Do 2011 boats with installed gasoline tanks have carbon canisters?

[tommays]

I am referring to the H2OUT as it is completely plastic BUT

The canister can be mounted in any location that the current vent line is located. The canister is installed between the fuel tank vent fitting and the fresh air vent fitting. Thought must be given to the following when choosing a location:

* The hose connections to the canister must be accessible for inspection and service.
* The canister should not be mounted in a location where it will be stepped on or otherwise have a force exerted upon it.
* The canister is designed to withstand a temperature of 115°C continuously. Short term excursions (15 minutes) to 125°C is acceptable.
* The canister can be mounted in any orientation.
* If mounted in the engine compartment, the canister must have a heat shield (this is an optional component that will be integral to the canister).

This is the setup that has been validated to ABYC standards.

Except that the CG has the final word

New Boatbuilders Home Page* - 33 CFR Subpart J Fuel Systems

Sec. 183.590 Fire test.

(a) A piece of equipment is tested under the following conditions and procedures:

(1) Fuel stop valves, ``USCG Type A1'' or USCG Type A2'' hoses and hose clamps are tested in a fire chamber.

(2) Fuel filters, strainers, and pumps are tested in a fire chamber or as installed on the engine in the boat.

(3) Fuel tanks must be tested filled with fuel to one-fourth the capacity marked on the tank in a fire chamber or in an actual or simulated hull section.

(b) Each fire test is conducted with free burning heptane and the component must be subjected to a flame for 2\1/2\ minutes. (c) If the component is tested in a fire chamber:

(1) The temperature within one inch of the component must be at least 648 deg. C sometime during the 2\1/2\ minute test;

(2) The surface of the heptane must be 8 to 10 inches below the component being tested; and

(3) The heptane must be in a container that is large enough to permit the perimeter of the top surface of the heptane to extend beyond the vertical projection of the perimeter of the component being tested.

(d) If the component is being tested as installed on an engine, heptane sufficient to burn 2 ½ minutes must be poured over the component and allowed to run into a flat bottomed pan under the engine. The pan must be large enough to permit the perimeter of the top surface of the heptane to extend beyond the vertical projection of the perimeter of the engine.


Its just me but i still see a conflict in the requirements

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

Its just me but i still see a conflict in the requirements

No conflict and I can understand the sources of your confusion. Good question.

It must withstand fire for 2 1/2 minutes (not long--think about lighting firewood or searing a steak). It can operate properly at 115F or 125F for a sorter period, but above that temperature carbon does not absorb or retain vapors well; thus placing it near the engine would not work, no matter if it were stainless steel.

The difference is survival vs. proper function. Different criteria.

[tommays]

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marinesi-...8014-chp05.pdf

A lot more involved than just a canister and not as effective as and auto as in the PDF there is a serious circle jerk about the conflicting CG fuel system rules as they have been hacking it out well over 4 years

It defenitly involves two new types of valves on the fuel tank to stop raw fuel from reaching the canister

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marinesi-...8014-chp05.pdf

A lot more involved than just a canister and not as effective as and auto as in the PDF there is a serious circle jerk about the conflicting CG fuel system rules as they have been hacking it out well over 4 years

It defenitly involves two new types of valves on the fuel tank to stop raw fuel from reaching the canister

Nope, not simple. The EPA certainly did not understand many key differences between cars and boats. I've worked with the EPA on many rules (my office is near Washington), and I've never understood why they don't involve stake holders earlier and more deeply in the regulation development process. Generally it's traditional procedure and politics. Often, however, it has to do with a court or legislative mandate; they are requested to write a rule that they fully understand makes little sense, they write it as required of them, and then rely on the comment process to fix it. In that way, the rule gets fixed and they have fulfilled their marching orders. Strange, but it is the way it works. For a number of political reasons, they needed to use the automotive rules as a starting point.

I'm sure that seems daft. Yes, that's politics. I'm working on a rule right now that was mandated by a court order and written to satisfy the order. Unfortunately, it asks a few things that are mathematically impossible, so we are fixing it. The EPA knew of the flaws when they wrote it, and they were hoping for constructive comments to justify their modifications. Very common.

Many boats (mine at least) already have a fuel/air separator between the tank and the vent to prevent spit-back. The Raycor Lifeguard is one example. But really, if the fuel is getting far up the vent there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Likewise if water is entering the vent very far. I would be concerned to have a boat that did not have a very dry section already; not a very effective vent system.

So in my case and for many, no new equipment is needed, other than a canister. It all depends on geometry, and smaller boats will generally be more difficult.

[tommays]

So far i don't like that they seem to have blown off the burn test for the canister because it would never have enough fuel to propagate a flame which is BS after a lifetime of needing different fuel filters for inboards and outboards

Attwood has a nice video on U-Tube showing a complete system with the two extra valves and it seems to ignore the systems ability to push fuel out of the anti siphon if they do settle on the 1 or 2 or ? PSI pressure valve and anything goes wrong

http://www.attwoodmarine.com/userfil...erinstr-rb.pdf

[tommays]

Attwood Marine's Carbon Canister System - YouTube

Attwood Marine's Fuel Limit Vent Valve - YouTube

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by tommays

Attwood Marine's Carbon Canister System - YouTube

Attwood Marine's Fuel Limit Vent Valve - YouTube

Obviously, pressurized gasoline systems are asking for trouble on boats and cannot be retrofitted to older boats. At least I think this is obvious to most sailors, the vessel manufacturers, and the CG. I believe the only ones still talking them up are equipment vendors (more stuff to sell). From the few industry sources I have spoken to, we're going to see mostly passive non-pressure systems. But the wind can change.

----

But this discussion is off the original intent of the thread. The important question, for those of us not planing to buy a post-2012 boat in the near future (that's most of the folks on the forum) is whether a carbon canister or a descant filter (H2OUT) brings any benefit to any existing boat. I'm thinking they do, in terms of fuel conservation, reduced fuel oxidation, and reduced moisture absorption. Each issue is minor, but together maybe they add up to something material.

Yeah, the EPA provided some of the push, but perhaps this is a smart thing to look at, for our own reasons and from our own point of view. I remember considering desiccant or carbon filter years ago but decided I couldn't be bothered. No one else was, so perhaps it made no sense, I thought. Perhaps I--we--were collectively wrong. Like that's never happened.

[kd3pc]

just another not ready or prime time regulation, that ignores the technology...a boat is NOT a car...

yes, perhaps the technology will catch up...and one can install an automobile fuel system on the boat, along with all those wonderful things they have done for the car...check engine light, double the weight for all that "needed" technology, less mpg, and on and on....

if the Federal Gov't wants to meddle in boat systems, then at least the EPA should learn from it's mistakes and bring on board some experts, not the gadget salesmen of the 1970's....they have done nothing with MSD technology, and that has been sitting on their desk since 2007, similarly with Ethanol, etc, etc