Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Wakesurfing

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-22-2007, 8:44 PM Reply   
I know that Indmar was offering the Catalytic Converter for CARB requirements.

http://www.wakeworld.com/getarticle.asp?articleid=1059

This gentleman, who lost his son to CO poisoning indicates that the CC is the solution.

http://www.skiboatdeaths.com

I also talked with the attorney that was pushing the class action suit and he also spoke to the Catalytic Converter as the "answer".

Does anyone have a link to the research that spells out the reduction in CO with the use of a Catalytic Converter on a boat?
Old    Rich (teamnash)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-22-2007, 10:18 PM Reply   
Does anyone know what are the CO levels emitted from the Indmar catalytic converter system ETX/CAT (Extreme Tuned Exhaust with Catalyst).

Levels over 200 ppm will cause headaches. Higher levels are definitely dangerous.
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       03-23-2007, 6:15 PM Reply   
Not research but the source is reputable.

"90% reduction in automobiles" per the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5137a3.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/co/pdfs/veh_co_abstract.pdf

FAE reports - 80% resuctio to wakesurfers
http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/fae.pdf

Side Swipe report 60% to 90% reduction:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/ectb-171-37a.pdf
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-23-2007, 6:56 PM Reply   
OSHA, I think, has an allowable limit of CO exposure of 50 PPM per 10 hour shift (I want to work at wakesurfing 10 hours per day :-) ). In the two studies presented above the exposure to the wakesurfer is 17 PPM BEFORE the FAE or Sideswipe and then drops to 3 PPM for both devices.

It would seem that the REAL risk isn't to the wakesurfer (17 PPM is lower than the 50 PPM that OSHA allows) but for the folks in the back of the boat due to backdrafting or stationwagon effect.

Did anyone see a figure on the CO concentrations in the back of the boat before and after a CC, FAE or SS?
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       03-23-2007, 8:24 PM Reply   
Ya, the guys sitting on the back corner are at more risk than the surfer.

I thought recalled seeing a CO by boat location ppm graph on one of Larry's reports but I can't find it.
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       03-23-2007, 8:39 PM Reply   
I found a graph on the FAE web site, click the Carbon Monoxide link and scroll down, but the graph doesn't have numbers. He also talks about the “Station Wagon Effect”

http://www.freshairexhaust.com/
Old    Rich (teamnash)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-23-2007, 8:43 PM Reply   
Thanks for the articles above. What's interesting is that CO binds to hemoglobin with a binding affinity 200--270 times greater than that of oxygen and CO is odor less.

What is needed are CO meters/alarms in boats since CO is soo dangerous.

I am curious if anyone has one in their boat?

Doing a quick search on the web I found a portable one for a car for $50. For that price it's worth the investment. Caveat is I don't know how good the device is.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-24-2007, 5:49 AM Reply   
That is a good idea Richard. I had to look at West Marine after you mentioned the car monitor. They had 3 different monitors for CO, 2 were 12V. One of those had a generator cutoff and this one looks like it is of the type you were referring to:

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/232330/0/0/co%20detector/All_2/mode+matchallpartial/0/0
Old    Clubmyke (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       03-24-2007, 7:29 AM Reply   
has anyone taken a look on how his son died ?(very tragic but this could have been avoided).. they should have not been teak surfing...

We had spent the afternoon skiing and wakeboarding with our friends, on their Calabria ski boat. It had been an awesome day and we were heading to shore when Anthony and a friend of his began holding onto the swim platform at the rear of the boat, essentially body surfing.

We had done this at least 150 times before. It's a fun activity holding on to the platform while the boat is going not much more than a couple of miles per hour. I've learned since then that some people call this activity "teak surfing" or "teak dragging," but we just thought of it as body surfing behind the boat; a way of cooling down after a day of boarding and skiing.


it looks like they are in a state of denial, rather than take responseability for their actions. they would rather blame someone else..

(Message edited by clubmyke on March 24, 2007)
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-24-2007, 7:46 AM Reply   
Not to start that argument back up again, but way back in the day...NO ONE was talking about the RISKS of CO poisioning - I hate to admit it, but years and years ago we did it once or twice, also. I know better now, and I think every one does, but PART of the reason is the awareness that is brought about by such tragedy. I agree with you Mike, folks need to take responsibility for their own actions.

The thing that I keep forgetting is that CO poisioning doesn't just affect folks in the water - as Ed and Richard point out, there is a risk of CO poisioning in the boat. I wonder if anyone is lulled into thinking that it's just folks in the water?
Old    Rich (teamnash)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-24-2007, 10:18 AM Reply   
I agree with Jeff that folks in the back of the boat can also be in danger.

I will be buying a CO detector for the boat. Ideally it would have a meter. I would like to move it around the back of the boat and platform to understand what are the CO concentrations in different areas under different conditions.

Tragedies like Anthony's happen due to lack of awareness.

I was not aware of how dangerous until reading the above information.

We did buy a boat this year with the Indmar catalytic converter system. Now I am glad I spent the extra $1500 since I hesitated when making the decision.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-25-2007, 6:20 AM Reply   
Richard, if you don't mind me asking, what caused you to make the decision to spend the extra $1.5K on the CC? That's a sizeable amount.
Old    Show (bigshow)      Join Date: Feb 2005       03-25-2007, 7:58 AM Reply   
Dose anyone know what the Side Swipe option runs?

Compare the cost of CO mitigation options:
EXT CaT......$1,500
Side Swipe...$TBD
FEA...........~$370
Old    Nick (nickypoo)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-26-2007, 8:35 AM Reply   
I bought the FAE for the people in the back of the boat. I never had an issue with CO while surfing, but while being ballast, I could definitely smell exhaust. Where there's smoke, there's fire and the first day out with the FAE, everyone noticed how much nicer it was in the boat while someone was surfing. It was pretty alarming when I realized just how much exhaust we had been sucking for so long. So far the FAE has been worth every penny, not for the surfer, but for the VAB (Verbally Activated Ballast).
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       03-26-2007, 8:54 AM Reply   
Nick, I love the VAB acronym. :-)

Speaking of acronyms :-) I know that the CC is designed to meet the CARB requirements. It is my understanding that CARB currently only regulates HC and NOx emissions, not the CO emissions. So...we get nebulous statements like:

"Indmar testing shows that the ETX/CAT substantially reduces carbon monoxide (CO) gases in all throttling modes with no measurable engine power loss."

Which I am sure is accurate and a reduction in CO has to be good. It must be my CPA brain in full tax season mode...I'd really like to see a number, something to the effect of: "reduces CO to 12 PPM" then we'd know that THIS option pretty much takes care of the CO issue.

I guess I'm back to my original question, does anyone know what the CO output is for the CC equipped marine engine?

Also, has anyone followed the CARB requirments for marine engines? I have tried to read what the requirements are and I swear the Internal Revenue Code is easier to understand.
Old    Rich (teamnash)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-26-2007, 7:30 PM Reply   
Jeff,
Looking into the details of the upgrade on the Indmar engine the entire $1500 can't be attributed to the CC. However, to get the CC you have to purchase a different engine and this does does cost $1500.

I also agree that Indmar has not provided details on levels of CO reduction - a question I posed earlier.

Earlier you posed a question as to why I upgraded to the ETX/CAT + CC engine. I'd say the biggest reason it's one of the cleanest burning engines and I have young kids who will be spending a lot of time in the boat. Amortize this over 6 years and the difference is not that much.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:57 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us