New fuel tank regs for outboards

[Captain Smollett]

Okay, so it's not really "new" since it's been in place since January of 2011, but it is new to me since I don't buy new tanks very often.

Went to do some Spring Commissioning trials on the trailer boat this week.  Took the tank I'd been using off the boat and replaced it with an older one and fresh fuel.

Outboard started second pull, idled beautifully, then died after 10 minutes.  Went to pump her up and could not pressurize...air leak at a crack in the tank fitting.

Off to the Store that Will Not Be Named to get a replacement.  Figured I'd jump in, grab a tank and be on my way.

New tanks look different...no vent valve.  Hmmm.  Thought, "Okay."  Dude at the counter told me I needed a Fuel Demand Valve else my engine will flood with the new tank.  Got that, too.

So, this post is a head's up for anyone that may need to replace outboard fuel system components on a boat.  The game has changed, and has gotten more pricey.

New EPA regs require no vents on the tank.  They also now require non-permeable hose, which has run the price up quite a bit.  I need to replace my fuel line, but am now putting it off.

Also, regs have changed for inboard tank installations.  All new installs now have to have vapor recovery systems (carbon canister) similar to what is used on automobiles.

No political discussion required and sorry if this has been brought up before (if so, I missed it).

Okay...I gotta say it: yet another reason to go engineless.  The engine on a sail boat is both a time and money sink.

[Godot]

The engine on a sail boat is both a time and money sink.

And stinky (spoken from the boat where I've just scrubbed the bilge sump trying to get rid of an unpleasant "boat smell" almost certainly associated with the diesel).

[CharlieJ]

Okay...I gotta say it: yet another reason to go engineless.  The engine on a sail boat is both a time and money sink.

Maybe, but REALLY hard to travel the ICW without one. It's some  what of a necessary evil there.

[Captain Smollett]

Maybe, but REALLY hard to travel the ICW without one. It's some  what of a necessary evil there.

(Following comment does not apply to GICW; AICW only)

In my opinion, it's a time thing. 

If willing and able to wait for the right wx, the engine becomes much less necessary.  Admittedly, that's not how most of us cruise, even with sail boats. 

Also, on the Atlantic Coast, offshore jumps are more doable, with port-to-port hops as short as a long day sail.

This leaves bureaucratic barriers...marinas that don't allow sailing, bridge tenders that make a fuss, etc.  These argue to running outside and anchoring out as possible solutions.

The engine opens up options, cruising styles and convenience, but at tremendous cost.  For some fascinating reason, this cost is more easily overlooked and "accepted."

$1000-$1500 for new sails every 5-10 years is seen as a "big expense" and bemoaned.  How much is spent on fuel in a year?  And engine maintenance?  And ... importantly...TIME?

The engine saves time underway by not having to be as picky about the wx window, but it loses time in port.  Thinking back on the comments of "it's the people you meet" and the cultural immersion that slower cruising allows....I see this as two ends of a spectrum:

At one end, cruise with engine and get from point to point faster, spend more time and money while in port fussing with engine.

At the other end, slower journey, more time in port waiting for weather to move, more time in port spent NOT maintaining the engine (meeting folks, becoming part of the local community, etc).

Reality for most is somewhere between these extremes.  For my part, I'm looking real hard at when end I'm closer to and also where I WANT to be.

[CharlieJ]

On the AICW I've done a good bit under sail.. Not all of it, but the Pardey's proved it possible. Also on the west coast of Florida

But the GICW has some stretches that are 30-40 miles of rifle barrel, with tall trees on each side. Particularly so in eastern Texas and western Louisiana. Unless the wind is dead aft, no way you can sail. Between Galveston Texas, and New Orleans is also THE heaviest commercial traffic area on the entire ICW, Gulf or Atlantic. You're gonna  pass or meet 20- 30 tows a day. Or more. And ships too.

The pic shows how they look


And offshore, heading east is dead to weather, in quite shallow waters, and millions ( seems like anyway :o) of oil rigs. So it's just much much less difficult to use the engine from Texas until  past New Orleans. Very boring for the most part.

Also, the inlets are WAY way in, and have few places for small boats to stop-all oil industry ports.

Once past New Orleans, when I hit the Florida Ave bridge, I heave a sigh of relief, and start to carry sail. Before that, it's just simply some place to get through. And through there, I'm on a motor boat. After the Fla  Ave Bridge, then you have Lake Borne, Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay, and fairly short simple hops offshore to get to Pensacola.

The pic of the bridge is Fla Ave- ALWAYS a happy sight ;D

Now coming back WESTWARD sailing offshore is very different, as you are almost always off the wind. MUCH more betta ;D

[Captain Smollett]

But the GICW has some stretches

Hence my disclaimer:

"(Following comment does not apply to GICW; AICW only)"

;D

I do not have a good solution for areas like that.  Rowing/sculling perhaps?  Being more than just a LITTLE patient?  Who knows.

There are limits, sure.  What is the price defeating those limits, though?  That's a deeply personal question, and of course no 'one size fits all' answer. 

The bigger point is that engines have tremendous costs that we often ignore for some reason.  We accept those costs (often blindly) without question...just assume "she has an engine" and indeed, for many boats, the 'value' goes down if the engine has been removed.

Guess I'm just questioning the costs of mechanical propulsion a bit more pointedly since those costs are ever increasing.

[Jim_ME]

Now coming back WESTWARD sailing offshore is very different, as you are almost always off the wind. MUCH more betta ;D

How well lit are the oil rigs? Do you sail through them at night, or prefer to do it in daylight and find a place to anchor overnight? Are there many inlets to the GICW or other places of sheltered anchorages?

[CharlieJ]

Now coming back WESTWARD sailing offshore is very different, as you are almost always off the wind. MUCH more betta ;D

How well lit are the oil rigs? Do you sail through them at night, or prefer to do it in daylight and find a place to anchor overnight? Are there many inlets to the GICW or other places of sheltered anchorages?

Very well lit- all several thousand of them. At night it looks like a city. No- off shore you just keep going. I'd never attempt it single hand though. Not through there. Off Florida,, yes, and I have done it there. But you can safely doze in cat naps there.

And of course the Houston Ship Channel enters at Galveston and Houston is now THE busiest port in the nation. We were sailing among ships 25 miles off Galveston, at midnight, and among oil rigs. Scary place

I suppose you COULD anchor, 75 miles offshore i was in 72 feet of water

On the western La coast there aren't many inlets and the ones that are there are WAY in and heavily petroleum based- meaning traffic, and no marinas.

Once past New Orleans, you're in Mississippi Sound with lots of spots to anchor on the gulf side, and towns on the mainland side.

On the Texas coast there are numerous inlets, most about 50-60 miles apart.

Sabine River, Galveston, Freeport, Colorado River, Matagorda, Aransas, Port Mansfield, Brazos Colorado are the major navigable ones coming in. A couple more useable outbound, but I'd NEVER try running them inbound- no markers.

South of me, it's a very wild coast. Matagorda Island is a preserve- nothing out there. And from Corpus Christi (60 miles south of me) down the shore is Padre Island National Seashore. Again- nothing there other than the very northern end, and very southern end. That's where the Texas 200 runs, inside the barrier islands.

[Kettlewell]

So now outboard tanks have to be as crappy as the new 5-gallon jugs. Instead of some vapor loss, we now spill gasoline all over the dock and boat every time we use them!

[Captain Smollett]

Yeah, that's one problem.

Another is that we let more vapor out filling the thing with the great big cap off than ever got out of that tiny little vent hole.

I will say, though, now that I've used the tanks and with the fuel demand valve inline, I like the new set up.  I wondered if I would.  In practice, it works, and it *IS* cleaner...less fuel smell, fewer pieces to leak, etc.  It's more of a closed system from tank to outboard.

So, maybe this time they got it right.  It took a few evolutions, but this new set up is, in my opinion, a step toward "better."

[Kettlewell]

I haven't tried one of the new outboard tanks yet, but I can't say I have ever had a problem with the old style either. I just close the vent when moving it around or not using it and never have a problem with spilled fuel or smells. One trick I use to fill it without spilling is to use a super siphon to transfer gas from a jug to the tank. The biggest source of spills, IMHO, and fumes is when using a gas pump that provides too much gas at high speed for the smallish cans and tanks we use. I have the same problem filling my motorcycle with the 2 or 3 gallons I typically purchase.

[Captain Smollett]

I just close the vent when moving it around or not using it and never have a problem

All of mine developed leaks in various places, perhaps as a result of sun exposure.

use a super siphon to transfer gas from a jug to the tank.

I use one of those, too...or something similar - the little hand-pump kind.  It helps a LOT if transferring fuel from cans to tanks while underway.

[Kettlewell]

Any tank may eventually wear out and develop leaks--do you think the new tanks will be less prone to doing so? I know some cruisers who prowl yard sales looking for the old metal ones, which seem to last just about forever. The trick is to look inland in freshwater lake areas. You can find an old metal tank that is as good as new if it hasn't seen saltwater.

[Captain Smollett]

do you think the new tanks will be less prone to doing so?

I do think so, but that's just a guess.  They are simpler..more KISS.  They have fewer moving parts on the tank itself.

If your particular engine does not require that you have a Fuel Demand Valve inline, it can be a closed tank and fuel line to the outboard. 

For those that do need it, the Fuel Demand Valve has what appears to me to be a diaphragm that regulates the pressure at +5 psi (if I recall correctly).  The beauty is if the FDV fails, it can be replaced similarly to the primer bulb.  A failed vent on one of the old tanks could not be replaced short of maybe finding another tank that was bad in some other way and replacing the entire cap.

In engineering terms, it moves the point of vent failure off the tank and to a replaceable part of the fuel line.  Further, it only vents when it needs to; normal state is closed (letting less water vapor into the fuel).

I also like the new Universal quick connect a LOT better than the old Johnson style (can't comment on other brand connectors).  Those old connectors were VERY prone to tearing up the O-Rings and causing air if not fuel leaks.  The new style seems much better engineered to me, but my direct experience with it is limited so far.

Plus, I've been told that some of the cheaper old style connectors used cheap O-Rings that were not the best rubber for use in a fuel system (I'm guessing on the theory that they would spend most of their time disconnected), and thus prone to developing leaks even quicker.  Not sure how that will play with the new connectors, but maybe the days of the poor O-Rings is over as well.  Time will tell, of course.

So, as I said...I'm sold.  I've used several different systems for external outboard fuel tanks, and of all of them, I like this new set up the best.  I say that having gone into it resenting it and not wanting to like it, so the function was certainly the convincing factor.