Diesel Bike Meeting EPA Standard

[pietenpol2002]

I'm still intrigued with the question of whether one could build a production diesel bike that could meet EPA standards utilizing a readily available engine such as the Yanclone without having to resort to exotic emissions equipment. Below is a quote from an explanation of current EPA standards.

"Since light-duty emission standards are expressed in grams of pollutants per mile, vehicles with large engines (such light trucks or SUVs) have to use more advanced emission control technologies than vehicles with smaller engines in order to meet the standards."

So, here are my ponderings. If an EPA compliant diesel car can meet the standard at 40 miles per gallon, our diesel bike achieving 160 miles per gallon (might be a bit of a stretch) could spew out 4 times the amount of pollutants (not that I'm promoting polluting) and still meet the standard when measured in grams of pollutants per mile.

Am I thinking correctly about this?

[Tamber]

Probably not, if my understanding of it is correct. That is, if you travel a fixed distance X, and produce more than Y pollutants, you fail. So even though the theoretical bike with 160 mpg is more fuel efficient, that's not what's being counted. If it were "grams of pollutants per distance travelled on 1 gallon of fuel", then maybe. :p

Edit

To clarify a little, using the European Emissions Standards, Euro5 (current), since that's what I'm used to:

No matter how fuel efficient your (diesel) vehicle, be it a 40MPG car or a 160MPG bike; you still have to produce, in one kilometre, less than:
* 0.500 grams Carbon Monoxide
* 0.180 grams Nitrogen Oxides
* 0.230 grams combined Nitrogen Oxides and Hydrocarbons
* 0.005 grams particulate matter

If you don't, then it doesn't matter how fuel efficient your vehicle is, it is not compliant with the Euro5 standard. (And probably stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing the upcoming revision.)

What I think is meant by: "vehicles with large engines (such light trucks or SUVs) have to use more advanced emission control technologies than vehicles with smaller engines in order to meet the standards." is that larger engines inherently produce more emissions, but have to comply with the same limits as the smaller engines; so they have to do a lot more work to meet those limits.

[pietenpol2002]

Thanks for helping me work toward an understanding Tamber. However, it would seem the efficiency of the engine is a factor. For the given kilometer traveled, our diesel bike will use 1/4 the amount of fuel the diesel auto uses and thus produce 1/4 the amount of pollutants, as the amount of pollutants is directly proportionate to the amount of fuel burned in that kilometer. Therefore, if the test auto produced just under the amount of pollutants you listed and thus met the standard, the bike would have used 1/4 the amount of fuel for the same distance and thus produced 1/4 the amount of pollutants. I recognize that an auto that meets current EPA standards will be far cleaner than the primitive little Yanclones, but if my above understanding is correct the auto would need to be more than 4 times "cleaner" for the bike to fail the standards. And by "cleaner" I mean, technological advances designed to reduce emissions.

My next question is, are current EPA compliant autos truly 4 times cleaner per pound/volume of fuel burned that the Yanclone? If not, (and my interpretation is accurate) it would seem that EPA compliance for a Yanclone fired bike would be childs play.

Am I still missing something

[coachgeo]

I thought in US the engine had to pass a standard as a stand alone. NO distance involved. Just part/mm or simuar measurments over a measured time? That way it does not matter what it eventually goes into for transport, industrial or ??? Granted there are different pass/fail levels per designated use (Transport / Industrial / Off-road etc. Think off-road is being fased out though and soon must meet transport regs?)

[Tamber]

I thought in US the engine had to pass a standard as a stand alone. NO distance involved.

I would guess that, for static engines such as generators, it would be a per-time measurement. (Per-distance would make no sense for a static application, of course. ) However, I was thinking only of transport applications, as that's how the question was posed. Of course, everything I say should probably be taken with a shovelful of salt; as not only am I a complete amateur in the field, I'm on the wrong side of the pond to know the particulars.

However, it would seem the efficiency of the engine is a factor. For the given kilometer traveled, our diesel bike will use 1/4 the amount of fuel the diesel auto uses and thus produce 1/4 the amount of pollutants, as the amount of pollutants is directly proportionate to the amount of fuel burned in that kilometer.

Therefore, if the test auto produced just under the amount of pollutants you listed and thus met the standard, the bike would have used 1/4 the amount of fuel for the same distance and thus produced 1/4 the amount of pollutants.

That would make sense, and probably be correct; so I'm probably agreeing-by-arguing. (I probably shouldn't be trying to do these things after having been up all night. Reading comprehension takes a real dive.)

are current EPA compliant autos truly 4 times cleaner per pound/volume of fuel burned that the Yanclone?

In my non-expert opinion, while I have no idea by how much, I suspect they would be cleaner; having the advantage of a fast, cleverly-programmed onboard computer to adjust fuelling and timing to adapt to changing conditions, and an exhaust with catalytic converter(s), particulate filters, etc. (Leaving out the exhaust treatment differences, they'd still probably be cleaner by being able to control fuel flow and injection timing.)

it would seem that EPA compliance for a Yanclone fired bike would be childs play.

The only way to tell for sure would, of course, be to have the emissions tested; but -- again, n00b opinion. Shovelful of salt and all that -- with an exhaust with appropriate catalytic converter, and particulate filter (little cyclonic thing, perhaps?), it shouldn't be too hard to comply with emissions regs. (After all, it's a fairly small engine, compared to some of the things trundling around on the roads that comply with the regs.)


If you don't mind me hijacking just a little... On a vaguely related note, since we're on the topic of emissions, I found something interesting a while ago;

Exhaust-gas recirculation is a way of reducing Nitrogen Oxides by way of reducing the amount of oxygen in the cylinder for combustion by feeding some combustion products back in, but it causes more soot and -- because it's all the crud you've just got rid of -- isn't exactly kind to the engine.
There's, apparently, a way of achieving the same effect -- oxygen-reduction -- without recirculating all the crud from combustion by using gas-separation membranes, that's been used on a few trucks, and some large marine engines.

http://www.compactmembrane.com/Products/NEA.html (No affiliation with the company, never bought anything from them; just happened to stumble across it whilst researching emissions-reduction stuff.)

Obviously, they're large and bulky because they're applying them to 12+ litre engines; but it would be interesting to see, if (of course) they work as well as they say, the size it'd have to be for a Yanclone or something similar on a motorcycle. After all, the emissions regulations are constantly tightening (Well, they are *here*! 2013, the new Euro6 standard comes into force; and people are already saying it'll be the death of diesel cars. ), and every little helps!

[coachgeo]

I thought in US the engine had to pass a standard as a stand alone. NO distance involved.

I would guess that, for static engines such as generators, it would be a per-time measurement. (Per-distance would make no sense for a static application, of course. )....

Does not make since for transport either when it comes to practicality. Is EPA going to test every car and truck with the same engine? Do they use high dollar portable equipment or build huge dyno to put a vehicle on. Doubt it. Its probably a test stand the engine sits on.... all wired up to sensors and a puter. Again that way the engine is then certified to be used in any vehicle. (if passed). What your saying is they would have to test every vehicle with the same engine.

[Rhynri]

Less fuel usage does not mean less pollutants. I had a 2cyl 2 cycle snowmobile that got about 125mpg, was it anywhere near the cleanliness of my auto, which gets 40mpg and is a PZEV (and a diesel, I might add)? Judging solely by the smell of my clothing after I rode the sled, I'd have to say hell no. I remember some time back reading that California measures emissions per gallon (which is idiotic if it's true) which is why a vehicle such as the Aptera had to have a petrol engine. I think you might have more luck with certing using a car-derived diesel and emissions equip (you won't need the muffler).

[old clunker]

Unfortunately life is never simple or straightforward, especially when it comes to burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine!
despite what the authorities 'fret' about, the main damaging pollutant is carbon dioxide which is gradually changing the make up of the atmosphere, which the results/effects are still disputed by some. Then followed by carbon monoxide, nitric oxides which is also a 'green house' gas, sulphur dioxide which 'helps' with acid rain production; and finally, particulates which can now be detected down to nanometre particle size - which according to the latest World Health Organisation report about diesel pollution produced last month, stated that the combustion of diesel in engines is extremely damaging for human health, and should be stopped!
The only problem is that over 90% of goods around the world are transported by vehicles with diesel engines! Ships tend to burn an even more polluting and cheaper and heavier version of diesel, called bunker oil in their diesel engines. Though there are international moves in technology to try to produce a cleaner version of this fuel to be used in ships.
By improving oil refining techniques, the amount of sulphur dioxide can be reduced, and use of catalytic converters can remove carbon monoxide and nitric oxides at the expense of engine efficiency, and increased fuel consumption, and hence increase in carbon dioxide emissions!!
Catalytic converters fitted can also emit nano particles of metals in the exhaust gasses, of which scientists are unsure about the long term effects to people's health. The same applies to petrol/gasoline engines, who's catalytic emissions aren't as clean as they are made out at the nano scale level.
So EPA standards now seem to be a bit irrelevant in the big scheme of things?!

The main thing for an engine, is to produce the least amount of carbon dioxide per gallon or litre burnt over the distance travelled, hence be as fuel efficient as possible, to reduce carbon dioxide production. And have cleaner lean burn combustion inside the engine, to substantially reduce carbon monoxide and nitric oxide pollutants.
The next big step forward is to use renewable fuels such as biodiesel, where carbon dioxide exhaust gas emissions are absorbed by growing crops, or algae, or other things such as bacteria, which can absorb or feed off the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere whilst they grow, and again produce a renewable fuel crop.

The only other way to dramatically reduce engine emissions, which the authorities now seem to appear really worried about , is just to get around by walking or cycling only! I'm sure that governments won't like that, as they couldn't tax people so easily any more!

[BertTrack]

Should fit a 1hp diesel in an velomobile then. 60mph easily.

And very low consumption.

[UAofE]

main damaging pollutant is carbon dioxide which is gradually changing the make up of the atmosphere

Sorry, that is incorrect. CO2 is not in any way a "harmful" emission, such a claim is purely media hype driven by fear about "man-caused climate change".
Hydrocarbons are the primary damaging pollutant, followed by NOx, then CO and lastly and least CO2.
CO2 is a product of complete combustion. By trying to reduce CO2 you are actively trying to reduce combustion efficiency and increase emissions that are actually harmful (HC, CO and NOx).

So, here are my ponderings. If an EPA compliant diesel car can meet the standard at 40 miles per gallon, our diesel bike achieving 160 miles per gallon (might be a bit of a stretch) could spew out 4 times the amount of pollutants (not that I'm promoting polluting) and still meet the standard when measured in grams of pollutants per mile.

Am I thinking correctly about this?

No. Motorcycles are not in the same category as LDDV.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... 40.19.86.e
"(c) For diesel-fueled motorcycles, use the sampling and analytical procedures and the test fuel described in subpart B of this part for diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles. PM measurement is not required.

Plus, a bike that gets 160mpg would have less than 13hp and few Americans would buy it because it can't maintain highway speeds on anything but flat terrain.
To make a bike that would sell in market viable quantities in the USA, you need 20-60hp. That means either a really heavy 800-1500cc engine or a really expensive 600-1000cc engine.