TWO stroke ENGINES baned 2006?

later,
Mel Duval

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1999/February/Day-03/a2450.htm

The criteria which serve to define an engine as ``handheld'' were
established to restrict the use of the more lenient Class III, IV or V
standards to engines in equipment that needed to be extremely light in
weight so that it may be easily carried or easily supported during its
operation, and/or which needed to be able to operate multipositionally.
The need for very low weight has historically been addressed through
the use of two stroke technology, which produces greater power for a
given weight and size (but higher emissions) than a four stroke engine
and does so without the need for a sump full of oil at the bottom of
the engine.
The Small SI rule was written without the knowledge that
approximately 8,000 Small SI engines per year are built by a variety of
companies (including a number of very small entities) for specific
application in model boats, aircraft and cars. These engines were not
included in any calculations of emission inventories, nor were
reductions from these engines or costs of compliance considered in the
development of the Phase 1 Small SI rule or the Phase 2 NPRM. EPA has
no emission data from these engines and does not have data appropriate
to determine whether the test cycle used for handheld (or nonhandheld)
engines is appropriate for these engines. These vehicles are
predominantly radio controlled model airplanes and as such are clearly
``recreational'' in nature as that term is generally understood.
However, according to the definition of that term in the Small SI rule,
such engines could be considered handheld because of their multi
positional capabilities and therefore fall outside of

<[Page 5254>]

coverage under the term ``recreational''.<SUP>3</SUP> EPA believes that
these engines would be better addressed by a future rulemaking intended
specifically to address recreational engines. EPA is therefore
proposing in this rulemaking to amend the existing regulations to
consider these vehicles and engines as recreational and therefore
excluded from coverage under the Small SI rule. Thus, engines used to
propel vehicles in flight through air provided those engines meet the
other existing criteria to be categorized as recreational, would be
excluded from the scope of the rule. EPA believes that model cars and
boats are not required to operate ``multipositionally'' to complete
their intended function so that the spark ignition engines used in
model cars and boats are therefore considered ``recreational'' by the
existing regulatory text and are already excluded from the Small SI
rule. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A few of these vehicles may be controlled by flexible tether
lines, but in any case they are not held in hand during operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't kid yourself.. 55 mile speed limit... seat belt laws.. all happened because of the above..

If they want to make it happen it will....

one persons opinion..

Bob is absolutely right. My wife is the Head Finance Officer for Jefferson County here in Central Oregon. Uncle Whiskers pays a HUGE portion of our county budget. A portion of that goes to the Sheriffs Department through various grants. Without that money our County Sheriffs Department would have to cut back it's budget easily 25%, probably a lot more than that. I could get a closer figure if my wife was home. Think the Feds wouldn't withhold funds? Read Bob's post again.

edit> My wife got home. About 25% of our county money comes from Uncle Sam. I was pretty close.

Our Sheriff Jones tell the FBI &/or the BATF to beat it? Fat chance! Deputize people to throw them out? You HAVE to be kidding! I can defend my home against burglers, but, good citizen though I try to be, if Sheriff Jones asks me to load my guns in the truck & come help him throw out the BATF, I'm afraid I'd have to pass. I'm no genius but I'm not a complete idiot. Yet anyway.
Nils

And that is exactly why the nation is in the state it is in, because the American people have fallen down on the job, WE are derelict in our duties and our responsibilities.
It is OUR money, NOT the Feds. It is our problem, and our duty to fix it. You do what you like, if I get called, I'll go, and NO regrets...
And don't think for a moment that there aren't not counties in this nation where there are sheriffs who do uphold the Constitution and the Law, not many of them, but there are some.

Our peculiar pieces, burning deisel or alcohol, are, and have always been, exempted because those fuels are considered "low emission".

Suzuki, as early as 1982, had a 2-stroke that met emission guidlines similar to that of propane, using a blown and turbocharged unit. I heard that they stopped development around 1990.

Where this law will impact the most is the heavy trucking / off-road equipment industry.

See Ya

The second version of the Yamaha RD350 was smog-legal even in the PRK (People's Republik of Kalifornia) in the late 80's. There was a *whole bunch* of super-trick road racing stuff in it, including variable exhaust timing - think about that one for a minute. It was very clean, and also incredibly fast with a very wide powerband. The wide powerband was amazing, as most of the super-fast 2-stokes like the first RD350 and the Suzuki X-6 Hornet 250 were super-peaky. Same with the intimidating Kawasaki 750 2-stroke. I rode, or tried to ride, one of these, and could barely get it to move off the line. So I decided to really crank it open. It bogged along, accelerating slowly, feeling like a moped, until it hit the magic RPM. Then it just flipped out from under me so quickly I didn't even know what was happening. Later, I managed to get it going and was blasting along, and needed to stop. Went from about 110 to 95, then, no brakes. Total fade. Now I know why they all have disk brakes now.

There was also the Orbital engine, that was technically a two-stroke, and also very clean. It was intended for cars, but I think one of the big three bought them out and I never heard what became of it.

The little RZ350 certainly was a pocket rocket for sure as compared to my RD350 almost 30 hp gain. If memory serves me the california version was also provided with a catilytic convertor on the exhaust which derated its horsepower by about 20 hp compared to the Canadian version.

The RZ500 got to tell you there's not many new 1100's out there that will keep up with RZ500 in a good dash. It's the ultimate adreline rush. Under 5000 RPM a gagling puppy, but at 5001 better hold one cause you're going ballist. On the hiway if you are crusing under a 100 it doesn't feel happy. A real thrill blasting up and down the windy roads in the mountains of Albeta and BC. The 500 was a V-4, variable exhaust timing ( basically they had a cam in the exhaust port operated by a servo which raised and lowered the exhaust port according to RPM, 4 - 38 mm Nakuni carbs and 4 tuna pipes plumbed into the frame, monshock suspension, dual disk up front one rotor on rear.

In 1987 or 89 --- the emmisions caught up with us in Canada as well. So the big powerful two strokes are a memory. I'm just glad I kept my RZ500.

Ken