards. The 4-stroke engines are considerably heavier and more expensive.

I am planning on a 25HP on small boat (15')and I really don't want the extra weight.

Is there a plan to outlaw the use of 2-stroke engines or to stop the manufacture of 2-stroke engines some time in the future?

Or perhaps certain bodies of water or perhaps states will ban the use of 2-strokes?

Any information would be appreciated.

Noah
09-14-2001, 02:04 PM
Alan, I understand your complaints about 4 stroke motors being expensive, but in my mind I think that it is worth it. We have a 16 1/2 ft Lyman Runabout, and I personally think that it would be allot more fun if it was a little bit quieter. The whole time you are motoring (most of the time in a motor boat) you have to put up with the noise, and also the clouds of blue smoke when idling or going slowly.

The 4-stroke motors are very quite, and don't smoke. Two big advantages if you plan to use this boat much. I don't know how you will be using her, but if it includes any sunset cruises, Quite days lounging on the water, or exploring harbors for wooded boats, you will soon wish you had a 4-stroke.

Plus from an environmental standpoint they are far and away better. You put allot of oil into the water every time you use the boat. Especially if you use it to go fishing on small lakes. Basically you are polluting the nature that you are going to enjoy.

The reason we still have the 2-stroke is financial, but also it is the same vintage as our boat, which is nice.

Noah

Noah
09-14-2001, 02:04 PM
Alan, I understand your complaints about 4 stroke motors being expensive, but in my mind I think that it is worth it. We have a 16 1/2 ft Lyman Runabout, and I personally think that it would be allot more fun if it was a little bit quieter. The whole time you are motoring (most of the time in a motor boat) you have to put up with the noise, and also the clouds of blue smoke when idling or going slowly.

The 4-stroke motors are very quite, and don't smoke. Two big advantages if you plan to use this boat much. I don't know how you will be using her, but if it includes any sunset cruises, Quite days lounging on the water, or exploring harbors for wooded boats, you will soon wish you had a 4-stroke.

Plus from an environmental standpoint they are far and away better. You put allot of oil into the water every time you use the boat. Especially if you use it to go fishing on small lakes. Basically you are polluting the nature that you are going to enjoy.

The reason we still have the 2-stroke is financial, but also it is the same vintage as our boat, which is nice.

Noah

Noah
09-14-2001, 02:04 PM
Alan, I understand your complaints about 4 stroke motors being expensive, but in my mind I think that it is worth it. We have a 16 1/2 ft Lyman Runabout, and I personally think that it would be allot more fun if it was a little bit quieter. The whole time you are motoring (most of the time in a motor boat) you have to put up with the noise, and also the clouds of blue smoke when idling or going slowly.

The 4-stroke motors are very quite, and don't smoke. Two big advantages if you plan to use this boat much. I don't know how you will be using her, but if it includes any sunset cruises, Quite days lounging on the water, or exploring harbors for wooded boats, you will soon wish you had a 4-stroke.

Plus from an environmental standpoint they are far and away better. You put allot of oil into the water every time you use the boat. Especially if you use it to go fishing on small lakes. Basically you are polluting the nature that you are going to enjoy.

The reason we still have the 2-stroke is financial, but also it is the same vintage as our boat, which is nice.

Noah

Tom Dugan
09-14-2001, 02:29 PM
Noah makes the point about using the 2 stroke because the engine matches the boat's vintage. I agree that that's part of the fun of owning/seeing the old runabouts (I'm only at the "seeing" stage right now). I've long thought that it'd be a great idea for one of the 4-stroke manufacturers to put a retro cover on their new models. Maybe something along the old Seahorse lines. I imagine it would cost a little more, but shouldn't add too much $$.

What do you think the demand for such a thing would be?

And just so I don't run off with this thread: Alan, I recall that the plan was to clamp down on allowable emissions in phases, although I don't know where you'd go to get the data.

-T

Tom Dugan
09-14-2001, 02:29 PM
Noah makes the point about using the 2 stroke because the engine matches the boat's vintage. I agree that that's part of the fun of owning/seeing the old runabouts (I'm only at the "seeing" stage right now). I've long thought that it'd be a great idea for one of the 4-stroke manufacturers to put a retro cover on their new models. Maybe something along the old Seahorse lines. I imagine it would cost a little more, but shouldn't add too much $$.

What do you think the demand for such a thing would be?

And just so I don't run off with this thread: Alan, I recall that the plan was to clamp down on allowable emissions in phases, although I don't know where you'd go to get the data.

-T

Tom Dugan
09-14-2001, 02:29 PM
Noah makes the point about using the 2 stroke because the engine matches the boat's vintage. I agree that that's part of the fun of owning/seeing the old runabouts (I'm only at the "seeing" stage right now). I've long thought that it'd be a great idea for one of the 4-stroke manufacturers to put a retro cover on their new models. Maybe something along the old Seahorse lines. I imagine it would cost a little more, but shouldn't add too much $$.

What do you think the demand for such a thing would be?

And just so I don't run off with this thread: Alan, I recall that the plan was to clamp down on allowable emissions in phases, although I don't know where you'd go to get the data.

-T

Mark Van
09-14-2001, 04:13 PM
One big advantage that four stroke motors have over two stroke that wasn't mentioned yet, is that you can run four stroke motors at low rpm's for long periods of times without hurting the motor.
My last boat had a Yamaha 9.9 four stroke, and I rarely ran it much above half throttle. It pushed my 26 foot boat more than 5,000 miles at 6 knots.
Mark

Mark Van
09-14-2001, 04:13 PM
One big advantage that four stroke motors have over two stroke that wasn't mentioned yet, is that you can run four stroke motors at low rpm's for long periods of times without hurting the motor.
My last boat had a Yamaha 9.9 four stroke, and I rarely ran it much above half throttle. It pushed my 26 foot boat more than 5,000 miles at 6 knots.
Mark

Mark Van
09-14-2001, 04:13 PM
One big advantage that four stroke motors have over two stroke that wasn't mentioned yet, is that you can run four stroke motors at low rpm's for long periods of times without hurting the motor.
My last boat had a Yamaha 9.9 four stroke, and I rarely ran it much above half throttle. It pushed my 26 foot boat more than 5,000 miles at 6 knots.
Mark

doorstop
09-16-2001, 04:08 AM
Last year I bought a new (sorry about this!!) f%&^# g*($$ boat, it is a 14'6" trihull runabout requiring a 40hp outboard. SWMBO and I did our sums and found that we would have to use 900 litrs of fuel per year for 5 years to save the equivalent of the difference in price between a 2 stroke and a 4. That was without allowing for the increased service costs! By the way, the Yamaha 4 stroke is only 1Kg. heavier than the 2 stroke which we ended up buying. We have found that the 2str. is a very economical unit, the day I ran it in I managed 65Kms. up river on 20 litres of fuel, which is the only time I have checked really but considering the carry on when running in a new motor I thought this was pretty good. The motor has now done about 80 hours which has included quite a bit of low speed work whilst trolling and I have never had any probs with oiling up etc. By the way, a friend bought a 4 stroke for his Dad and it is on its' second starter unit as he keeps hitting the key while it's running as he is a little deaf and can't hear it running!

doorstop
09-16-2001, 04:08 AM
Last year I bought a new (sorry about this!!) f%&^# g*($$ boat, it is a 14'6" trihull runabout requiring a 40hp outboard. SWMBO and I did our sums and found that we would have to use 900 litrs of fuel per year for 5 years to save the equivalent of the difference in price between a 2 stroke and a 4. That was without allowing for the increased service costs! By the way, the Yamaha 4 stroke is only 1Kg. heavier than the 2 stroke which we ended up buying. We have found that the 2str. is a very economical unit, the day I ran it in I managed 65Kms. up river on 20 litres of fuel, which is the only time I have checked really but considering the carry on when running in a new motor I thought this was pretty good. The motor has now done about 80 hours which has included quite a bit of low speed work whilst trolling and I have never had any probs with oiling up etc. By the way, a friend bought a 4 stroke for his Dad and it is on its' second starter unit as he keeps hitting the key while it's running as he is a little deaf and can't hear it running!

doorstop
09-16-2001, 04:08 AM
Last year I bought a new (sorry about this!!) f%&^# g*($$ boat, it is a 14'6" trihull runabout requiring a 40hp outboard. SWMBO and I did our sums and found that we would have to use 900 litrs of fuel per year for 5 years to save the equivalent of the difference in price between a 2 stroke and a 4. That was without allowing for the increased service costs! By the way, the Yamaha 4 stroke is only 1Kg. heavier than the 2 stroke which we ended up buying. We have found that the 2str. is a very economical unit, the day I ran it in I managed 65Kms. up river on 20 litres of fuel, which is the only time I have checked really but considering the carry on when running in a new motor I thought this was pretty good. The motor has now done about 80 hours which has included quite a bit of low speed work whilst trolling and I have never had any probs with oiling up etc. By the way, a friend bought a 4 stroke for his Dad and it is on its' second starter unit as he keeps hitting the key while it's running as he is a little deaf and can't hear it running!

brad9798
09-18-2001, 01:21 PM
In addition to the wood boat, we've got a 15' center console skiff ... with a 65 horse Suzuki.

For me, I'd never spend the extra cash on a 4-stroke. Even for sunset cruises, the 2-stroke is much quieter than my twin V8's with no mufflers on the "big" boat.

The recent (last 12 years at least, I think) 2-strokes are all oil-injected anyway ... so there is no mixing.

Outboard motors are a constant pain in the ass anyway ... in my opinion. Way too high strung.

I personally do not know of any legislation to make them illegal.

Brad

brad9798
09-18-2001, 01:21 PM
In addition to the wood boat, we've got a 15' center console skiff ... with a 65 horse Suzuki.

For me, I'd never spend the extra cash on a 4-stroke. Even for sunset cruises, the 2-stroke is much quieter than my twin V8's with no mufflers on the "big" boat.

The recent (last 12 years at least, I think) 2-strokes are all oil-injected anyway ... so there is no mixing.

Outboard motors are a constant pain in the ass anyway ... in my opinion. Way too high strung.

I personally do not know of any legislation to make them illegal.

Brad

brad9798
09-18-2001, 01:21 PM
In addition to the wood boat, we've got a 15' center console skiff ... with a 65 horse Suzuki.

For me, I'd never spend the extra cash on a 4-stroke. Even for sunset cruises, the 2-stroke is much quieter than my twin V8's with no mufflers on the "big" boat.

The recent (last 12 years at least, I think) 2-strokes are all oil-injected anyway ... so there is no mixing.

Outboard motors are a constant pain in the ass anyway ... in my opinion. Way too high strung.

I personally do not know of any legislation to make them illegal.

Brad

Nicholas Carey
09-18-2001, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
I personally do not know of any legislation to make [2-cycle engines] illegal.

Read it and weep

* http://www.epa.gov/OMS/url-fr/fr25ap00.pdf
* http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/marine/marine.htm

Two-stoke engines are going, slowly but surely, bye-bye. By 2007, combined hydrocarband and nitrous oxide emissions from small -- less than 19kw/25hp -- engines will be reduced by about 70% from present day levels. Engines larger than 19kw/25hp are already regulated.

Two-stroke motors will not be able to comply with the regulations -- it is cheaper for manufacturers to convert to four-stroke and leverage existing automobile emisssions control technology than to reinvent the wheel for two-stroke.

When Seagulls Are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Seagulls

This does not mean that 2-cycles are outlawed. It means that new 2-cycle engines that cannot meat emissions regulations cannot be sold.

Why are they doing this?

Well, for starters:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>25% percent of the fuel and required oil that conventional two-strokes use, most of it unburned, is emitted directly into the water and air. [source: National Marine Manufacturer's Association]<LI>In the U.S., approximately 75% of all motorized boats and personal watercraft (or 14 million units) are powered by two-stroke engines. [source: Andre Mele, Polluting for Pleasure, Norton, New York, 1993; also, EPA, Ibid.]<LI>Every year marine two-stroke motors spill 15 times more oil and fuel into waterways than did the Exxon Valdez. [source: Eric Nelson, "Polluting for Pleasure?", Sail Magazine, November 1994, 26.]<LI>The California Air Resources Board found that a seven-hour ride on a personal watercraft (PWC) powered by a conventional two-stroke engine produces the same amount
of smog-forming emissions as over 100,000 miles driven in a modern passenger car. [source: California Air Resources Board, "Fact Sheet: New regulations for gasoline marine engines," February 1999.]
[/list]

The Blue Water Network has more information here: http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/25_percent.shtml

So What's this got to do with me? It's just water, right?

Well, numerous studies show that even low levels of oil/gasoline and its combustion by-products kills fish and fish eggs and cause teratogenic effect (chromosome damage). One article says:

Disruption of normal biological functions has been observed at different levels of biological organisation including cellular and physiological functions. In addition, serious disruption of reproduction among feral fish seems likely

. . .

According to Michigan State's Dr. John Giesy, one of the world's leading experts on the toxicological effects of marine hydrocarbon pollution, the true toxicity of two-stroke emissions released into the water is up to 50,000 times more toxic under field conditions in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight. This is due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), substances contained in petrochemicals that form highly toxic and persistent compounds known to be: (1) ubiquitous contaminants that bioconcentrate; (2) carcinogenic to mammals; and (3) acutely photo-toxic to aquatic organisms in a few minutes to a couple of hours.

Through controlled experiments, Dr. Giesy found that it takes .05 ppb (parts per billion) of PAHs in water to cause a 10% decrease in zooplankton and as little as 5 ppb (parts per billion) to kill all zooplankton in a 30 minute test period. Sampling has found PAH levels substantially in excess of 5 ppb during recreational boating activity. PAHs are considered so dangerous that the N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation now regulates PAHs on the same toxicity level as PCBs.

And all this ripples right up the food chain.

And that's just for starters.

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.


[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

Nicholas Carey
09-18-2001, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
I personally do not know of any legislation to make [2-cycle engines] illegal.

Read it and weep

* http://www.epa.gov/OMS/url-fr/fr25ap00.pdf
* http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/marine/marine.htm

Two-stoke engines are going, slowly but surely, bye-bye. By 2007, combined hydrocarband and nitrous oxide emissions from small -- less than 19kw/25hp -- engines will be reduced by about 70% from present day levels. Engines larger than 19kw/25hp are already regulated.

Two-stroke motors will not be able to comply with the regulations -- it is cheaper for manufacturers to convert to four-stroke and leverage existing automobile emisssions control technology than to reinvent the wheel for two-stroke.

When Seagulls Are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Seagulls

This does not mean that 2-cycles are outlawed. It means that new 2-cycle engines that cannot meat emissions regulations cannot be sold.

Why are they doing this?

Well, for starters:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>25% percent of the fuel and required oil that conventional two-strokes use, most of it unburned, is emitted directly into the water and air. [source: National Marine Manufacturer's Association]<LI>In the U.S., approximately 75% of all motorized boats and personal watercraft (or 14 million units) are powered by two-stroke engines. [source: Andre Mele, Polluting for Pleasure, Norton, New York, 1993; also, EPA, Ibid.]<LI>Every year marine two-stroke motors spill 15 times more oil and fuel into waterways than did the Exxon Valdez. [source: Eric Nelson, "Polluting for Pleasure?", Sail Magazine, November 1994, 26.]<LI>The California Air Resources Board found that a seven-hour ride on a personal watercraft (PWC) powered by a conventional two-stroke engine produces the same amount
of smog-forming emissions as over 100,000 miles driven in a modern passenger car. [source: California Air Resources Board, "Fact Sheet: New regulations for gasoline marine engines," February 1999.]
[/list]

The Blue Water Network has more information here: http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/25_percent.shtml

So What's this got to do with me? It's just water, right?

Well, numerous studies show that even low levels of oil/gasoline and its combustion by-products kills fish and fish eggs and cause teratogenic effect (chromosome damage). One article says:

Disruption of normal biological functions has been observed at different levels of biological organisation including cellular and physiological functions. In addition, serious disruption of reproduction among feral fish seems likely

. . .

According to Michigan State's Dr. John Giesy, one of the world's leading experts on the toxicological effects of marine hydrocarbon pollution, the true toxicity of two-stroke emissions released into the water is up to 50,000 times more toxic under field conditions in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight. This is due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), substances contained in petrochemicals that form highly toxic and persistent compounds known to be: (1) ubiquitous contaminants that bioconcentrate; (2) carcinogenic to mammals; and (3) acutely photo-toxic to aquatic organisms in a few minutes to a couple of hours.

Through controlled experiments, Dr. Giesy found that it takes .05 ppb (parts per billion) of PAHs in water to cause a 10% decrease in zooplankton and as little as 5 ppb (parts per billion) to kill all zooplankton in a 30 minute test period. Sampling has found PAH levels substantially in excess of 5 ppb during recreational boating activity. PAHs are considered so dangerous that the N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation now regulates PAHs on the same toxicity level as PCBs.

And all this ripples right up the food chain.

And that's just for starters.

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.


[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

Nicholas Carey
09-18-2001, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
I personally do not know of any legislation to make [2-cycle engines] illegal.

Read it and weep

* http://www.epa.gov/OMS/url-fr/fr25ap00.pdf
* http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/marine/marine.htm

Two-stoke engines are going, slowly but surely, bye-bye. By 2007, combined hydrocarband and nitrous oxide emissions from small -- less than 19kw/25hp -- engines will be reduced by about 70% from present day levels. Engines larger than 19kw/25hp are already regulated.

Two-stroke motors will not be able to comply with the regulations -- it is cheaper for manufacturers to convert to four-stroke and leverage existing automobile emisssions control technology than to reinvent the wheel for two-stroke.

When Seagulls Are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Seagulls

This does not mean that 2-cycles are outlawed. It means that new 2-cycle engines that cannot meat emissions regulations cannot be sold.

Why are they doing this?

Well, for starters:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>25% percent of the fuel and required oil that conventional two-strokes use, most of it unburned, is emitted directly into the water and air. [source: National Marine Manufacturer's Association]<LI>In the U.S., approximately 75% of all motorized boats and personal watercraft (or 14 million units) are powered by two-stroke engines. [source: Andre Mele, Polluting for Pleasure, Norton, New York, 1993; also, EPA, Ibid.]<LI>Every year marine two-stroke motors spill 15 times more oil and fuel into waterways than did the Exxon Valdez. [source: Eric Nelson, "Polluting for Pleasure?", Sail Magazine, November 1994, 26.]<LI>The California Air Resources Board found that a seven-hour ride on a personal watercraft (PWC) powered by a conventional two-stroke engine produces the same amount
of smog-forming emissions as over 100,000 miles driven in a modern passenger car. [source: California Air Resources Board, "Fact Sheet: New regulations for gasoline marine engines," February 1999.]
[/list]

The Blue Water Network has more information here: http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/25_percent.shtml

So What's this got to do with me? It's just water, right?

Well, numerous studies show that even low levels of oil/gasoline and its combustion by-products kills fish and fish eggs and cause teratogenic effect (chromosome damage). One article says:

Disruption of normal biological functions has been observed at different levels of biological organisation including cellular and physiological functions. In addition, serious disruption of reproduction among feral fish seems likely

. . .

According to Michigan State's Dr. John Giesy, one of the world's leading experts on the toxicological effects of marine hydrocarbon pollution, the true toxicity of two-stroke emissions released into the water is up to 50,000 times more toxic under field conditions in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight. This is due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), substances contained in petrochemicals that form highly toxic and persistent compounds known to be: (1) ubiquitous contaminants that bioconcentrate; (2) carcinogenic to mammals; and (3) acutely photo-toxic to aquatic organisms in a few minutes to a couple of hours.

Through controlled experiments, Dr. Giesy found that it takes .05 ppb (parts per billion) of PAHs in water to cause a 10% decrease in zooplankton and as little as 5 ppb (parts per billion) to kill all zooplankton in a 30 minute test period. Sampling has found PAH levels substantially in excess of 5 ppb during recreational boating activity. PAHs are considered so dangerous that the N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation now regulates PAHs on the same toxicity level as PCBs.

And all this ripples right up the food chain.

And that's just for starters.

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.


[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by nicholasc (edited 09-18-2001).]

TomRobb
09-19-2001, 07:09 AM
One rare quiet day on a local resavoir - zero wind, zero traffic - the entire lake was covered by an oil sheen from all the outboards. Yuck.
It isn't the quiet, which is nice. It isn't the better mileage, which is nice. It's fouling our own nests, which isn't at all nice.

TomRobb
09-19-2001, 07:09 AM
One rare quiet day on a local resavoir - zero wind, zero traffic - the entire lake was covered by an oil sheen from all the outboards. Yuck.
It isn't the quiet, which is nice. It isn't the better mileage, which is nice. It's fouling our own nests, which isn't at all nice.

TomRobb
09-19-2001, 07:09 AM
One rare quiet day on a local resavoir - zero wind, zero traffic - the entire lake was covered by an oil sheen from all the outboards. Yuck.
It isn't the quiet, which is nice. It isn't the better mileage, which is nice. It's fouling our own nests, which isn't at all nice.

Tom Dugan
09-19-2001, 08:55 AM
Well, I guess this is one explanation for all those deformed frogs.

Ick.

-T

Tom Dugan
09-19-2001, 08:55 AM
Well, I guess this is one explanation for all those deformed frogs.

Ick.

-T

Tom Dugan
09-19-2001, 08:55 AM
Well, I guess this is one explanation for all those deformed frogs.

Ick.

-T

Ian McColgin
09-19-2001, 10:26 AM
Glad Nicholas put in the problems with 2 strokes. The heir to the Mercury fortune wrote a book I believe called "Polluting for Pleasure" that's worth the read. (In the same guilt ridden vein, the heir to the Baskins & Robbins fortune wrote a health food book!)

I remember growing up in my marsh in the 50's and being horrified as Rachel Carson swam around with me showing the damage anytime an outboard powered up there. As outboards became more ubiquitous through the 60's, it seemed that very few of us remembered what an oil free wetland looked like.

Highspeed propeller action and jet drives also damage the waters. The frequent passage of two highspeed ferries in Hyannis has changed the oxygenation of the water and boat owners report more slime and barnicles. I don't know whether that's an environmental plus or minus, in the context of a harbor, but in a previously balanced wetland it's likely to be a detriment. I didn't have the wit to really establish the health of the wetland behind Pine Island, off of Lewis Bay, so I don't know if I'll be able to observe if there's any impact from the jet drives of the ferrys there. It may be modest anyway, since those areas get water in only with the flood tide, while the rest of the harbor has it's water reoxiginated and generally osterized more than a dozen times a day at all tides.

Boat wakes against the mud bank fiddler crab condos can also be pretty wicked.

Lakes and rivers have different reactions to the mechanical environmental impacts of power vessels, but every place has a problem with petropollution.

There's a distinct thrill to blasting through the bayou at full throtle but perhaps we ought to rethink the value of that thrill.

Ian McColgin
09-19-2001, 10:26 AM
Glad Nicholas put in the problems with 2 strokes. The heir to the Mercury fortune wrote a book I believe called "Polluting for Pleasure" that's worth the read. (In the same guilt ridden vein, the heir to the Baskins & Robbins fortune wrote a health food book!)

I remember growing up in my marsh in the 50's and being horrified as Rachel Carson swam around with me showing the damage anytime an outboard powered up there. As outboards became more ubiquitous through the 60's, it seemed that very few of us remembered what an oil free wetland looked like.

Highspeed propeller action and jet drives also damage the waters. The frequent passage of two highspeed ferries in Hyannis has changed the oxygenation of the water and boat owners report more slime and barnicles. I don't know whether that's an environmental plus or minus, in the context of a harbor, but in a previously balanced wetland it's likely to be a detriment. I didn't have the wit to really establish the health of the wetland behind Pine Island, off of Lewis Bay, so I don't know if I'll be able to observe if there's any impact from the jet drives of the ferrys there. It may be modest anyway, since those areas get water in only with the flood tide, while the rest of the harbor has it's water reoxiginated and generally osterized more than a dozen times a day at all tides.

Boat wakes against the mud bank fiddler crab condos can also be pretty wicked.

Lakes and rivers have different reactions to the mechanical environmental impacts of power vessels, but every place has a problem with petropollution.

There's a distinct thrill to blasting through the bayou at full throtle but perhaps we ought to rethink the value of that thrill.

Ian McColgin
09-19-2001, 10:26 AM
Glad Nicholas put in the problems with 2 strokes. The heir to the Mercury fortune wrote a book I believe called "Polluting for Pleasure" that's worth the read. (In the same guilt ridden vein, the heir to the Baskins & Robbins fortune wrote a health food book!)

I remember growing up in my marsh in the 50's and being horrified as Rachel Carson swam around with me showing the damage anytime an outboard powered up there. As outboards became more ubiquitous through the 60's, it seemed that very few of us remembered what an oil free wetland looked like.

Highspeed propeller action and jet drives also damage the waters. The frequent passage of two highspeed ferries in Hyannis has changed the oxygenation of the water and boat owners report more slime and barnicles. I don't know whether that's an environmental plus or minus, in the context of a harbor, but in a previously balanced wetland it's likely to be a detriment. I didn't have the wit to really establish the health of the wetland behind Pine Island, off of Lewis Bay, so I don't know if I'll be able to observe if there's any impact from the jet drives of the ferrys there. It may be modest anyway, since those areas get water in only with the flood tide, while the rest of the harbor has it's water reoxiginated and generally osterized more than a dozen times a day at all tides.

Boat wakes against the mud bank fiddler crab condos can also be pretty wicked.

Lakes and rivers have different reactions to the mechanical environmental impacts of power vessels, but every place has a problem with petropollution.

There's a distinct thrill to blasting through the bayou at full throtle but perhaps we ought to rethink the value of that thrill.

brad9798
09-19-2001, 11:14 AM
NICHOLASC-

I guess I should have been clearer in my earlier post ...

There are NO laws to make 2-strokes illegal ... I do agree that there are laws in the works to stop the production/sale of new ones.

brad9798
09-19-2001, 11:14 AM
NICHOLASC-

I guess I should have been clearer in my earlier post ...

There are NO laws to make 2-strokes illegal ... I do agree that there are laws in the works to stop the production/sale of new ones.

brad9798
09-19-2001, 11:14 AM
NICHOLASC-

I guess I should have been clearer in my earlier post ...

There are NO laws to make 2-strokes illegal ... I do agree that there are laws in the works to stop the production/sale of new ones.

Hazy Chris
09-19-2001, 01:12 PM
Lake Tahoe here in California is starting to get tough on 2 strokes, and I'm pretty sure others will follow.
Here is a link with some Tahoe information.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/Pubs/Blt/

Hazy Chris
09-19-2001, 01:12 PM
Lake Tahoe here in California is starting to get tough on 2 strokes, and I'm pretty sure others will follow.
Here is a link with some Tahoe information.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/Pubs/Blt/

Hazy Chris
09-19-2001, 01:12 PM
Lake Tahoe here in California is starting to get tough on 2 strokes, and I'm pretty sure others will follow.
Here is a link with some Tahoe information.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/Pubs/Blt/

PugetSound
09-22-2001, 08:10 PM
Nicholasc:
It is no secret that 4-stroke engines are better for the environment (and, in the long run, the pocketbook) but you really really really should check your sources of information for reasonablness first. That bit about a PWC run for 7 hours producing more pollution than a conventional car run for 100,000 miles is absolutely ridiculous! Think about it. To travel about 100,000 miles is about equivalent to 2,000 hours of operation (i.e. 50 mph for 2,000 hours). I won't bore you with the numbers but consider the proportions. That car would have to be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand miles-per-gallon gas mileage or else that PWC would have to be practically non-operational for the California Air Resources Board data to hold water. In short, you are being lied to . . .

PugetSound
09-22-2001, 08:10 PM
Nicholasc:
It is no secret that 4-stroke engines are better for the environment (and, in the long run, the pocketbook) but you really really really should check your sources of information for reasonablness first. That bit about a PWC run for 7 hours producing more pollution than a conventional car run for 100,000 miles is absolutely ridiculous! Think about it. To travel about 100,000 miles is about equivalent to 2,000 hours of operation (i.e. 50 mph for 2,000 hours). I won't bore you with the numbers but consider the proportions. That car would have to be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand miles-per-gallon gas mileage or else that PWC would have to be practically non-operational for the California Air Resources Board data to hold water. In short, you are being lied to . . .

PugetSound
09-22-2001, 08:10 PM
Nicholasc:
It is no secret that 4-stroke engines are better for the environment (and, in the long run, the pocketbook) but you really really really should check your sources of information for reasonablness first. That bit about a PWC run for 7 hours producing more pollution than a conventional car run for 100,000 miles is absolutely ridiculous! Think about it. To travel about 100,000 miles is about equivalent to 2,000 hours of operation (i.e. 50 mph for 2,000 hours). I won't bore you with the numbers but consider the proportions. That car would have to be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand miles-per-gallon gas mileage or else that PWC would have to be practically non-operational for the California Air Resources Board data to hold water. In short, you are being lied to . . .

Frank Hagan
09-22-2001, 10:27 PM
In the Lake Tahoe case, its not the type of motor being outlawed, but stringent emissions standards that are forcing manufacturers to use either advance, fuel injected 2 strokes or 4 strokes. For small outboards, I guess the nod will go to 4 strokes.

The way I understand the rules for fresh water lakes like Lake Tahoe is that if the outboard is for secondary or back up use (i.e., a kicker on a sailboat) its allowable for now. I think that changes either later this year or next for Lake Tahoe, and no "dirty" outboards are allowed.

Frank Hagan
09-22-2001, 10:27 PM
In the Lake Tahoe case, its not the type of motor being outlawed, but stringent emissions standards that are forcing manufacturers to use either advance, fuel injected 2 strokes or 4 strokes. For small outboards, I guess the nod will go to 4 strokes.

The way I understand the rules for fresh water lakes like Lake Tahoe is that if the outboard is for secondary or back up use (i.e., a kicker on a sailboat) its allowable for now. I think that changes either later this year or next for Lake Tahoe, and no "dirty" outboards are allowed.

Frank Hagan
09-22-2001, 10:27 PM
In the Lake Tahoe case, its not the type of motor being outlawed, but stringent emissions standards that are forcing manufacturers to use either advance, fuel injected 2 strokes or 4 strokes. For small outboards, I guess the nod will go to 4 strokes.

The way I understand the rules for fresh water lakes like Lake Tahoe is that if the outboard is for secondary or back up use (i.e., a kicker on a sailboat) its allowable for now. I think that changes either later this year or next for Lake Tahoe, and no "dirty" outboards are allowed.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 10:38 AM
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Emissions from recent cars are regulated at less than 0.25g per mile, thus 25kg of unburned hydrocarbons over 100K miles. A gallon of gas weighs about 3kg, and if about 30% of that goes out the tailpipe of an unregulated 2-stroke, then the emissions from 28 gallons of gas burned in a jetski would produce 25 kg of hydrocarbon pollution. (28 gallons = 84 kg, 84*0.3 = about 25 kg emissions) I don't know how much fuel an average jetski burns, but 4 gallons per hour doesn't sound unreasonable. Hence, at least for hydrocarbons, 7 hours for a big 2-stroke really does equal roughly 100K miles for a car.

Of course, direct-injected 2-strokes do a lot better, and this doesn't take into account CO and NOX, much less CO2 (but for God's sake, don't start up the global warming thread again) but they're not lying.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 10:38 AM
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Emissions from recent cars are regulated at less than 0.25g per mile, thus 25kg of unburned hydrocarbons over 100K miles. A gallon of gas weighs about 3kg, and if about 30% of that goes out the tailpipe of an unregulated 2-stroke, then the emissions from 28 gallons of gas burned in a jetski would produce 25 kg of hydrocarbon pollution. (28 gallons = 84 kg, 84*0.3 = about 25 kg emissions) I don't know how much fuel an average jetski burns, but 4 gallons per hour doesn't sound unreasonable. Hence, at least for hydrocarbons, 7 hours for a big 2-stroke really does equal roughly 100K miles for a car.

Of course, direct-injected 2-strokes do a lot better, and this doesn't take into account CO and NOX, much less CO2 (but for God's sake, don't start up the global warming thread again) but they're not lying.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 10:38 AM
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Emissions from recent cars are regulated at less than 0.25g per mile, thus 25kg of unburned hydrocarbons over 100K miles. A gallon of gas weighs about 3kg, and if about 30% of that goes out the tailpipe of an unregulated 2-stroke, then the emissions from 28 gallons of gas burned in a jetski would produce 25 kg of hydrocarbon pollution. (28 gallons = 84 kg, 84*0.3 = about 25 kg emissions) I don't know how much fuel an average jetski burns, but 4 gallons per hour doesn't sound unreasonable. Hence, at least for hydrocarbons, 7 hours for a big 2-stroke really does equal roughly 100K miles for a car.

Of course, direct-injected 2-strokes do a lot better, and this doesn't take into account CO and NOX, much less CO2 (but for God's sake, don't start up the global warming thread again) but they're not lying.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Right you are. But those seemingly "ridiculous" CARB numbers hold up even if you look only at exhaust emissions and ignore unburned fuel emissions. Here's an interesting publication from the Engine Research Lab of the Michigan State Engineering School: http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm




As someone who spent 10 years in Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan -- M Go Blue! -- I am of course dubious of MSU's engineering school http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif but I have to believe that MSU engineers do in fact know how set up and read measurement instruments.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Right you are. But those seemingly "ridiculous" CARB numbers hold up even if you look only at exhaust emissions and ignore unburned fuel emissions. Here's an interesting publication from the Engine Research Lab of the Michigan State Engineering School: http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm




As someone who spent 10 years in Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan -- M Go Blue! -- I am of course dubious of MSU's engineering school http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif but I have to believe that MSU engineers do in fact know how set up and read measurement instruments.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
PugetSound - I thought the CARB numbers loooked ridiculous too, so I checked them, and was surprised to find that they're probably not that far off, at least if one defines "pollution" as unburned hydrocarbons.

Right you are. But those seemingly "ridiculous" CARB numbers hold up even if you look only at exhaust emissions and ignore unburned fuel emissions. Here's an interesting publication from the Engine Research Lab of the Michigan State Engineering School: http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm




As someone who spent 10 years in Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan -- M Go Blue! -- I am of course dubious of MSU's engineering school http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif but I have to believe that MSU engineers do in fact know how set up and read measurement instruments.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 04:19 PM
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them. A pity, too. I like 2-strokes, (lighter, simpler, cheaper) but dumping all that stuff into the water just doesn't seem right. Another advantage of sailboats.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 04:19 PM
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them. A pity, too. I like 2-strokes, (lighter, simpler, cheaper) but dumping all that stuff into the water just doesn't seem right. Another advantage of sailboats.

Keith Wilson
09-24-2001, 04:19 PM
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them. A pity, too. I like 2-strokes, (lighter, simpler, cheaper) but dumping all that stuff into the water just doesn't seem right. Another advantage of sailboats.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them.

Right -- but the chart I cite above is measuring gaseous emissions, not unburned fuel, as near as I can tell. Those numbers are measuring combustion byproducts. But I may be wrong.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them.

Right -- but the chart I cite above is measuring gaseous emissions, not unburned fuel, as near as I can tell. Those numbers are measuring combustion byproducts. But I may be wrong.

Nicholas Carey
09-24-2001, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Actually, most of the unburned fuel from a 2-stroke without emission controls does come out in the exhaust. That's one reason they tend to get worse mileage; they only burn about 70% of the fuel you put in them.

Right -- but the chart I cite above is measuring gaseous emissions, not unburned fuel, as near as I can tell. Those numbers are measuring combustion byproducts. But I may be wrong.

johnh94927
10-14-2001, 03:44 AM
The 2-stroker yields much more power per unit of enginer weight that a 4-stroke. That is why many aircraft engines are/were 2-strokes. Also, many industrial engines, such as the 2-stroke diesel engines in many buses.
The 4-stroke engines, however, deliver the equivalent horsepower at greater fuel economy. You might wonder how many dollars you're really saving in one type over the other, but another consideration is how far you can go with the fuel you have aboard. That can be the difference between making it to port, and going adrift. I found this out in practice a few weeks ago, when a borrowed 4-stroke got us home when its equivalent 2-stroke would have run dry.
The 4-stroke is heavier, costs more, buts lasts longer, gets better fuel economy, and runs quieter. It will also probably have more torque than the 2-stroke for the same horsepower.
(Risking a gross oversimplification, horsepower is the corrected product of torque and rpm for reciprocating engines. Grossly speaking, 1 unit of torque at 1,000 rpm yields the same horsepower as 10 units of torque at 100 rpm.) High rpms favor planing hulls, while more torque favors displacement hulls.
But, what do I know?
OH BTW - 2-strokes are being banned in some places, I think. Lake Tahoe on the Cal-Nevada border is one of them. In fact, I think it may have been the first in the U.S. to try it. Tahovians are unnusually protective of their lake, although not always effectually.


[This message has been edited by johnh94927 (edited 10-14-2001).]

johnh94927
10-14-2001, 03:44 AM
The 2-stroker yields much more power per unit of enginer weight that a 4-stroke. That is why many aircraft engines are/were 2-strokes. Also, many industrial engines, such as the 2-stroke diesel engines in many buses.
The 4-stroke engines, however, deliver the equivalent horsepower at greater fuel economy. You might wonder how many dollars you're really saving in one type over the other, but another consideration is how far you can go with the fuel you have aboard. That can be the difference between making it to port, and going adrift. I found this out in practice a few weeks ago, when a borrowed 4-stroke got us home when its equivalent 2-stroke would have run dry.
The 4-stroke is heavier, costs more, buts lasts longer, gets better fuel economy, and runs quieter. It will also probably have more torque than the 2-stroke for the same horsepower.
(Risking a gross oversimplification, horsepower is the corrected product of torque and rpm for reciprocating engines. Grossly speaking, 1 unit of torque at 1,000 rpm yields the same horsepower as 10 units of torque at 100 rpm.) High rpms favor planing hulls, while more torque favors displacement hulls.
But, what do I know?
OH BTW - 2-strokes are being banned in some places, I think. Lake Tahoe on the Cal-Nevada border is one of them. In fact, I think it may have been the first in the U.S. to try it. Tahovians are unnusually protective of their lake, although not always effectually.


[This message has been edited by johnh94927 (edited 10-14-2001).]

johnh94927
10-14-2001, 03:44 AM
The 2-stroker yields much more power per unit of enginer weight that a 4-stroke. That is why many aircraft engines are/were 2-strokes. Also, many industrial engines, such as the 2-stroke diesel engines in many buses.
The 4-stroke engines, however, deliver the equivalent horsepower at greater fuel economy. You might wonder how many dollars you're really saving in one type over the other, but another consideration is how far you can go with the fuel you have aboard. That can be the difference between making it to port, and going adrift. I found this out in practice a few weeks ago, when a borrowed 4-stroke got us home when its equivalent 2-stroke would have run dry.
The 4-stroke is heavier, costs more, buts lasts longer, gets better fuel economy, and runs quieter. It will also probably have more torque than the 2-stroke for the same horsepower.
(Risking a gross oversimplification, horsepower is the corrected product of torque and rpm for reciprocating engines. Grossly speaking, 1 unit of torque at 1,000 rpm yields the same horsepower as 10 units of torque at 100 rpm.) High rpms favor planing hulls, while more torque favors displacement hulls.
But, what do I know?
OH BTW - 2-strokes are being banned in some places, I think. Lake Tahoe on the Cal-Nevada border is one of them. In fact, I think it may have been the first in the U.S. to try it. Tahovians are unnusually protective of their lake, although not always effectually.


[This message has been edited by johnh94927 (edited 10-14-2001).]

Scott Rosen
10-14-2001, 01:22 PM
As one who recently gave up his Nisan 3.5hp two stroke for a set of oars, I have only an observer's interest in this debate.

From my perspective as a rag-bagger and rower, I'd urge everyone who now uses a two stroke outboard to switch to a four stroke. The difference in noise is amazing. And the difference in pollution (judging by what I can smell with my nose) is also remarkable.

I hated the outboard. It was dirty, oily, noisy and a PITA to schlep around. Seems that when ever I used it, I got gas and oil on my hands and on the dink. A four stroke would still have been a PITA to schlep, but it would have been cleaner and quieter.

Scott Rosen
10-14-2001, 01:22 PM
As one who recently gave up his Nisan 3.5hp two stroke for a set of oars, I have only an observer's interest in this debate.

From my perspective as a rag-bagger and rower, I'd urge everyone who now uses a two stroke outboard to switch to a four stroke. The difference in noise is amazing. And the difference in pollution (judging by what I can smell with my nose) is also remarkable.

I hated the outboard. It was dirty, oily, noisy and a PITA to schlep around. Seems that when ever I used it, I got gas and oil on my hands and on the dink. A four stroke would still have been a PITA to schlep, but it would have been cleaner and quieter.

Scott Rosen
10-14-2001, 01:22 PM
As one who recently gave up his Nisan 3.5hp two stroke for a set of oars, I have only an observer's interest in this debate.

From my perspective as a rag-bagger and rower, I'd urge everyone who now uses a two stroke outboard to switch to a four stroke. The difference in noise is amazing. And the difference in pollution (judging by what I can smell with my nose) is also remarkable.

I hated the outboard. It was dirty, oily, noisy and a PITA to schlep around. Seems that when ever I used it, I got gas and oil on my hands and on the dink. A four stroke would still have been a PITA to schlep, but it would have been cleaner and quieter.

rich morpurgo
12-20-2001, 10:56 AM
I know this is a woodenboat forum, so not that many serious cruisers out there, but....

Out of this country you will not for a long time be able to get 4 stroke outboards repaired. Even dealers in the caribean cannot repair them and most have not even seen them, much less have parts for them.

Warranty will not be honored unless you are in the states.

I aggree that the 4 strokes are appealing for alot of reasons...just not as a reliable, repairable option for a dink engine if travel is anticipated.

Rich Morpurgo
S/V Jasmine

rich morpurgo
12-20-2001, 10:56 AM
I know this is a woodenboat forum, so not that many serious cruisers out there, but....

Out of this country you will not for a long time be able to get 4 stroke outboards repaired. Even dealers in the caribean cannot repair them and most have not even seen them, much less have parts for them.

Warranty will not be honored unless you are in the states.

I aggree that the 4 strokes are appealing for alot of reasons...just not as a reliable, repairable option for a dink engine if travel is anticipated.

Rich Morpurgo
S/V Jasmine

rich morpurgo
12-20-2001, 10:56 AM
I know this is a woodenboat forum, so not that many serious cruisers out there, but....

Out of this country you will not for a long time be able to get 4 stroke outboards repaired. Even dealers in the caribean cannot repair them and most have not even seen them, much less have parts for them.

Warranty will not be honored unless you are in the states.

I aggree that the 4 strokes are appealing for alot of reasons...just not as a reliable, repairable option for a dink engine if travel is anticipated.

Rich Morpurgo
S/V Jasmine

TomRobb
12-20-2001, 12:30 PM
Serious cruisers? Ya mean the guys w/ blazers and gold chains who use their marina queen for parties in sunny summer weather?
I hadn't noticed many of those guys here.

If your dink is the ship's tender why not row? Then foreign ports' repair facilities are not a problem. Being responsible isn't necessarily easy. Should it be?

TomRobb
12-20-2001, 12:30 PM
Serious cruisers? Ya mean the guys w/ blazers and gold chains who use their marina queen for parties in sunny summer weather?
I hadn't noticed many of those guys here.

If your dink is the ship's tender why not row? Then foreign ports' repair facilities are not a problem. Being responsible isn't necessarily easy. Should it be?

TomRobb
12-20-2001, 12:30 PM
Serious cruisers? Ya mean the guys w/ blazers and gold chains who use their marina queen for parties in sunny summer weather?
I hadn't noticed many of those guys here.

If your dink is the ship's tender why not row? Then foreign ports' repair facilities are not a problem. Being responsible isn't necessarily easy. Should it be?

htom
12-20-2001, 01:23 PM
Those people from MSU probably do know how to read a guage (I went there for a while) and they also know how to "hide in plain sight".

The readings are pollutant / power output.

Car, 100 HP, compared to lawn mower, 2 HP by dividing pollution by power. The auto, if it emits the same total pollution (say 1 kg over an hour's use), will have 1/50th of that of the lawnmower when you divide by the power.

htom
12-20-2001, 01:23 PM
Those people from MSU probably do know how to read a guage (I went there for a while) and they also know how to "hide in plain sight".

The readings are pollutant / power output.

Car, 100 HP, compared to lawn mower, 2 HP by dividing pollution by power. The auto, if it emits the same total pollution (say 1 kg over an hour's use), will have 1/50th of that of the lawnmower when you divide by the power.

htom
12-20-2001, 01:23 PM
Those people from MSU probably do know how to read a guage (I went there for a while) and they also know how to "hide in plain sight".

The readings are pollutant / power output.

Car, 100 HP, compared to lawn mower, 2 HP by dividing pollution by power. The auto, if it emits the same total pollution (say 1 kg over an hour's use), will have 1/50th of that of the lawnmower when you divide by the power.

Frank Mehaffey
12-28-2001, 04:48 PM
I have been boating for 5 years in Lake Champlain and grew up on Bass River on the Cape. General observations. The local marina where I messed about as a kid had a oily sheen on the water,all the time. You did not want to go in the water because of it. Most of the boats were inboard, or out/in, and I suspect that gaskets on old boats leak about as much as car gaskets do with gas or diesel car engines. I also suspect that pumping bilges from poorly maintained engines is a major contributor of pollution in heavily used areas. I started with a 1959 Evinrude, 35 hp outboard on my old boat, and it was noisy and did have blue smoke and a tendancy to leave a sheen when starting it. I replaced it with a 2001 40hp Merc 2 stroke. My gas milage is about double, oil consumption is minimal and the only time I see any oily water is when I rarely flood it. For my 16.5 Lyman, the extra weight of the 4 stroke was a concern on a small boat, and the price was about 1300 less on the modern 2 stroke. When in Lake Winnipesaukee once or twice a year for Lyman meets, I always need to clean the waterline of my boat when I take it back out, after a day of use and several hours tied up at one of the local municipal docks. The overwhelming majority of boats on the lake are 4 stroke in/outs. In our part of Lake Champlain, I would put in an educated guess that most of the pleasure boats are of newer vintage, and from what I have seen are better maintained than in New Hampshire and Massachusetts waters. My armchair conclusion is that while a 4 stroke may be the next revolution in outboards, that new 2 strokes are pretty darn clean, and that MAINTENANCE, and what to do with an oily bilge is the real problem.

Frank Mehaffey
12-28-2001, 04:48 PM
I have been boating for 5 years in Lake Champlain and grew up on Bass River on the Cape. General observations. The local marina where I messed about as a kid had a oily sheen on the water,all the time. You did not want to go in the water because of it. Most of the boats were inboard, or out/in, and I suspect that gaskets on old boats leak about as much as car gaskets do with gas or diesel car engines. I also suspect that pumping bilges from poorly maintained engines is a major contributor of pollution in heavily used areas. I started with a 1959 Evinrude, 35 hp outboard on my old boat, and it was noisy and did have blue smoke and a tendancy to leave a sheen when starting it. I replaced it with a 2001 40hp Merc 2 stroke. My gas milage is about double, oil consumption is minimal and the only time I see any oily water is when I rarely flood it. For my 16.5 Lyman, the extra weight of the 4 stroke was a concern on a small boat, and the price was about 1300 less on the modern 2 stroke. When in Lake Winnipesaukee once or twice a year for Lyman meets, I always need to clean the waterline of my boat when I take it back out, after a day of use and several hours tied up at one of the local municipal docks. The overwhelming majority of boats on the lake are 4 stroke in/outs. In our part of Lake Champlain, I would put in an educated guess that most of the pleasure boats are of newer vintage, and from what I have seen are better maintained than in New Hampshire and Massachusetts waters. My armchair conclusion is that while a 4 stroke may be the next revolution in outboards, that new 2 strokes are pretty darn clean, and that MAINTENANCE, and what to do with an oily bilge is the real problem.

Frank Mehaffey
12-28-2001, 04:48 PM
I have been boating for 5 years in Lake Champlain and grew up on Bass River on the Cape. General observations. The local marina where I messed about as a kid had a oily sheen on the water,all the time. You did not want to go in the water because of it. Most of the boats were inboard, or out/in, and I suspect that gaskets on old boats leak about as much as car gaskets do with gas or diesel car engines. I also suspect that pumping bilges from poorly maintained engines is a major contributor of pollution in heavily used areas. I started with a 1959 Evinrude, 35 hp outboard on my old boat, and it was noisy and did have blue smoke and a tendancy to leave a sheen when starting it. I replaced it with a 2001 40hp Merc 2 stroke. My gas milage is about double, oil consumption is minimal and the only time I see any oily water is when I rarely flood it. For my 16.5 Lyman, the extra weight of the 4 stroke was a concern on a small boat, and the price was about 1300 less on the modern 2 stroke. When in Lake Winnipesaukee once or twice a year for Lyman meets, I always need to clean the waterline of my boat when I take it back out, after a day of use and several hours tied up at one of the local municipal docks. The overwhelming majority of boats on the lake are 4 stroke in/outs. In our part of Lake Champlain, I would put in an educated guess that most of the pleasure boats are of newer vintage, and from what I have seen are better maintained than in New Hampshire and Massachusetts waters. My armchair conclusion is that while a 4 stroke may be the next revolution in outboards, that new 2 strokes are pretty darn clean, and that MAINTENANCE, and what to do with an oily bilge is the real problem.

Don Z.
12-28-2001, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by nicholasc:

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.




Actually, it's not that gasoline "often contains MTBE", in California, it's MANDATED. Seems someone thought it would be a good oxygenator, so, in true California fashion, it was legislated. We were also told we'd just have to deal with the higher prices...

Then, believe it or not, it was learned that MTBE is a pollutant that just won't go away. Gets in the water supply, both from boats using the water, and from runoff (i.e. it's in the air, then it rains... you know the cycle)

BUT... the guys that promoted the legislation don't want to be "wrong", and the guys that passed it won't change it... which means it's here to stay...

Ask me again for other reasons why I left the Golden State...

Don Z.
12-28-2001, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by nicholasc:

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.




Actually, it's not that gasoline "often contains MTBE", in California, it's MANDATED. Seems someone thought it would be a good oxygenator, so, in true California fashion, it was legislated. We were also told we'd just have to deal with the higher prices...

Then, believe it or not, it was learned that MTBE is a pollutant that just won't go away. Gets in the water supply, both from boats using the water, and from runoff (i.e. it's in the air, then it rains... you know the cycle)

BUT... the guys that promoted the legislation don't want to be "wrong", and the guys that passed it won't change it... which means it's here to stay...

Ask me again for other reasons why I left the Golden State...

Don Z.
12-28-2001, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by nicholasc:

Gasoline often contains MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) as an additive. MTBE is a probably carcinogen to mammals (that's you). And its found in most Californis water reservoirs open to boating. It's too difficult and expensive to filter out, so it stays in the water supply.




Actually, it's not that gasoline "often contains MTBE", in California, it's MANDATED. Seems someone thought it would be a good oxygenator, so, in true California fashion, it was legislated. We were also told we'd just have to deal with the higher prices...

Then, believe it or not, it was learned that MTBE is a pollutant that just won't go away. Gets in the water supply, both from boats using the water, and from runoff (i.e. it's in the air, then it rains... you know the cycle)

BUT... the guys that promoted the legislation don't want to be "wrong", and the guys that passed it won't change it... which means it's here to stay...

Ask me again for other reasons why I left the Golden State...