Yachts over 24 meters required to meet IMO TIER III engine emissions next year.

So consider now that you can ask the engine to do a little bit less internally on emissions reduction and the SCR picks up the slack. So you can get the engine dialed back a level to a previous better fuel consumption mode especially at the difficult and hard to achieve test points/duty cycles.

It still has to work out in practice, will have to follow the boat test reports a little more closely.

No one here , at least to my knowledge, is a policy maker for IMO/EPA, what’s left to do but commit yourself to adapting to the upcoming change? The protest period has long since gone by.........

I have lived through all that, lost my first real marine industry job due to the luxury tax debacle. Been through 3 hard economic cycles.

Eventually you have to decide if you want to stay in the marine industry no matter what. Not for the light hearted or undedicated, seen lots of people leave over the years, it becomes a personal decision.

Somehow this reminds me of all the emission BS of the late 60s/early 70s when the EPA mandated a bunch of bandaids which reduced horsepower and resulted in more emissions because you age to burn more fuel to make the same hp. Complete BS. It didn’t work then and it s not going to work now.

Again, you want to reduce pollution and emissions? Go after the polluters. China. India. Russia. Pakistan. Bengladesh. All the stans. Etc. don’t target a few thousand boat owners. It s just plain stupid

just like the little guys like us have to deal with pump out Issues at marina but cruise lines get a pass for dumping raw sewage. Oh... and towns and counties.... we have a massive fish kill and low Origen issue in Biscayne Bay right now in part because of all the sewage spills. But god forbid the USCG boards me and my macerator seacock is Left open without a zip tie....

Ethanol... cute. Typical. I remember 15/20 years ago when that crap was only added their the Midwest. Whenever on a long road trip my MPG would drop 20% thru the Midwest I was wondering if the good ole Strombergs on my V12 were acting up. Nope. The stupid ethanol just had less energy. Thank you Gory Al.

The amount of government funds that go into corn crops is mind boggling, now only if we could lobby like them!

I don't think anyone is saying screw business. We're saying business has had quite a few years. I think the pressure needs to be kept heavy and then at the last minute an extension based on progress that has been made. The engine builders and boat builders all have different solutions, some not requiring DEF and the exhaust system people such as our in and out knowledgeable fiery sometimes trouble exhaust expert on the forum, Marmot.

Unfortunately, Healey of Viking, has taken the stance of throwing up his hands and saying it's impossible and we're not doing it and we'll stop building our 92' and 93'. However, all the engine builders and most other boat builders have continued to work on solutions. Those who build the majority of the boats in that size range will continue to work on it. There is a lot of progress being made. This is the way all pollution equipment has happened with long delays and then still lack of good solutions and then shorter extensions near the time if it's just not quite there yet.

A request for an extension of time was made in May, 2019. It was rejected. However, it's anticipated another request will be made late this year. I'm not surprised the request mad 19 months in advance of the deadline was rejected. I'm sure they felt the need to keep the pressure on. I will be surprised if some additional time or phasing in isn't granted later this year.

The def requirements are the greens way of eliminating use of fossil fuel. When the boating industry says they're eliminating a line of boats because of regulations it's music in the greens ear.
There is talk that foreign flagged vessels will not need this requirement, therefore skirting the regulations. Problem is who will be the first to drop 8 to 10 million on a new boat and test the theory.

We had gasohol (ethanol) in the 1960's in the midwest - under LBJ then Nixon admins. Same 10% as now didn't do much damage. No warranties were not voided with the use. Engine mfgrs have beefed up the hoses and put better grades of metal - subsequently my old 4.7L Chrysler engine burned E85 for almost a decade with no damage.
Got 17-18mpg. With 87 gas would get 20mpg. Outboard mfgrs had the opportunity to beef it up and didn't. Yeah it eats up plastic - it's a given, but not good metals. I took that engine and put it into a wood speedboat and it's still running strong on E85 in Illinois. Our otr diesels burning straight D2 with no additives get 6mpg. With DEF - same = 6mpg = except the exhaust is cleaner now.

Maybe someone can tell me why Calif is allowed to have stricter emission standards than the rest of the country. Do they think by doing so, the air would be cleaner now? Or, is it a money making scheme?

California is locked between the Rockies and the ocean. Air pollution has no place to go.

The Air is definitely cleaner then it used to be. Growing up in the 60's/70's in Orange County, we would get the LA County blow-by effect and it would burn your eyes. Now the population/housing explosion has hurt it a bit, but still manageable for the people who grew up there.

The big issue is the LA emissions layer that blows out southeast and gets trapped in Riverside/San Bernadino County right below the mountains, that stuff can get nasty, feel bad for those living in the Inland Empire.

But travel west to the beach and all is well

Agree, hate air pollution, breathing clean air is nice.
(I Worked in India and in China, as well as short stints in Bangladesh, Bangkok and Pakistan, been there, done that. )
Anything that can be done to curb pollution is a-ok. Sailboats anybody?

Some boats up to 100 feet will still be produced because this is based on Load-Line dimensions.
For example Ferretti new 1000 has a load line length of less then 24 meters. I think the Viking 92 and 93s go above this load line.
So boats above 80 to 100 feet will still be made, and those that have a less load line will be adjusted.
The problem will be 100 to 120 feet which has been a very strong market in recent years.
MTU is studying some new technology as the engine builder will lose a lot of business if this size gets impeded.

I second Viking CEO thoughts this restriction is very much useless on yachting. What does yachting do the environment .001% may be even less to that.

The 24m LLL limit above which a proper license becomes mandatory is pretty much a (UK-driven) European thing, I believe.
That's the reason why all EU builders have 90+ feet boats built in such way (nose cones etc.) that allows the builder to formally register them within the 24m LLL limit, even if the actual length is significantly above that.
I don't think these tricks would allow any 80+ feet boats to escape the emission restrictions in the US.
But I'm happy to stand corrected if anyone knows better.

Ref. the argument of Viking CEO, it's blatantly obvious that this measure alone isn't going to save the planet.
BUT, it's equally obvious that he (and anyone else jumping on the same bandwagon) is using this as a very good excuse.
As OB said, in any business radical changes happen, and being able to adapt to them is (or better said, should be) #1 priority of any executive.
Even more so when changes are VERY predictable, as this particular one happened to be.
I have zero sympathy for him.

Mapis it is very rare me and you disagree on this. But in reality giving the blame about this on the boat builders alone is not correct, and entirely wrong.
In the end Viking - Ferretti - Sunseeker you put a name here are just designing and putting things by other suppliers together.
The boating industry whatever one wants to believe is more akin to the building industry, then the auto making one. More so when the sizes get bigger.

I think the reality of the blame stands more on the guys who do the engines, if we really want to find someone to blame.
But really pushing so hard to make a 24 meters LL yachts (it should be LL by what I am told) to be in the same box as a cruise liner or a commercial ship is just plain stupid.
The commercial guys will do in a month what a yacht might do in ten years.

My post wasn't meant to support the logic of the regulations - I did say that emissions of these boats are obviously irrelevant in the global framework.

But regulations are what they are, and when you are at the helm of a company you can either do your best efforts to work with them, or start screaming and use them as an excuse for decisions which might well have been driven by other factors.

Having been in that position for many years (albeit not in the boating industry), I always went for the former of these two alternatives.
That's why I can't sympathize with anyone who prefer to go for the latter.

You want to blame the engine guys for coming up with a real solution to a Government flow down requirement???

Feadship paid an in country research group too look at alternate solutions. They may have potentially found one, still testing it, and they will still need to go through IMO/EPA for emission certification. Will they hold the liability for all their yachts with this system or others? Will they sell a third party system on the market and hold the emission liabilities on those as well? At what cost to the end user? Most likely Feadship level prices. No telling how long the certification will take, and hard to tell if the solution makes sense for yachts over or under 500GT. And how will it technically translate to a 24m 40 knot SF or 35 knot MY versus a displacement or semi-displacement Feadship Megayacht? All details remain to be seen.

In the meantime you have known solutions provided by all engine manufacturers and backed up by Warranty and certified Emission Labels.