America's Cup Act of 2011 has passed! Now what?

While it is commendable that the Senate and House passed the America's Cup Act of 2011, I still question the need for the bill. This created a loophole in the Jones Act of 1920 and sets a precedent for every on the water sporting event to be held in the future. It will effect any boat race, power or sail, held in U.S. Waters. The America's Cup World Series Events and the America's Cup Challenge are very big events. The question now is, are they going to write new bills into law for the small events held in Florida, California, Washington and New England that draw international teams? 

Here is the Press Release from the America's Cup Race Authority:

America’s Cup Event Authority today issued the following statement on the America’s Cup Act of 2011:

Saturday, 05 November 2011

“We applaud the members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who voted overwhelmingly in support of the America’s Cup Act of 2011,” said Craig Thompson, Chief Executive Officer, America’s Cup Event Authority. “This Act enables our international field of America’s Cup teams to participate in the only global sporting event currently committed to come to the United States in the next decade.”

The upcoming America’s Cup events in Newport, Rhode Island, San Francisco and San Diego, California are predicted to create thousands of jobs and over $1 billion in economic impact over the next two years. For the first time in history, the America’s Cup will be able to be seen from shore, creating tremendous public access for spectators as well as drawing large spectator crowds to benefit the port cities hosting America’s Cup events.

“We are very proud that our host cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island will benefit greatly from hosting America’s Cup events,” said Thompson. “We are working closely with the cities of San Diego, San Francisco, and Newport, Rhode Island to maximize this economic impact.”

Third party sources estimate a $20-million economic impact to San Diego from the event to be staged November 12-20, 2011, with an estimated $72-million economic benefit to Newport, Rhode Island, which will be held in June 2012.  Additionally, the America’s Cup is predicted to deliver an estimated over $1 billion economic impact to the San Francisco Bay area, with more than 8,500 jobs that will be created due to the America’s Cup.

The 34th America’s Cup is the oldest trophy in modern sport and continues to build upon its rich heritage of leading-edge innovation with an event that is designed to showcase the best sailors in the world on the fastest boats.

Mercury Marine's Report/Testimony on Ethanol to Congress

There was a House Committee hearing on the unintended consequences of increasing Ethanol in fuel  from 10 to 15 percent. I would be willing to bet no one in the news covered this at all. The following is a summary from a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). Mercury Marine was contracted to conduct these tests, and demonstrates some disturbing effects of E15 fuel. Thes tests were exclusively performed on marine engines, and I hope that similar tests are performed on other outdoor power equipment.

The abridged version of the results are that two of three E15 test engines did not finish the test. All three of the non-ethanol control engines finished with no problems.The two-stroke E15 test engine was damaged so badly that Mercury Marine could not determine the cause of failure.

I feel that this information wasn't given enough attention in the hearing. The two stroke engine that was damaged beyond repair retails for approximately $15,000. Nobody mentioned this at the hearing. More attention was given to the testimonies of the EPA and the various individuals representing the Oil, Gas and Ethanol industries.

Click here to view the complete report. The Summary follows:

Objective:

The objective of this work was to understand the effects of running a 15% ethanol blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide-open throttle (WOT) endurance – a typical outboard marine engine durability test. For the three engine families evaluated, one test engine each was endurance tested on E15 fuel with emissions tests conducted on both E0 and E15 fuel, while a second control engine was emissions and endurance tested on E0 fuel for each engine family.

Summary of Results:

Results are based on a sample population of one engine per test fuel. As such, these results are not considered statistically significant, but may serve as an indicator of potential issues. More testing would be required to better understand the potential effects of E15.

9.9HP Carbureted Four-Stroke:

• The E15 engine exhibited variability of HC emissions at idle during end-of-endurance emissions tests, which was likely caused by lean misfire.

o Both the E0 control engine and E15 test engine ran leaner at idle and low speed operation at the end of endurance testing compared with operation at the start of the test.

o The trend of running lean at idle coupled with the additional enleanment from the E15 fuel caused the E15 engine to have poor run quality (intermittent misfire or partial combustion events) when operated on E15 fuel after 300 hours of endurance.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to the leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

• The E15 engine exhibited reduced hardness on piston surfaces based on post-test teardown analysis.

o The exhaust gas temperature increased 17°C at wide open throttle as a result of the leaner operation when using E15 fuel. Higher combustion temperatures may have caused observed piston hardness reductions. Lack of pre-test hardness measurements prevented a conclusive assessment.

• Several elastomeric components on the E15 engine showed signs of deterioration compared with the E0 engine.

o Affected components were exposed to E15 fuel for approximately 2 months; signs of deterioration were evident.

300HP Four-Stroke Supercharged Verado:

• The E15 engine failed 3 exhaust valves close to the end of the endurance test.

o Metallurgical analysis showed that the valves developed high cycle fatigue cracks due excessive metal temperatures.

• The pistons on the E15 engine showed indications of higher operating temperatures compared to the E0 engine’s pistons as evidenced by the visual difference in carbon deposits.

• The E15 engine generated HC+NOx values in excess of the Family Emissions Limit (FEL) when operated on E15 fuel, but did not exceed that limit when operated on E0 emissions certification fuel.

o The primary contributor to this increase in exhaust emissions was NOx due to enleanment caused by the oxygenated fuel.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

200HP EFI 2.5L Two-Stroke:

• The 200 EFI two-stroke engine showed no signs of exhaust emissions deterioration differences due to the fuel.

o The E15 fuel caused the engine to run lean resulting in reduced HC and CO emissions. NOx was of little concern on this type of engine since NOx accounted for less than 2% of the total regulated HC+NOx emissions.

• The E15 engine failed a rod bearing at 256 hours of endurance, which prevented completion of the 300 hour durability test.

o Root cause of the bearing failure was not determined due to progressive damage.

o More testing would be necessary to understand the effect of ethanol on oil dispersion and lubrication in two-stroke engines where the fuel and oil move through the crankcase together.

4.3L V6 EFI Four-Stroke Catalyzed Sterndrive:

• Since E15 fuel was readily available in the test facility and an engine equipped with exhaust catalysts was on the dynamometer, emissions tests were conducted on a 4.3L V6 sterndrive engine to better understand the immediate impacts of ethanol on this engine family.

o At rated speed and load (open-loop fuel control) E15 caused exhaust gas temperatures to increase by 20°C on average and the catalyst temperatures to increase by about 30°C.

o More rapid aging of the catalyst system occur due to the elevated catalyst temperature when considering the high load duty cycle typically experienced by marine engine applications.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

Several issues were discovered in this study from an exhaust emissions and an engine durability standpoint as a result of running E15 fuel in outboard marine engines. Run quality concerns were also identified as a result of the lean operation on the carbureted engine.

Additional investigation is necessary to more fully understand the observed effects and to extrapolate them to all types of marine engines over broader operating conditions. Effects on operation at part load, transient acceleration/deceleration, cold start, hot restart, and other driveability-related concerns need to be evaluated. This test program was mainly testing for end-of-life durability failures, which would not likely be the first issues experienced by the end users. A customer would likely be affected by run quality/driveability issues or materials compatibility/corrosion issues before durability issues. The wide range of technology used in marine engines due to the wide range of engine output will complicate this issue (Mercury Marine produces engines from 2.5HP-1350HP).

More testing is needed to understand how ethanol blends affect lubrication systems in two-stroke engines that have fuel and oil moving through the crankcase together. Crankcase oil dispersion is the only mechanism by which two-stroke engines of this architecture provide lubrication at critical interfaces such as bearings and cylinder walls. Ethanol may have an effect on the dispersion or lubricity of the oil.

A better understanding of how long term storage affects ethanol blends in marine fuel systems would require more real-world testing. Marine vessels often go through long periods of storage that could affect the fuel systems given the fact that the ethanol portion can absorb water when exposed, especially in humid areas near saltwater.

Is the America's Cup in Jeopardy?

San FranciscoBusiness Times reporter Eric Young reported October 27th, 2011 that U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill to the Senate on 20 October 2011 to facilitate the America's Cup Match to occur in San Francisco in 2013. Senate bill 1759 basically saves the America's Cup from the prohibitive rules outlined in the Jones Act of 1920. Commendable for her to do this I think, considering it will be a huge windfall for the City of San Francisco and the State of California. This is an example of a Senator doing the right thing to help out her constituency. There is only one question I have, which by the way is intended to be very cynical. Why was the Jones Act not a problem from 1920 thru 1995, when the Americas Cup was hosted in United States Waters?

 I have read the Bills, S.1759 and H.R.3270 (the House of Representatives nearly identical version), and they seem rather harmless in the grand scheme of things. They are very limited in focus, and effect primarily support vessels for the event. I also re-read every piece of the Jones Act I could think of that might affect the event, and I don’t believe the bills are necessary. Primarily because the waiver authority for Jones Act regulation  already resides with several government agencies. 

They were read twice in their respective forums and will be up for discussion and the a vote. This is government efficiency, right? (Warning, I'm going to get cynical again.)So, my first question stands, why wasn't this a problem from 1920 thru 1995? The next question is, are we going to hear anything about this as it progresses? Answer: Probably not. Why do we care now. Let me think … oh yeah, its an election year next year. This would be a harmless feather in the cap of the good Senator on how her bill saved the America's Cup Event in San Francisco. A more sinister answer could be that since this is an "under the radar" bill (Her office didn't even issue a press release about it), how easy would it be to tack something more meaningful onto it?  I hope this is not the case.

Now, Senator Feinstein has done many things and has many accomplishments. Some of them I actually agree with and some of them (I believe) did more harm than good. I believe that she is doing what she feels is in the best interest of her constituency as well as our country (No I don’t think she's evil), however, I question the need for this Bill now, when the only thing it really threatens immediately is the San Diego America's Cup World Series Match beginning November 12th.

Introduction of this now will not only create panic for the organizers of the America's Cup and the World Series events, but it will open the door for a lot of confusion regarding the Jones Act, which has done pretty well for us since 1920.

Lets leave this fine event and its coverage to the Port Authority of San Francisco, the US Coast Guard, Immigrations  and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the governing body of the America's Cup Event.  I for one think that this should remain a sporting event with a long and distinguished history dating back to 1851, before it became the America's Cup.

In August of 1851, a Schooner christened America raced against 15 other yachts in a 53 nautical mile regatta around the Isle of Wight. She finished 8 minutes ahead of the nearest rival. This is when its said Queen Victoria asked who was second and someone replied to her,"Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second."

Since 1857, the America's  Cup (newly renamed) has been a perpetual challenge trophy via Deed of Gift of the Americas Cup to the New York Yacht Club.

Politics were not involved in 1851, and should not be involved now. It’s a stretch (at the least) to say the Jones Act will interfere with the upcoming events and our politicians have more to worry about than a yacht race in San Diego or San Francisco.