But they're a tiny market and no one has bothered to try to regulate it. This just isn't a big thing from a save-the-planet perspective. But it's a nifty product.
4 stroke is more commonly sold today but with boating, the lifespan of the equipment is so long that there are a non-trivial amount of 2 stroke engines still in use today.
Certainly anything substantial won't be two-stroke.
It's really wonderfully quiet, even though it's close to a city.
Evidently it didn't really work out well enough, considering most outboards they sell these days are 4-stroke. I've always had a soft spot for 2-stroke engines, seems so wasteful to "waste" half of the strokes on a 4-stroke. Oh well.
OTOH, they have done a lot of engineering to meet emissions requirements, so they are a far cry from grandpa's old outboard that left trails of blue smoke.
They offer both 4 stroke and "TLDI" versions of many of their outboards. The TLDI is a two stroke but with updated tech that meets pollution standards and the oil is not mixed with the gas before hand, the oil is mixed with the gas in real time from it's own separate tank with in the motor.
Tohatsu is pretty careful not to mention "two stroke" on their site because of its bad connotations from the past.
In terms of maintenance and cost, I think it is interesting that battery electric is becoming competitive here. It wouldn't surprise me if some countries start putting rules in place to ban dirty engines from some sensitive areas. Apparently the EU already has a lot of rules around boat engines already that are complicated and hard to enforce and not that effective yet. But like the car industry, boat engines are subject to emission standards, inspections, certifications, etc. and the rules are getting stricter.
I imagine that once battery electric becomes cheap/common enough, a lot of boat owners will choose to go electric rather than buying a cleaner engine just to ensure they stay on the safe/legal side with their boats and avoid fines. Also, doing the right thing when you are actively enjoying nature is probably going to motivate a few people.
Basically, it indicates that recreational boats use 1% of the fuel of all passenger cars.
Their big plan is to have local river barge traffic be managed with electric tugs instead of diesel, but they’re having fun as they prove the technology. They have a Jaguar XJS converted to the same system as the tug to help debug it
I tried sailing, but even then you need a backup motor and to get in/out of the oil-soaked harbor. (And sailing is a lot of work.)
The idea of electric boats makes me actually interested in the idea of boating for the first time again... does anyone know if they leak oil just as much though?
I have zero knowledge about boat motors but had always assumed the oil leakage had something to do with lubricating movement of the propeller that also prevented sea water from getting in and corroding internal elements. Is this wrong? Do electric boat motors function completely without oil?
Boats have something called a "packing box" which is a seal around the propeller shaft so that water doesn't leak into the boat. Traditionally they use hemp fibers and tallow, nowadays PTFE or similar is a popular alternative.
If you live in a northern area where they salt the roads you will need to reduce regen or perhaps occasionally do an emergency stop to grind the corrosion off the brake disks in the winter.
I had to have two brake disks replaced at the last service on my 2015 S 70D because they were too rusty.
But generally speaking you are correct.
Tires that are not slipping are not creating any force against the road surface (so they don't have to slip when coasting, but will slip while accelerating longitudinally [braking or accelerating fore/aft] or laterally [cornering]).
Yet another video about static coefficient of friction on tires that aren’t slipping. Electric cars are more easily able to keep their tires in this maximum static coefficient of friction range, maximizing acceleration.
What traction control/ABS does is keep the the tire slip ratio in the right range to optimize acceleration. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-tire-longitudina...
What we intuit about whether or not we're slipping our tires every time we brake for and then drive away from a traffic light "without slipping them" is not actually correct at a micro level. With respect to this thread, it is the micro level that is relevant to tire wear and resulting particulate emissions from that slippage.
But it is damning for electric cars. The tailpipe emissions (measured in this article) that are reduced by going electric are marginal in comparison, and the other emissions are still entirely present.
If we came up with a new "Environmentally Friendly" tyre that solved that problem, than we would still have exhaust emissions to deal with. You don't need to fix both to attempt to improve one.
Pure makes a lot of the same claims about noise and performance. They seem to have upped the appearance though.
The assertion is true only for cyclists eating a mad diet and only if:
1. Motorists really do eat less food than cyclists, controlling for other factors.
2. You only count transit-energy emissions (not construction or recycling or road maintenance or healthcare etc).
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that active travel modes are associated with greater calorie consumption. There is plenty of evidence that all kinds of important externalities are worse for any kind of car-travel versus cycling.
You can perhaps make an argument based on average lifespan that motoring is better for the environment because it costs more life years per km, but advocating for shorter lives in the name of carbon emissions is not going to be popular (and if so, there are less polluting ways to do it).
I believe most people don't need extra calories from carbon intensive sources.
tl;dr: diet is also very important, and human labor is not necessarily a good substitute for machine labor.
I'd convert my boat to electric in a heartbeat if I could retrofit the drive for a similar cost to a replacement engine/transmission... but that's still impossible, and probably will be for longer than I'll own it.
Most of the people on the road or on the water don't buy new for very good reasons. If we're going to limit climate change, there has to be more done for all those people than just telling them "buy new or go without". An effort needs to be made by the governments of the world to provide affordable conversion parts or replacement vehicles for those who will never buy new.
My boat needs two 150kW plus engines to move at speed. I might be able to get by at displacement speed with two 50kW engines, but something that like isn't available, and neither is the needed battery pack (Li-Ion, lead is too heavy to work).
I don't have the money to pay for a $20,000 retrofit to electric power. I can't afford a Tesla, either.
(They literally can't afford to retrofit it right now as nothing is commercially available in that power output range.)
My boat needs something like two 75 HP motors to run safely at displacement speeds, and much more to get on plane.
In case you're curious, it's about 10M long. You have to have a larger boat to travel away from shore with any safety... small boats have to stick to the coast. My boat isn't actually very big, and doesn't have the range or stability to travel between continents away from shore, either.
Electric scooters and electric outboards have been around for a while, they're okay for what they do.
However, what I would need (and most of the people who own boats larger than 5M long) is the equivalent of a tesla battery pack and motors... which aren't available.
If you want to "travel between continents", get a sailboat. No powerboat is practical for that. If you're just talking about a fishing trip, powerboats smaller than 10M can certainly get you out of sight of shore.
Not true. Lots of power cruisers are out there, and all commercial traffic (cargo, people shipping, etc) happens via motor vessels.
I live where there are quite a few sport fishermen, many have bass boats. But even the hardcore enthusiasts might go out a day or two a week, for a total of maybe 10 hours. The vast majority probably put less than 100 hours a year on the boats.
So..... maybe big reduction in emissions, but only for a short while. The cars don't make the same reduction, but they're in use a lot more hours.
So taking your minimum... 100 hours a year, at 10 hours/day.. that's 10 days * 30 gallons = 300 gallons/year.
A car averaging 30mpg, would use 300 gallons to travel 9000 miles. The average car travels 13500m/year.. so that's equivalent to 2/3rds of a car co2.
It gets worse for your hardcore enthusiasts... day or two a week.. so 50-100 days or 1500 to 3000 gallons/year. That's equivalent to 45,000-90,000 mi/year.. or 3-6 cars worth of co2.
If you have better numbers, then please provide them.. but it doesn't look like it's a co2 savings just for "commercial boats that are often in use"
It's all of the ski boats and jet skis that are the annoyingly loud and high emission crafts. One thing that surprised me growing up is that most water craft do not have mufflers. They just exhaust directly into the water which muffles. I used to think how the fish must love that.
Pros : quiet, clean, light, ultra-reliable
Cons : weak. Not good for cutting up medium-to-large trees. Only good for softwood under 9", hardwood under 4"
I don't do much serious treefelling these days so I prefer it. And if I need a Husqvarna 350 or whatever I borrow it.
Therein lies the problem. If it were gas, I could take it down to the local small engine repair guy and get it fixed cheap. Who the hell knows what could be wrong with am electric one?
Ultimately, I gave up on it, since I moved to a house with an outdoor wood furnace and upgraded to a 64cc gas model. There's really no comparison between the two, though that makes sense since they're definitely made for different markets.
Cordless chainsaws have been out for awhile, too, though perhaps until recently they lacked the necessary power and duration for professional work.