[Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid

Fri Jul 18 19:42:52 EDT 2003

Bill, Rummy, Et Al,

Look, this discussion is getting old & boring.  I've tried to state my case
logically & I keep getting attacked from all sides (MJM excluded).  You guys
are obviously in denial, so go enjoy your 2-cycle outboards.  However, I'll
make a fearless prediction.  Within 10 years, you will realise I was
essentially correct re this 2-cycle marine engine emissions issue.  On that
day, I hope you will have the moral fiber to apologise.  If, on the other
hand, it turns out that the issue is marine glurge, you can be certain I
will also apologise.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid

> Roger, (and Michael),
>
> Can you find the reports by respected marine biologists you refer to?  The
ones I saw were bought and paid for by the marine engine industry. (OMC I
believe.)  They have been thoroughly discredited.
>
> 4-cycle engines simply do not get twice the fuel efficiency compared to
2-cycle engines as anyone with a 2-cycle can tell you.  This statement was
based on the notion that since the 4-cycle fired once every 4 strokes, and
the 2-cycle fired on every other stroke, the 2 cycle must use twice as much
gas, and dump half of it into the water.
>
> The 2 stroke people came back with a "ton-miles" statistic--since 4
strokes of equivalent power weigh more than twice as much as 2-strokes,
pound for pound the 2 stroke engines must be twice as efficient.
>
> In fact, the 4-cycles are slightly more efficient than the 2 strokes for
the same amount of power.  Most of the difference is not "dumped into the
water" as Michael would have it, but manifests itself in heat.  2-cycle
engines run hotter.
>
> Which brings us to Dave, Jay, Michael and Bruce who have all had problems
with their 4-cycle cooling systems.  To bring 4-cycles up to operating
temperatures they must employ complicated intermittent cooling systems with
thermostats.  There is an abundant supply of cool water in a marine
environment to cool the hotter running 2-cycles--no thermostats needed.  The
2-cycles exhaust most of the extra gas in the form of non-polluting hot
water.  I have never had a problem with my cooling system.  My engine is 12
years old.  I'm moored a couple of hundred yards from Bruce.  Same salt
water.  I try to remember to flush my system at the end of each season.
(Last year I forgot.)
>
> The reports you refer to compared detuned 2-cycle engines with specially
tricked up 4-cycles made by the same manufacturer who didn't want to retool
its 2-cycle line.
>
> The Japanese make excellent low polluting 2-cycle engines, and were
already making them when these reports were written.  My engine calls for a
50-1 gas-oil mixture.  I put in more oil at the beginning of the season to
make sure everything is lubricated, and when I first start my engines there
is a puff of smoke, but after that there is no visible smoke coming out of
my engine, and there is no oil slick trailing my boat.
>
> That is not true of many 4-stroke gas guzzlers that cross my path leaving
rainbows of residue behind them.  The cylinders of 4 stroke engines must be
lubricated just as 2 strokes must be lubricated.  Cylinder rings are
supposed to remove the excess, but not all of the oil--that's why you check
your oil.  Where do you think the missing oil goes?  No one does a ring job
until much more oil has been dumped into the water than my little 2-stroke
will ever put there.
>
> We have been around this bush too many times.  I believe the claims you
cite are glurge.  What are the original sources?
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Pihlaja
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid
>
>
> Bill,
>
> The marine industry has been fighting the regulation & banning of 2-cycle
> engines tooth & nail.  The industry has a tremendous investment in
> production capacity for the current generation of 2-cycle engines.  The
> reports I am refering to were published by respected marine biologists,
not
> the marine industry.  I assure you, the issue is good science, not
"glurge".
>
> Also, if you reread what I have written, I did not advocate everyone to go
> out & immediately trade-in their 2-cycle marine engines.  As I wrote, I
> myself switched over to 4-cycle outboards over a 4 year period & only when
> it was appropriate to replace an engine.  However, 2006 is approaching.
>
> Nationwide, 2-cycle powered PWC's & small 2-cycle outboard powered boats
> outnumber all other pleasure craft by wide margins.
>
> Other than the abuse heaped upon our Honda 9.9 by my son, Gary, our
4-cycle
> Honda outboards have been bulletproof reliable for nearly 8 & 4 years
> respectively.  They don't leak oil, we don't use any additives in their
> fuel, they start on the 1st or 2nd pull with no rituals, & the % extra
> engine time involved in running their carbs out of fuel in between uses is
> inconsequential.  Besides, I used to do the same thing with the gas in the
> carb on the 2-cycle Evinrude.  I believe running the gas out of the carb
is
> just good practice with an outboard that sits between uses.
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 12:09 PM
> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid
>
>
> > Glurge is the sending of inspirational (often supposedly "true") tales
> that conceal much darker meanings than the uplifting moral lessons they
> purport to offer, and that undermine their messages by fabricating and
> distorting historical fact in the guise of offering a "true
> story."" -snopes.com
> >
> > Roger--
> >
> > The marine engine industry has concocted this glurge and you keep
> repeating it.  They are trying to sell more motors, they don't give a damn
> about marine pollution.  2-cycle engines have not been banned.  More
> stringent regulations have been established.  The marine engine industry
has
> now developed 2-cycle engines that are cleaner than most 4-cycle engines.
> >
> > People on this list have constantly complained about the reliability of
> their 4-cycle engines--we read, year after year, elaborate rituals
performed
> before and after every use by 4-cycle engine owners--what's more, the
> engines exhaust raw fuel into the water every time they fail to start;
> owners dump multiple "additives" directly into their fuel; they run their
> engines twice as long as they need them to drain all the fuel after every
> use; they dump the old oil into the water with every oil change; their
> engines leak oil directly into the water...
> >
> > The population density of wretched excess conspicuous consumption boats
is
> amazingly high wherever there is money.  Here on Long Island Sound I see
100
> multi-engine gas guzzlers in operation for every PWC.
> >
> > I know you are genuinely concerned about the environment, and your
> engineering background concentrated on removing pollutants emitted by
> internal combustion engines.  No one questions your competence in the
> technical aspects of this conversation.  However, with regard to the
larger
> point of swapping in a reliable 2-cycle engine (which will be sold to and
> used by someone else) for a less reliable, brand new 4-cycle engine (which
> exacted additional environmental costs in its manufacture) to be used
> occasionally on a sailboat, I think you have allowed your technical
> expertise to cloud your common sense judgment.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Roger Pihlaja
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 6:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> >
> >
> > Steve & Rummy,
> >
> > Look, I'll be the 1st to agree that double & triple engined muscle boats
> are
> > one of the most glaring examples of conspicuous consumption & wretched
> > excess in the world today.  But, they mostly run with 4-cycle engines &
> they
> > run mostly in deep water, far from shore, & their population density is
> > usually pretty low.  Small 2-cycle outboards & PWC's tend to be much
more
> > numerous, used near shore, in estuaries, small bays, rivers, etc.  In
> other
> > words, the small 2-cycle marine engines tend to be emitting their
> pollution
> > into the waters that are the most productive & most vulnerable in terms
of
> > fish spawning grounds, insect larvae, crustaceans, plant life, etc.
Make
> no
> > mistake, there is some BAD SHIT in 2-cycle exhaust smoke & the oily film
> > that these machines lay down on the water; materials like dioxins,
> > tetrahydrofurans (THF's) & other materials that are biologically active
at
> > parts per billion concentration & also tend to bioconcentrate up the
food
> > chain.  Gentlemen, this is a really bad deal!
> >
> > Hey guys, I'm a sailor, just like you.  I'm also a professional chemical
> > engineer, not some tree hugging environmentalist.  I've seen the water
> > quality & biological sampling data & the supporting analysis.  These
> reports
> > have convinced me that marine 2-cycle engines are a problem.  Certainly
> the
> > small, low use, 2-cycle outboards used on our R-22's are not the biggest
> > contributor to the problem; BUT, they are part of the problem & not part
> of
> > the solution.  It's counterproductive to point your finger at
muscleboats
> &
> > say those folks should be banned until your own house is in order.  The
> > environmental threat from 2-cycle marine engine exhaust emissions is
real
> &
> > not going away any time soon.  Which side of this issue do you want to
be
> > on?
> >
> > Roger Pihlaja
> > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Alm" <salm at mn.rr.com>
> > To: "Rhodes" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> >
> >
> > > Rummy, I'm with you.  The heavy machinery is a much bigger problem.  I
> > doubt
> > > I burn more than fifteen gallons a season.  It's a goddang blowboat
for
> > > chirstsake!  If they ban 2 cycles, I would hope that they would put a
> cap
> > on
> > > it--like over 25 or something.
> > > Slim
> > > P.S. You're partying with the wrong people.
> > >
> > > On 7/17/03 6:54 PM, "John Tonjes" <johntonjes at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger,
> > > > If 2 cycle engines are outlawed, there are going to be a lot of
> unhappy
> > > > loggers, tree trimmers, grass maintenance compamies and homeowners
who
> > use
> > > > them for everything from blowing leaves to mowing the lawn.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > would prefer to see the 1000 hp cigarette boats with blowers
outlawed
> > long
> > > > before the 2 cycles are done in. I talked with a guy a few weeks ago
> at
> > a
> > > > party with just such a boat. He can go in excess of 100mph on the
> water.
> > I
> > > > didn't bother asking about fuel consumption, but he did mention he
> > carried
> > > > 110 gallons of high test.
> > > >
> > > > Rummy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> [Original Message]
> > > >> From: Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> > > >> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >> Date: 7/17/2003 5:22:54 PM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People
Tricks)
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve,
> > > >>
> > > >> Since 2-cycle engines are currently still legal to operate on most
> > bodies
> > > > of
> > > >> water in the United States, everyone must decide for themselves
what
> > they
> > > >> want to do re this issue.  Certainly, PWC's & large 2-cycle
outboards
> > > >> generate lots more pollution & waste much more fuel than the
> relatively
> > > >> small & infrequently used outboards on our R-22's.  I realize
> replacing
> > an
> > > >> outboard engine is an expensive proposition.  I myself did not
switch
> > over
> > > >> to 4-cycle engines overnight.  The 2-cycle Evinrude 6 came
installed
> on
> > > >> Dynamic Equilibrium when the boat was purchased in 1987 & we ran
with
> > that
> > > >> engine for 9 years.  I replaced the 2-cycle Evinrude 6 on Dynamic
> > > >> Equilibrium with the 4-cycle Honda 8 in 1996.  However, in that
same
> > > > year, I
> > > >> converted the long shaft Evinrude 6 back to a standard length shaft
&
> > ran
> > > >> the 2-cycle engine on our 10 foot inflatable sport dingy until
2000,
> > when
> > > > I
> > > >> purchased the 4-cycle Honda 9.9.  I finally sold the 2-cycle
Evinrude
> > at a
> > > >> yard sale in the summer of 2001.  By that point, the Evinrude was
> > getting
> > > > a
> > > >> little tired & looked pretty scruffy, but it still ran reasonably
> well.
> > > >>
> > > >> The nearly 2X greater fuel consumption & more than 10X greater
> exhaust
> > > >> emissions issues with 2-cycle marine engines are real & well
> > documented.
> > > >> Their continued use does not represent good stewardship of the
> planet.
> > > > The
> > > >> real question everyone must ask themselves is, "Do you want to be
> part
> > of
> > > >> the problem or part of the solution?"  Long term, I think 2-cycle
> > marine
> > > >> engines will either be saddled with so much emissions control
> > technology
> > > >> that the cost, simplicity, & weight advantages over 4-cycle engines
> > will
> > > > go
> > > >> away or the 2-cycle engine will be banned altogether.  There is
> already
> > a
> > > >> small but steadily growing list of bodies of water wherein it is
> > illegal
> > > > to
> > > >> operate 2-cycle marine engines.  That's something to ponder when it
> > comes
> > > >> time to replace your current outboard.  If you wait until 2-cycle
> > engines
> > > >> are outlawed; then, your current outboard won't have much resale
> value.
> > > >> I've already voted with my checkbook.
> > > >>
> > > >> Roger Pihlaja
> > > >> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > > >> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:37 PM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People
Tricks)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Well, Roger, I am sure you saw this coming but I like
> > > >>> my little 2 cycle motor.  Pollution & all:-)
> > > >>> Steve
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Richard,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I can usually follow your line of reasoning; but,
> > > >>>> this time I'm confused.  The discussion was about
> > > >>>> the relative merits of 2-cycle vs 4-cycle marine
> > > >>>> engines.  What do alcohol burning model airplane
> > > >>>> engines have to do with gasoline burning marine
> > > >>>> engines?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Roger Pihlaja
> > > >>>> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > > >>>> __________________________________________________
> > > >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> __________________________________
> > > >>> Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >>> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > >>> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> > > >>> __________________________________________________
> > > >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> __________________________________________________
> > > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>