Evinrude seems to have pushed that rope successfully. So do several
other manufacturers by using catalytic converters, stratified charge,
and other technologies.
http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/other.htm#calbans has a partial
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/04/local/me-10352 has another.
Well, you might want to talk to him about it and ask how the
California emissions laws are affecting him. You may get a surprise.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your point. There are no
exemptions to emissions laws in California based on "size".
Which has exactly what to do with your assertions concerning "size"?
Maybe you should start.
The bottom line here is that you have some kind of perception of the
California emissions regulations which is at variant with the reality.
The exemptions are spelled out in the regs:
2401(a)(37)Small off-road engine means any engine that produces a
gross horsepower less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for
later model year), or is designed (e.g., through fuel feed, valve
timing, etc.) to
produce less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for 2005 and
model year), that is not used to propel a licensed on-road motor
off-road motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle, a marine vessel, a
model airplane, a model car, or a model boat. If an engine family has
below 25 horsepower (at or below 19 kilowatts) and models at or above
horsepower (above 19 kilowatts), only the models under 25 horsepower
below 19 kilowatts) would be considered small off-road engines. Uses
off-road engines include, but are not limited to, applications such as
mowers, weed trimmers, chain saws, golf carts, specialty vehicles,
and pumps. All engines and equipment that fall within the scope of the
preemption of Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Air Act, as
and as defined by regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency,
specifically not included within this category. Any
as defined in Section 2421, produced during the 2000 and later model
not be defined as a small off-road engine."
209(e)(1)(A) exempts "(A) New engines which are used in construction
or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles
and which are smaller than 175 horsepower."
2403(b)(5): Engines used exclusively in snowthrowers and ice augers
need not certify to or comply
with the HC and NOx standards or the crankcase requirements at the
option of the manufacturer.
(6) Engines used exclusively to power products which are used
exclusively in wintertime,
such as snowthrowers and ice augers, at the option of the engine
manufacturer, need not certify to or
comply with standards regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx, as
applicable. If the
manufacturer exercises the option to certify to standards regulating
such emissions, such engines
must meet such standards. If the engine is to be used in any equipment
or vehicle other than an
exclusively wintertime product such as a snowthrower or ice auger, it
must be certified to the
applicable standard regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx as
The full text of the regulations can be found at
If you can find anything in either of them that exempts leaf blowers
please do let us know.
You might also want to inform the leaf blower manufacturers, as they
have been laboring under the misconception that in order to do
business in California they had to make special "CARB-compliant"
models ("CARB" is "California Air Resources Board", not an
abberviation for "carburetor") and I'm sure that they will be happy to
know that they no longer need to do so due to your impeccable legal
I'll have to learn Spanish first.
Most of the cities banning leaf blowers are doing it for noise
abatement, and they do have a point.
Most of those cities affluent enough that any increased lawn service
costs due to not being able to use leaf blowers will get lost in the
When the guy walks by my window operating his blower, I simply have to
momentarially halt any phone conversations.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, don't expect 2-cycle engines
back in California any time soon.
Now if we could just get focused on a much more difficult problem of
developing propulsion systems that reduce the carbon footprint by
reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Seen what? Evinrude E-Tec? West is a Mercury dealer, Mercury and
Envinrude are competitors.
Regardlss of the reason, they are banning them, which is contrary to
your contention that they have a specific exemption.
Which has what bearing on the existence or lack of same of laws?
They're already "back in California".
There's nothing difficult about that. Most types of engine that run
on fossil fuels can be made to run fine on hydrogen--some can even be
retrofitted without much difficulty, and for many applications
fuel-cell electric also works fine.
The problems is the development of propulsion systems, it's the
distribution system and handling the transition.
As to where the hydrogen comes from, any technology that can produce
electric power can be used to produce hydrogen.
Lets see now, WestMarine(Retail)/PortSupply(Wholesale) based on the
left coast and Defender Retail/Wholesale on the east coast represent a
major portion on the recreational marine market in the USA and neither
Sounds like a successful marketing plan to me.
The Japanese have been major players in the off shore market for
several years now.
More 2-cycle development seems like a good place to invest.
Obviously not at my suppliers.
And here I've been lead to believe that fuel cell and battery
technologies were the limiting issues.
Guess you learn something everyday.
I'm outta here.
I couldn't agree more. But you're talking different horse-shoes for
The prop geometry is determined by the power-band of the motor as well
as the load it is pushing.
There isn't a prop that does it all, hence controllable pitch props
(which, as I'm sure you know, are not the same as variable pitch
props). That holds true in all mediums, air, water, etc.
I think 2 stroke technology is much maligned because "they smoke".
I'll take a clean running 2 stroke over a beadly designed/running 4
stroke any day.
Then again, I still listen to vinyl, wear real leather and drink beer
from glass only.
....and.... two-stroke diesel is moving a shitload of freight around
Naw, we're talking stink boats<G>.
Here in CA, they were banned when it was discovered they were a major
source of pollution in the water table because of the additives in
Most affected were the smaller applications.
Jet Skis, outboard engines, lawn mowers, etc.
These days, strictly old technology with a finite life span..
SFWIW, trucks used to move containers in/out of the port of LA/Long
Beach harbor have been identified as a major source of particulate
Most of these trucks are about a half a step away from the junk yard
since they are usually retired over the road machines, many
approaching a million miles of service.
L/A has simply enacted legislation outlawing vehicles past a certain
age to operate.
The trucker's associations are objecting, but they will lose, it's an
air pollution issue.
Think the first cut was 1989 vehicles.
Penske would never bought Detroit Diesel if they didn't have a new
4-cycle program ready to go.
All the major diesel players have moved to turbo, 14:1 compression
ratio, and electronic fuel rack to comply to the new rags.
It's a whole new ball game.
It becomes a real PITA for a sailboat auxiliary.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.