Murv
Well-Known Member
Just a quick thought. OK the hydrocarbon emissions on a 2-stroke are high but then, conversely, the CO2 emissions must be a lot lower.
Seagulls to save the planet?
Seagulls to save the planet?
Astonishing two stroke outboard stats
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
JayBee
Well-Known Member
Never mind 2-stroke outboards, what about all the millions of leaf blowers, chain saws, hedge trimmers, pressure washers and the like. 
BruceDanforth
Well-Known Member
and these 4 stroke outboards will have been produced by the outboard fairies presumably and won't have an environmental footprint?
ValleyForge
Well-Known Member
Wonder what the stats are on model boat nitro engines, probably as bad or worse than my poor old pair of seagulls (that get the odd bi annual outing if I'm lucky).
Last edited:
Murv
Well-Known Member
Now that would be interesting! My recollection is of a thick spray of oil from the exhaust and a lifespan of around 30 hours before the whole engine needed replacing!
Poignard
Well-Known Member
"A one-hour ride on a boat with a 10-horsepower traditional two-stroke engine . . . "
Are there many people taking one hour rides with traditional two-stroke engines?
Isn't this all a mere storm-in-a-teacup? A fuss about nothing?
Are there many people taking one hour rides with traditional two-stroke engines?
Isn't this all a mere storm-in-a-teacup? A fuss about nothing?
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
This is a load of tosh. What they are saying is that a 10hp 2-stroke emits as much "Un-burnt fuel" as a car would in 25,000 miles. But if you divide by a VERY small number you end up with a very big one. It is a bit like one brother saying to the other you are four times as old as me, one is two the other eight, the simple fact is there is only six years between them.
My 4hp 2-stroke probably gets less than 2 hours running time year, uses less than 5l of fuel so how much polution can the 100ml of 2 stroke oil that isn't burnt really cause.
Please ignore this rubbish.
My 4hp 2-stroke probably gets less than 2 hours running time year, uses less than 5l of fuel so how much polution can the 100ml of 2 stroke oil that isn't burnt really cause.
Please ignore this rubbish.
Last edited:
Niander
Well-Known Member
And what about all the pollution from your power stations to provide electricity for your Torqeedo motors?
Niander
Well-Known Member
one hour with a ten hp equivalent to 25,000 car miles.....
That cannot be true...pure BS im suprised you believe it!
That cannot be true...pure BS im suprised you believe it!
Murv
Well-Known Member
Don't forget it relates to hydrocarbon emission, so essentially unburned fuel and oil. So, it could be true.
It's just scaremongering focusing on figures to justify a cause, the environmental impact of a typical car travelling 25,000 miles if of course far higher than an outboard running for 1 Hour.
Just the disposal of the tyres in that time would make a 2 stroke outboard output look like the breath from a fairly!
dylanwinter
Well-Known Member
outragous isn't it?
I think using figures to justify a case is cheating
far better to use sentiment,deeply held belief and traditional values
rubbishing stuff without reading any of it is also a most excellent strategy
changing your mind in the light of evidence is a sign of weakness and intellectual feebleness
having said that I do not have a clue who Kimo are and where they got their figures
the equivalent EPA figures are much more concervative suggesting that an hour with a 70hp two stroke engine is equivalent to 8,000 miles
however, the 8,000 miles in the car is not pishing its residues straight into a lovely river, lake or estuary
the stats from the "two strokes are fine" point of view, so far as YBW threads are concerned, are a bit thin on the ground so far
a few urls or links might be useful chaps
Murv
Well-Known Member
Oh come on, you're better than that, surely!
Even you must see the folly of what they're trying to do?
OK, sigh, off to find some leaks on the composition of fairy breath. I may be gone some time...
Even you must see the folly of what they're trying to do?
OK, sigh, off to find some leaks on the composition of fairy breath. I may be gone some time...
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Fully agree, a load of old bollox
Neil
Well-Known Member
This is a complete load of ball 'ocks. Unburnt hydrocarbons from a 2-stk have such an insignificant effect on the environment in comparison with other hydrocarbon emissions, not to mention the CO2 released from that car doing 25K. For example, the methane escaping from fracking sites potentially has a huge impact on global warming, since methane is about 8 (?) times more heat-trapping than CO2. However, we need every new source of methane to drive the power stations to make the electricity to smelt the aluminium to make the new 4stks and to charge the Torqueda batteries. Let's stop making new OB's and save the planet! Bring out the Seagulls from your sheds and stop global warming! And what about cows? Their flatulence releases more methane you can shake a stick at; ban beef! and we can't eat horse instead, since equines being hind-gut fermenters probably release as much! the answer? stop using the OB on the dinghy to get to the restaurant to eat your 10 oz steak, become a vegetarian and eat beans and pulses - though be careful, your own hydrocarbon emissions wii probably exceed that of current 2-stk OB emissions!
BruceDanforth
Well-Known Member
From your very own horse****:
"In response to proposed legislation on the Bodensee in the early 1990s, a study on the contribution of outboard engines to marine pollution was carried out by Barlett (FSRC, 1990) in conjunction with the International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA). With the exception of one site, the highest concentrations of total hydrocarbons were found to be close to large municipal centres, or near the mouths of major rivers draining industrialised and urban catchment areas, rather than in heavily used boating areas. The report suggested that, in general, residues from outboard motor oils are likely to be negligible in relation to other sources of the hydrocarbon burden in the sediments.
This conclusion is also supported by the TNO Road Vehicles Research Institute (1991), which found that, at present, there is little environmental impact caused by marine engines. Hydrocarbon contamination of sediment is not, to any great extent, caused by the use of 2 stroke marine engines. Butcher (1982) also concluded that outboard engine use was not a major cause of hydrocarbon pollution of the water column, and although hydrocarbons in surface films were more problematic, evaporation was rapid. "
(From the ukmarine(ball)sac site.)
"In response to proposed legislation on the Bodensee in the early 1990s, a study on the contribution of outboard engines to marine pollution was carried out by Barlett (FSRC, 1990) in conjunction with the International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA). With the exception of one site, the highest concentrations of total hydrocarbons were found to be close to large municipal centres, or near the mouths of major rivers draining industrialised and urban catchment areas, rather than in heavily used boating areas. The report suggested that, in general, residues from outboard motor oils are likely to be negligible in relation to other sources of the hydrocarbon burden in the sediments.
This conclusion is also supported by the TNO Road Vehicles Research Institute (1991), which found that, at present, there is little environmental impact caused by marine engines. Hydrocarbon contamination of sediment is not, to any great extent, caused by the use of 2 stroke marine engines. Butcher (1982) also concluded that outboard engine use was not a major cause of hydrocarbon pollution of the water column, and although hydrocarbons in surface films were more problematic, evaporation was rapid. "
(From the ukmarine(ball)sac site.)
dylanwinter
Well-Known Member
who is "they" and what are "they" trying to "do"
getting dangerously close to lizard territory here
where is your evidence that using two strokes is fine?
I have found some evidence that it isn't
so far the primary reaction on YBW from some sailors has been a knee jerk tosh and bollox
not a terribly reasoned argument
basically it comes down to I prefer them so sod the environment
seems a bit sad
Last edited:
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
Your tirades against mobos, were quite tolerable even amusing, but a lot of this is just a put off. The average sailing OB owner fires it up (probably a 5 bhp) to go out of the harbour, and again to return -let's have a sense of proportion.
Definitely seems a bit sad!
Definitely seems a bit sad!
Last edited:
Murv
Well-Known Member
Haven't got time to do a lot of research today (supposed to be working) but a quick Google shows that you may be onto something.
My argument concerns the impact of replacing my engine (which I know doesn't concern you but it does me.)
Difficult, given limited time to produce facts and figures, but found this brief quote from a study carried out by Toyota (concerning cars)
"A 2004 analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession"
Now, I would've assumed that the impact of production would be far higher but, of course, the lifespan of that car could easily be 250,000 miles in which case that 28% becomes significant. These are variables that are unknown.
There is a lot of research to suggest that 2-stroke OB's are extremely polluting, but a lot of those studies are carried out versus car engines which given the amount of drag a boat is subject to is hardly fair.
But, there is no doubt, a comparative 4-stroke is more environmentally friendly than a 2-stroke based solely on emissions.
I would be interested in any other data anyone has on the impact of production of new engines, particularly in the smaller outboard motor sector as it's quote possible that environmental considerations are far lower in importance to them than large scale automobile manufacture.
Neil
Well-Known Member
What is the environmental impact of unburnt hydrocarbons in the environment, the relationship between methane and longer chain hydrocarbons produced by methagenic bacteria in sediments or rainfall run-off in urban areas compared to 2stks? I appreciate a rainbow film on the warter's surface is not pretty, but I've seen the same from boggy areas that have never been exposed to an OB and at least in the former case, it's temporary- so what is the environmental impact again?
NormanS
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why 2 stroke outboards are deemed to be so polluting, compared to things like chainsaws, of which there must be many more.
If you really want to get your teeth into a polluting waste, Dylan, let me point you towards a gas fractionating plant, not terribly far from my hometown. For days on end it has been flaring off vast quantities of gas, with a flame that can be seen for 60 miles. The noise of it can be heard for miles, and the amount of gas being burnt off would heat a city. That's real waste and pollution.
If you really want to get your teeth into a polluting waste, Dylan, let me point you towards a gas fractionating plant, not terribly far from my hometown. For days on end it has been flaring off vast quantities of gas, with a flame that can be seen for 60 miles. The noise of it can be heard for miles, and the amount of gas being burnt off would heat a city. That's real waste and pollution.