New Recreational Craft Directive Published

[DaveP]

Can anyone here remember how much CO2 a single Jumbo jet chucks out flying across the atlantic just once? I'd imagine it's roughly the same as the whole of the UK narrowboating community's engines emit in a year.

 

MtB

 

Single 747 atlantic flight is 220t CO2 (yousustain.com). Narrowboats at a rough estimate - 1l diesel produces 2.68kgCO2 (lilo.org.uk), 35,000 boats on the system running (say) 200hr/yr at 1.2l/hr = 23,450t. So about 100 trans-atlantic flights.

 

I like the fact that each boat produces less CO2 each year (670kg) than it takes to fly one person one time across the atlantic one time (730kg). There are about 16m transatlantic passages pa US-UK (caa.co.uk), so about 150 747 journeys each day(assuming ~300pax/flight). The entire narrowboating activity produces less CO2 in a year than a single day of flying people between the UK and the USA.

[Paul C]

 

Single 747 atlantic flight is 220t CO2 (yousustain.com). Narrowboats at a rough estimate - 1l diesel produces 2.68kgCO2 (lilo.org.uk), 35,000 boats on the system running (say) 200hr/yr at 1.2l/hr = 23,450t. So about 100 trans-atlantic flights.

 

I like the fact that each boat produces less CO2 each year (670kg) than it takes to fly one person one time across the atlantic one time (730kg). There are about 16m transatlantic passages pa US-UK (caa.co.uk), so about 150 747 journeys each day(assuming ~300pax/flight). The entire narrowboating activity produces less CO2 in a year than a single day of flying people between the UK and the USA.

 

I suspect if you offered people the choice of travelling from UK to USA by jumbo jet, or doing the voyage on a narrowboat with a smoky vintage engine, they'll choose the former though.

[mango]

 

I suspect if you offered people the choice of travelling from UK to USA by jumbo jet, or doing the voyage on a narrowboat with a smoky vintage engine, they'll choose the former though.

I expect you would be declaring your diesel as 100% propulsion on that trip, whereas the jumbo jet operator would be paying less duty.

[steamraiser2]

As you say the directive relates to new build boats. The Dutch are very fond of their traditional boat designs and have a lots of commercial builders churning them out.They also love their gloeikop engines (semi diesels to us). As they do already they will simply build the boat ready to take their beloved Kromhout but drop in a compliant diesel engine when the boat is complete and ready for registration. Once this is done they take it out and put the Kromhout in as the engine forms no part of the on going safety inspection regime. I hear that everyone knows an engine rent guy! Could it happen here? Oh yeah just wait and see. "where did I put that crappy Barrus"

 

Incidentally Betas are not compliant either.

 

Pre 1950s boat designs , boats with bits of old boats and a plethora of other "replicas" will soon abound as will changes to the way we buy and sell boats. Still only a year or two until we are out of the EU so scared are the Tories of UKIP!

[lynalldisocvery]

DPFs are not perfect but man of us are getting on fine with cars fitted with them. In the UK, I believe it is an offence under the Construction and Use Regs to remove a DPF from a vehicle fitted with one as original equipment.

 

 

Its now coming in as an mot check, BUT they only have to do a visual to see if the dpf is fitted, but most people gut them so the casing is there, so it will be an mot pass!

[mango]

 

 

Its now coming in as an mot check, BUT they only have to do a visual to see if the dpf is fitted, but most people gut them so the casing is there, so it will be an mot pass!

I'm well aware that companies are advertising this service and presumably it is the owner who is liable to prosecution. I expect that the vehicle would fail the smoke test if the DPF had been removed.

 

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/84818/mot-test-fail-dpf-removal

[madcat]

Mango just be happy there are smoke free pubs for you and let us vintage engine enthusiasts enjoy our pet Diesel engines .

[mango]

Mango just be happy there are smoke free pubs for you and let us vintage engine enthusiasts enjoy our pet Diesel engines .

The directive does not apply to existing engines. Smoke-free pubs have helped a lot, though all I was hoping for was a smoke-free room.

[Willber G]

When the pub smoking ban came in I thought, if non-smokers like the fresh air so much, why not make them sit outside?

[Mike Todd]

At least most of the journey is outside the jurisdiction of the UK tax officials . . .

I expect you would be declaring your diesel as 100% propulsion on that trip, whereas the jumbo jet operator would be paying less duty.

[Paul C]

When the pub smoking ban came in I thought, if non-smokers like the fresh air so much, why not make them sit outside?

 

Because some of the non-smokers who wanted the air they breathe to be fresh, are the staff that work in pubs, and have no option but to work there and breathe whatever the atmosphere happens to be.

[mango]

 

Because some of the non-smokers who wanted the air they breathe to be fresh, are the staff that work in pubs, and have no option but to work there and breathe whatever the atmosphere happens to be.

Everyone – even smokers – can benefit from clean air. Anyone who knows someone who lives their life gasping for breath and an oxygen tube poked up their nose will be aware of the dangers of long-term exposure to air pollution.

[Bee]

Firstly, thanks for posting the link to the new RCD, hard to believe I know but that version is actually a bit more readable than some of the earlier, impenetrable stuff.

Secondly, It`s a shame that the `skills` required to write that awful officialise are in demand and presumably pay very well wheras those of us with the ability to make stuff are looked upon as dinosaurs and paid rubbish wages. Thirdly, even in these world of cameras, sneaks and surveillance I have yet to see the compliance police hiding behind a bush waiting for an engine going `thump thump` instead of `brrr brrr`, so if I need to I will put in whatever engine I like.

...... and relax...... That's better.

[Naughty Cal]

When the pub smoking ban came in I thought, if non-smokers like the fresh air so much, why not make them sit outside?

Because the people serving you behind the bar are allowed to work in their workplace without the increased risk of developing many life threatening diseases perhaps?

[Willber G]

It was a joke.

[Paul C]

Because the people serving you behind the bar are allowed to work in their workplace without the increased risk of developing many life threatening diseases perhaps?

 

See post #36

[Naughty Cal]

It was a joke.

Ah I see people's health is a joke now.

[Willber G]

Goodbye.

[rjasmith]

Firstly, thanks for posting the link to the new RCD, hard to believe I know but that version is actually a bit more readable than some of the earlier, impenetrable stuff.

Secondly, It`s a shame that the `skills` required to write that awful officialise are in demand and presumably pay very well wheras those of us with the ability to make stuff are looked upon as dinosaurs and paid rubbish wages. Thirdly, even in these world of cameras, sneaks and surveillance I have yet to see the compliance police hiding behind a bush waiting for an engine going `thump thump` instead of `brrr brrr`, so if I need to I will put in whatever engine I like.

...... and relax...... That's better.

 

I realise you were writing this mostly with tongue in cheek and I largely agree with the sentiment! Of course, unfortunately it has to be written in legalese to avoid being ridden through by clever (rich) lawyers on their coaches and horses!

 

Interesting you say you saw an improvement in readability, perhaps that is down to the fact that the EU Parliament/Council has now linked new directives to another general one on tighter enforcement. Perhaps we will see more of the "compliance police" (in our case Trading Standards) - I don't know.

 

Again, I'm sure your third point was just a wry comment but for the benefit of others who may be confused, the RCD only applies to new build boats.

 

Anyone with an existing (ie already sold in the EU) inland boat can do whatever they like with it (subject to our Boat Safety Scheme of course) and replace its engine with anything they might happen to have lying around.

 

If the boat was originally RCD compliant when new it will perhaps then no longer be compliant but this won't make it illegal to sell on (however it might affect the value etc).

 

The old RCD currently allows a boat builder to fit a non compliant engine that existed before 2005 to a NEW boat. After Jan 2017 he won't be able to unless he keeps the boat for his own use etc.

 

Richard

Edited January 13, 2014 by rjasmith

[mango]

What confuses me is the section on durability (just search for the first occurrence of this word).

 

For an inboard diesel engine, the 'normal life' is considered to be 480 hours or 10 years. There is no complex confusing language but I guess I am missing something.

[Athy]

Surely a nought (or two) missing from the hours figure.

[Albion]

I was going to mention that, but the thought of fitting one to an RN or other would have serious challenges - they require a lot of heat to regenerate.

I'm afraid it isn't even as simple as that. In order to regenerate the DPF you have to raise the temperature massively. That is done by injecting very late in the ignition cycle and allowing the part burnt mixture to continue burning in the DPF. This late injection can only be achieved by the very accurate injection control of common rail ECU controlled piezo-electric injectors which can IIRC give up to five separate injection events in one combustion stroke. Conventional injection systems haven't got this ability so it is never going to be an add on I'm afraid. There are already two injection events now in common rail per firing stroke even in normal combustion. There is a small early injection which starts the burn before the main injection a bit later. The early one initiates the main burn and by doing so reduces diesel knock. The heat generated by the DPF regeneration is such that, from the info that I had when I was working at Jags on the diesel XF you were advised not to park on long dry grass in case it caught fire. Now imagine a device that hot in your trad engine room . When the DPF regenerates it is only allowed to do so when the engine has reached full working temperature and the engine revs are above a certain threshold otherwise the NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) of the engine would be unacceptably high for the driver (In a very smooth car engine of course).

 

What confuses me is the section on durability (just search for the first occurrence of this word).

 

For an inboard diesel engine, the 'normal life' is considered to be 480 hours or 10 years. There is no complex confusing language but I guess I am missing something.

No, you're not confusing anything. The ridiculously low normal life hours has been in the RCD even in the first edition. It's just their statement and doesn't seem to relate to reality for real engine life.

Roger

Edited January 13, 2014 by Albion

[Naughty Cal]

Surely a nought (or two) missing from the hours figure.

Not necessarily.

[Cheshire cat]

Not necessarily.

How not necessarily so? However you slice it an engine should be serviceable for a lot longer than that.

[Willber G]

How not necessarily so? However you slice it an engine should be serviceable for a lot longer than that.

Indeed! 480 hours equates to a few months' use, if that, for some people. I'll stick to my 50-year-old BMC...