Evaluation and Development of an
On-Highway Motorcycle Evaporative
Emission Reduction Strategy
£% United States
Environmental Protect
Agency
-------
Evaluation and Development of an
On-Highway Motorcycle Evaporative
Emission Reduction Strategy
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using
data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments.
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE:
4>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-21 -016
August 2021
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
Importance of Evaporative Emission Reduction from ON-HMC 5
Canister Design Requirement: Starting Point 6
Motorcycle Canister Evaluation and Development Program Goals 7
Test Program: Motorcycle Detail 9
On-Highway Motorcycle Descriptions 9
Vehicle Preparation 13
Methods 14
Preparatory Test Cycles 14
Dynamometer 16
Test Fuels 16
SHED Testing Protocol 17
Butane Working Capacity (BWC) Testing Protocol 17
Results 18
Metropolitan 49cc 18
SHED Test with FTP and LEV III 18
Super Cub 125cc 19
SHED Test Results 19
FTP and LEV III 19
WMTC and LEV III 20
WMTC and E5 Test Fuel (with EPA temperatures) 21
WMTC and Tier 3 Test Fuel (with EPA temperatures) 22
Butane Working Capacity (BWC) 23
Carbon Durability 24
Wolf 300 (278cc) 25
SHED Test Results 25
FTP and LEV III 25
Feasibility of Canister BWC/Fuel Tank v Three Day Emission Total 26
Prototype Canisters 27
Prototype canister test results on FTP with LEV III Test Fuel 27
1
-------
SHED Test of the Wolf 300 Without the Fuel System 31
Summary of Findings 33
Leak Test 34
Conclusions 35
Appendix A: Triumph BWC Testing 39
Appendix B: Test Fuels and Parameters 42
LEV III Test Fuel 42
E5 Test Fuel 45
Tier 3 Test Fuel 46
References 50
2
-------
Executive Summary
The US EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory participated in an evaporative
testing effort with the Manufacturers of Emissions Control Association and the California Air
Resources Board. The goals of this work included reduction of evaporative emissions from an
on-highway motorcycle through application of a canister design criteria. The canister design
criteria is a linear relationship of canister Working Capacity/Fuel Tank v 3-day diurnal emission
total and was developed by CARB based on their SHED testing of several Class III on-highway
motorcycles. For this work a goal of 3g over the three day SHED test was utilized. If a
motorcycle's emissions were higher than 3g over the three day SHED test, then evaporative
emissions would ideally be reduced by using a canister with a higher working capacity which
was determined from the canister Working Capacity/Fuel Tank ratio which yielded the 3g value.
If a motorcycle's three-day evaporative emissions were below the 3g, then it was noted as a
system which proved the feasibility of the evaporative emission level and subsequent test
fuel/test cycle comparison testing was performed.
EPA conducted multiple three-day diurnal evaporative emissions tests on three on-highway
motorcycles that incorporated electronic fuel injection and three-way catalyst which are the
technologies used to meet the Euro5 exhaust emission levels. The newly purchased motorcycles
included a Honda Metropolitan (49cc), a Honda Super Cub (125cc) and an Alliance Powersports
Wolf 300 (278cc). The vehicles were aged to 600 miles prior to the first SHED test and
manufacturer maintenance was performed. The <50cc engine was chosen for evaporative
emission baselining and had no canister. Results of three-day diurnal SHED testing of the Super
Cub showed that it met the goal of less than lg/day of evaporative emissions over the three days.
This means that the existing canister is of sufficient design and no changes to the system are
required. The Wolf 300 exceeded the goal of 1 g/day over three days and the canister design
approach to evaporative emission reduction was applied and tested.
Due to the low evaporative emissions from the Super Cub, additional evaporative emission
comparisons were made which included a change of the preparatory cycle from the FTP to the
WMTC as well as the use of LEV III, E5 and Tier 3 test fuels with the WMTC cycle. SHED
temperatures were set using the automotive relationship of LEV III with CARB temperatures and
Tier 3 and E5 with EPA temperatures due to the respective fuel RVP values. Differences in
evaporative emission levels were seen in the three-day diurnals from use of the different
preparatory cycles. The FTP is a 30-minute cycle and the WMTC is a 20-minute cycle and
hence more canister purge is realized with use of the FTP cycle thereby resulting in lower
evaporative emissions than with the WMTC. Using the WMTC preparatory cycle, evaporative
emission differences were seen in the LEV III/CARB temperatures and E5/Tier 3/EPA
temperatures and were identified as being emissions released during the cooling times of the
diurnal test which were observed from a cumulative data figure. All emission test results were
below the lg/day goal.
The canister design criteria was used to determine a higher canister working capacity level for
the Wolf 300 to achieve 3g or less evaporative emissions over a three day diurnal. Testing of the
3
-------
Wolf 300 with several higher working capacity motorcycle canisters did not yield the expected
results. Snoop testing of the motorcycle revealed that there was a leak at the fuel tank cap
keyhole area and measures to reduce evaporative emission reductions were not successful to
achieve the goal. The findings of the testing on the Wolf 300 were used to develop a list of
design/test considerations whose use could more assure reduced evaporative emissions from this
motorcycle. An attempt was made to develop a leak test using a measurement tool however was
unsuccessful and further evaluation is required.
Introduction
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) conducted an On-Road Motorcycle Workshop on
November 17, 2020 in which they stated that they are looking at more stringent evaporative
emission regulations for On-Road Motorcycles. CARB currently has a one-hour heat build
evaporative emission test requirement which is met with the use of evaporative canisters. A
longer evaporative emission requirement may require changes to the current canister designs.
For the 2020 Workshop, CARB performed multiple-day diurnal emission tests on several Class
III ON-HMC1 and found a linear relationship between the canister Working Capacity/Fuel Tank
versus the 3-day total diurnal evaporative emissions (g). Additional testing and evaluation were
performed by a group that included the Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association
(MECA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB). MECA's work11 included the evaluation of properties of existing evaporative
canisters on several of the CARB and EPA tested ON-HMCs as well as the conduct of bleed
emission testing on a number of fuel systems. This report describes EPA's efforts which include
the performance of several three-day diurnal evaporative emission tests on three Class Ia-II low
exhaust emission on-highway motorcycles (ON-HMC)1"1 and the conduct of Butane Working
Capacity (BWC) studies on two canisters. The baseline 3-day diurnal emission results, along
with the BWC/Fuel tank(L) ratio, for each motorcycle were added to the data which formed a
linear relationship from the Class III motorcycle evaporative test results by CARB. The
Metropolitan (49cc) was tested for baseline evaporative emissions for it did not have a canister
since it is not regulated by CARB. The Super Cub (125cc) met the lg/day (3g over three day)
evaporative emission goal and so additional SHED testing was also performed. Testing included
a comparison of 3-day diurnal evaporative emission results from the use of two preparatory
cycles - the World Motorcycle Test Cycle (WMTC) and the Federal Test Procedure (FTP). A
comparison of evaporative emission results from the use of three different test fuels along with
the WMTC preparatory cycle was also performed. EPA applied CARB's canister design criteria
to the Wolf 300 which proved to be a high evaporative emission motorcycle on the three-day
evaporative emission test. The goal was to see if its use would result in the motorcycle
evaporative emissions meeting of the three-day total of 3g (lg/day over three days). Lastly, a
leak test was performed to determine if the amount of leak could be characterized.
1 Emission levels on this motorcycle were similar to those of Euro5 emission levels as tested on the FTP with Tier 2
(E0) certification test fuel. Fueling system is electronic fuel injection which means the higher evaporative emissions
from carbureted fueling systems is not of concern. EPA evaporative emission requirements include permeation
limits for fuel tank and hoses.
4
-------
Importance of Evaporative Emission Reduction from ON-HMC
CARB noted in their 2020 On-Highway Motorcycles Workshop that their current EMission
FACtor (EMFAC) modeling illustrated that evaporative emissions are the largest contributor to
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions from ON-HMC in California, see Figure l1-2.
Currently motorcycles sold in California must meet CARB's evaporative requirements for
motorcycles which result in the use of an evaporative canister to meet the 2 gram standard in the
1-hour heat build test111.3
Total Baseline ROG + NOx
ROG
Exhaust
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year
Figure 1: Q4RB Evaporative ROG Contribution to overall ROG+NOx from ON-HMC in CA'
This study focuses on small displacement motorcycles that have exhaust emission levels similar
to Euro5 implemented in Europe in 2020/2021. Electronic fuel injection, three-way catalyst and
closed loop fuel control are some of the technologies that bring motorcycles into compliance
with Euro5 regulations4. A summary of exhaust emission standards for the European Union and
the US EPA/CARB5 is shown in Table 1. The US EPA hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
certification levels for the study motorcycles are also listed. Nearly all of the emission
standards/levels are based on the FTP test cycle and Tier 2 (E0) test fuel. Euro5 exhaust
standards are based on the WMTC and E5 test fuel and therefore are not directly comparable to
the EPA/CARB standards.
2 The exhaust emission values decrease over time in Figure 1 due to the implementation of Euro5 emission levels in 2020/2021
for motorcycles sold in Europe and the reality that these ON-HMC, or slightly modified version of, are sold in California. For
many in the motorcycle industry, the same motorcycle designs are sold throughout the world. Modifications to the same design
for areas with lower emission requirements would include less catalyst efficiency depending on the respective exhaust emission
requirements in the specific country, or the removal of a canister.
3 CARB does not have the fuel tank and hose permeation requirement as required by the US EPA, however it is plausible that
manufacturers utilize the same fuel tank and hose in California sold motorcycles to make uniform products across North
America.
4 The Euro5 standards are based on the World Motorcycle Test Cycle and use of E5 test fuel while the EPA/CARB standards are
based on the FTP and Tier 2 (E0) test fuel.
5 At the time of this report, CARB is working towards a new regulation for ON-1TMC which may include the adoption of Euro5
standards and WMTC test procedure.
5
-------
Table 1: Exhaust Emission Standards for Euro 5 and EPA/CARB
Emissions
I-IC
NOx
CO
NMITC
Test Fuel
Test
Standards (g/km)
Cycle
Euro5
0.1
0.06
1.0
0.068
E5 (5% ethanol)
WMTC
EPA/CARB - Class III
HC+NOx: 0.8
12
-
Tier 2 (0% ethanol)
FTP
EPA/CARB -
HC: 1.0 or
12
-
Tier 2
FTP
Class la, lb, II
HC+NOx: 1.4
STUDY MOTORCYCLES (US EPA Online Emission Certification Data
v. NOx data was not listed):
Honda Metropolitan
0.2
0.7
-
Tier 2
FTP
2019 Honda Super Cub
0.1
0.6
-
Tier 2
FTP
Alliance Powersports
Wolf 300
0.1
0.7
-
Tier 2
FTP
Canister Design Requirement: Starting Point
CARB performed multiple day diurnal evaporative emission tests on a number of Class III
motorcycles. The emission results for the first 3 days were totaled and plotted versus canister
Working Capacity(g)6/Fuel Tank (L). The resultant graph shared at the CARB 2020 Workshop1
is shown in Figure 2.
A linear relationship is discovered for most of the data. Ideally, the linear relationship could be
used as a canister design requirement to achieve reduced evaporative emissions from on-highway
motorcycles. The Working Capacity of a canister divided by the fuel tank volume should ideally
yield the 3-day emissions level on the y axis. Figure 2 shows that the value of 1.6 Working
Capacity/Fuel Tank (L) would yield a 3-day emissions level of 3 g (lg/day over three days).
Canister Working Capacity/Tank Sire vs.
Total 3-Day Emissions
*
Outliers
Leakers!
• \
• >
050 070 0.90 1.10 1.30 ISO 1.70 1.90 2.10 2.30
Canister Working Capacity (g)/Tank Volume (I)
11/17/20 37
Figure 2: Canister Working Capacity (g)/Fuel Tank Size (L) vs Total Three-Day Hydrocarbon Diurnal Emissions'
0 The Working Capacity of an evaporative canister is determined through a specific test on the canister using either Butane or
Gasoline. The procedure for the Butane Working Capacity (BWC) used in this report is listed further into the report. The
Working Capacity values for this figure were obtained by OEMs from the canister manufacturers and were not individually tested
by the engine manufacturers. The values are understood to be Gasoline Working Capacity or possibly a mix of BWC and GWC
test results as the basis for Working Capacity was not defined in the submittals by the OEMs to CARB.
6
-------
One of the objectives of the EPA project is to determine whether the multi-day diurnal
evaporative emission results from several smaller low emitting On-Highway Motorcycles (one
each of Class la, lb, II), with electronic fuel injection (EFI) and a three-way catalyst (TWC),
have the same linear relationship7 as the Class III motorcycles. Another objective is to find out if
the ideal relationship is realized in practical application.
Motorcycle Canister Evaluation and Development Program Goals
EPA performed three-day diurnal evaporative emission tests on three smaller displacement ON-
HMC. Two of the ON-HMC, one Class lb and one Class II, were equipped with canisters to
meet CARB's current evaporative requirements m. The third motorcycle, a Class la, does not
have a canister for CARB currently does not regulate motorcycles below 50cc. Several details on
the three on-highway motorcycles are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Details of Three On-Highway Motorcycles for EPA Test Program
ON-
Manufacturer
Model
Weight
Engine
Fuel
Canister
HMC
(dry)
Size/Class
Tank
Dimensions
#
Size
(gal/L)
1
Honda
Metropolitan
179 lbs
49cc/
Class la
1.2/4.5
No canister
2
Honda
Super Cub
240 lbs
125cc/
Class lb
1.0/3.8
2" diax 5" long
3
Alliance
Powersports
Wolf 300
388 lbs
278cc/
Class II
3.7/14
2.5" diax 3.5-5.0"
long
The goals for the EPA test program include:
1) EVAPORATIVE CANISTER PLACEMENT AND OUTER DIMENSION
MEASUREMENT
o Identify the placement of the canister on each ON-HMC and the location to the
engine/fuel tank,
o Measure outer dimensions of canisters.
2) BASELINE EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
o Perform multiple three-day diurnal evaporative emission tests, on ON-HMC #2 and 3,
to determine if the current canisters are sufficient to meet a lg/day maximum.
3) WORKING CAPACITY/FUEL TANK vs THREE DAY EMISSION TOTAL
RELATIONSHIP FOR SMALLER ON-HMC SAME AS FOR CLASS III:
o Calculate the BWC(g)8/Fuel Tank(L) for ON-HMC #2 and 3 in Table 2
¦ Utilize the BWC(g) from MECA testing of new canisters
7 Note that during this project it was determined that the Working Capacity values obtained by CARB were mostly/all Gasoline
Working Capacity. A figure based on Butane Working Capacity (BWC) was assembled using BWC test results from MECA.
8 It is assumed that the Working Capacity = Butane Working Capacity and not Gasoline Working Capacity. CARB
noted that the Working Capacity value was not identified in the submissions by the OEMs.
7
-------
o Plot BWC/Fuel Tank (L) vs. 3-day evaporative emission results from ON-HMC #2
and 3 and compare to the linear relationship found by CARB for Class III ON-HMC
(Figure 2).
4) PREPARATORY CYCLE COMPARISON:
o Perform three-day diurnal emission SHED tests using WMTC and LEV III on an ON-
HMC that meetslg/day maximum for three days.
¦ Note any emission differences to FTP and LEV III emission test results.9
FUEL COMPARISON WITH WMTC PREPARATORY CYCLE:
Perform three-day diurnal emission SHED tests using WMTC and E5 test fuel10 on
an ON-HMC that meets the lg/day maximum for three days.
¦ Compare to results from WMTC and LEV III.
Perform three-day diurnal emission SHED tests using WMTC and Tier 3 test fuel on
an ON-HMC that meets the lg/day maximum for three days.
¦ Compare to results from WMTC and LEV III as well as E5.
6) APPLY CANISTER DESIGN CRITERIA TO PROVE FEASIBILITY OF METHOD:
o For the ON-HMC which exceeds lg/day emissions over three days, determine the
appropriate canister BWC(g) for meeting the goal of lg/day. Use the BWC/Fuel Tank
ratio from Figure 2 that may bring the bike into compliance (1.6 or greater),
o Determine if an existing canister is available with the appropriate BWC or if a
prototype canister is needed. MECA performed BWC testing on a number of
canisters from CARB and EPA test programs,
o Retest the ON-HMC with the new canister to confirm passing of lg/day max over
each of the three days.
o If does not meet the target emission level then investigate the ON-HMC for additional
sources of evaporative emissions,
o List additional criteria needed for canister design specification list (not including a
SHED test).
7) PERFORM BUTANE WORKING CAPACITY TEST ON TWO ON-HMC CANISTERS
o Two canisters are to be tested - one new and one used (for different ON-HMC)
¦ Compare results to MECA testing on a similar new canister
¦ Comment on any findings on canister capacity reduction (BWC) with testing
of one used canister and compare to like new canister tested by MECA.
5) TEST
o
9 Note that the WMTC will be a shorter length test (20 mill) than the FTP (30 mill) for ON-HMC #2 and will be the same length
for ON-HMC #3. The shorter time can mean less canister purge time.
10 E5 has RVP in the range of EPA Tier 2 RVP levels and LEV III fuel has lower RVP than EPA Tier 2 RVP. Based on the
relationship of RVP and test temperatures for LDV, tests with E5 will utilize EPA temperatures and Tests with LEV III will
utilize CARB temperatures.
8
-------
Table 3 shows the test matrix for this study. The Metropolitan does not have a canister and so the
canister related tests do not apply to this ON-HMC. The Triumph Triple Street CARB canister11
and a used canister for a Super Cub were tested with BWC protocols.
Table 3:On-Highway Motorcycles and Planned Testing
On-Highway
Motorcycle
Baseline
3-Day Diurnal
Goal: 1 g/day or less
3-Day Diurnal
Butane Working
Capacity Testing
of Canister
FTP
WMTC
LEV III
CARB TEMP
LEV III
CARB TEMP
E5
EPA TEMP
Tier 3
EPA TEMP
Metropolitan (49cc)
4.5L Fuel Tank
(no canister)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Super Cub (125cc)
3.8L Fuel Tank
NA
Wolf 300 (278cc)
14L Fuel Tank
NA
Grom/Super Cub
Used Canister (1068
miles)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Triumph CA
canister
NA
NA
NA
NA
Test Program: Motorcycle Detail
The following describes details of the ON-HMCs used in this study. If applicable, the placement
of the canister is identified on each bike. Initial outer canister dimensions are also noted.
On-Highway Motorcycle Descriptions
1. Metropolitan (49cc)
The Metropolitan by Honda is shown in Figure 3. This ON-HMC is currently not
regulated by CARB and therefore does not employ an evaporative canister12. This vehicle
was chosen for this study in order to characterize the evaporative emissions from <50cc
ON-HMC. The fuel tank holds 1.2 gallons and is located at the feet of the rider. The
engine is located next to the rear wheel on a similar level to the fuel tank.
11 The Triumph Triple Street was found to have a European canister and a California (CARB) canister which were different
designs and a BWC was determined for each. EPA tested the CA canister while MECA tested the European canister.
12 The ON-HMC does employ components which comply with the EPA permeation tank and hose requirements.
9
-------
Figure 3: Honda Metropolitan (49cc)
2. Super Cub (125cc)
The Super Cub by Honda is shown in Figure 4. The fuel tank on the Super Cub is one
gallon (3.78L) and is located under the seat. Location of the evaporative emission
canister is near the footrests as shown in Figure 5. A comparison of the two figures
shows that the ON-FIMC has a shroud covering the canister. It appears that there is
sufficient room for a larger canister, if needed.
Ultimate Motorcycling
2019 Honda Super Cub C125 ABS First Look | 9
Figure 4: 2019 Honda Super Cub
10
-------
Figure 5: Placement of Canister on 2019 Super Cub
Outer dimensions of the canister on the Super Cub (125 cc) are 2" in diameter and 5" long as
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Super Cub Canister Outer Dimensions
3. WOLF 300 (278 cc)
The Wolf 300 by Alliance Powersports11 is shown in Figure 7. The Wolf 300 was
chosen for this study for it is a non-US or Japanese manufacturer Class II ON-HMC and
it was EPA/'CARB certified to near Euro5 exhaust emission levels, as shown in Table 1.
The fuel tank on the Wolf is 14L.
The location of the canister on the Wolf 300 is tucked tightly below the fuel tank and
above the engine, see Figure 7 and Figure 8. Moving the existing canister or
incorporating a larger one would likely require some reconfiguration of the motorcycle.
13 The Wolf 300 motorcycle was discontinued in the US in 2021.
11
-------
Figure 7: Wolf300 Showing Canister Placement
Figure 8: Close up of location of canister on Wolf300 - below the fuel tank
Vent hoses from the canister are seen in Figure 9. These hoses are close to the ground where dust
and water can possibly find its way inside the hoses.
12
-------
Figure 9: The canister has two vent hoses that are directed downward.
The outer canister measurements are 2.5 inch diameter and 3.5-5 inches long, as shown in Figure
10. The canister body appears to be smaller than that used on the Super Cub and the fuel tank is
much larger on the Wolf 300 (14L) than on the Super Cub (3.78L), in Figure 6, so it is expected
that this canister is sized only to meet the current 1 hour diurnal requirement from CARB.
Figure 10: Outer Dimensions of the Evaporative Canister from the Wolf 300
Vehicle Preparation
The vehicles were prepared for evaporative emission testing as follows.
1. Visual inspection of ON-HMCs
a. Confirm the motorcycle has a canister system, if the engine was greater than 50 cc.
13
-------
b. Confirm that the motorcycle had an engine which was low emitting according to
EPA/CARB certification database engine family name on the engine label.
c. Examine for visual leaks
2. OEM procedures for vehicle break-in were followed
a. Drive each motorcycle for 1000 km
b. Change the engine oil and check all fluids and filters, adjust as needed
3. Inspect the motorcycles to ensure they were safe to operate on a dynamometer
Methods
Preparatory Test Cycles
The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), Figure 11, and the World Motorcycle Test Cycle (WMTC),
Figure 12, were utilized for this test program as the preparatory cycles for the SITED tests. The
WMTCV is of interest for CARB is considering this test cycle for their next motorcycle
regulation14.
Stabilized Phase
506-1372 s
Hot Soak Period
Hot-Start
Transient
ranstent
Phi) so
Phase
505 s
0-505 s
500
1000
Time, s
1500
2000
2500
Figure 11: Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for On-Highwav Motorcycles (mph)y
14 Emission regulations from other countries for two- and three-wheeled vehicles/motorcycles utilize this test cycle
including Euro5 and those countries that adopt UNECE GTR2.
14
-------
140 i
Part 2
Part 3
Part 1
20
100
80
60
5
40
20
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0
Time [s]
Vehicle speed parts 1,
Vehicle speed parts 1,
2 & 3
2 8c 3 reduced
Figure 12: World Motorcycle Test Cycle 'II \IT('/ (kmph)v"
The FTP, Figure 11, is operated the same for each motorcycle. The one exception is that the top
speed is adjusted to the vehicle's top speed if a vehicle is not able to reach the FTP maximum
speed of nearly 57 mph. The Metropolitan falls into this category as its top speed was found to
be 37 mph according to EPA testing. The total time of the test cycle is 30 minutes for all
motorcycles. The FTP is 11.4 miles in length.
The WMTC, Figure 12, has a different number of parts and different maximum speeds for
different vehicle Classes as identified in Euro5vm and UN ECE GTR21X. The tests are different
lengths of time depending on the vehicle Class designation which is based on vehicle maximum
speed and in some cases engine displacement. Each part is 10 minutes in length. The full
WMTC (all three parts) is approximately 13.2 miles.
The Metropolitan (49cc, Vmax=64.4 kph (Honda)) is a Class I according to WMTC
protocol for it is <150cc and vmax 50-100km/h. This motorcycle is tested with two runs
(cold and hot) of part 1 with reduced vehicle speed for a total test length of 20 minutes.
The maximum speed is 50kph or 3 lmph.
The Super Cub (125cc, vmax=88 kph (EPA test)) is a Class 1 according to WMTC
protocol, <150cc and Vmax 50-100km/h, and therefore would have the same test cycle as
the Metropolitan. However, for the EPA testing the ON-HMC was tested as a Class 2-1
with part 1 and part 2 both with reduced max speed. CARB is considering vehicles with
maximum speeds of 85krn/h or higher to be in Class 2-11:5 This test length is also 20
minutes.
15 The Super Cub was able to reach speeds of 88 kph and therefore had sufficient room to meet the maximum speed
of 82.5 kph in the part 2 with reduced speed. If tested at only part 1 speeds, then this 88kph ON-HMC would only
be tested at a max speed of 50kph/31 mph which is not representative of the vehicle's capability and is less than the
current FTP.
15
-------
The Wolf 300 (Vmax=137 kph) is a Class 3-1 according to WMTC protocol, Vmax=130 to
<140 km/h, which means the WMTC cycle for this motorcycle would include all three
parts with part 3 having reduced speed. The length of the WMTC test for this motorcycle
is 30 minutes which is the same length of time as the FTP. The WMTC includes higher
test speeds, in the third part, than the FTP which is more representative of real-world use
in North America.
For the WMTC, the smaller bikes have shorter length (time) test cycles compared to the larger
bikes. While this will influence the amount of purge a canister sees compared to the FTP, which
has the same test length for all bikes, the real-world use of the smaller bikes should be
considered. In the US, scooters with engines <50cc are used on college campus's due to the fact
that the rider may not need a motorcycle license to drive such a vehicle. These operation times
could be 5 to 10 to 20 minutes depending on the size and sprawl of the campus. Motorcycles
able to reach 88kph/55mph are still not sufficient for federal highways however may be used for
longer secondary road trips however very likely are not used for highway travel or cross country
trips as are larger motorcycles.
Dynamometer
The dynamometer used for this test program was an EPA light duty vehicle dynamometer (48"
roll with 60001b capacity). The specific dynamometer and analyzers had been proven in a
previous test program on a 3001b child atv to drive the atv sufficiently to result in expected
exhaust emission results for this vehicle in a round robin test program. The motorcycles used in
this test program weighed(dry) 178, 240 and 388 lbs as shown in Table 2. The dynamometer
was successful in putting the motorcycles through the various FTP and WMTC test cycles to
result in appropriate vehicle warmup.
The equivalent inertia mass (EIM) dynamometer settings (A and C coefficients) from the FTP
were utilized for both the FTP and WMTC. For the Super Cub and the Wolf 300 the calculated
force from the EIM's for the WMTC were near equal compared to those for the FTP. The
Metropolitan was only run with the FTP for baseline evaporative emission testing. No exhaust
emission data was collected in this test program.
Test Fuels
The test fuels used in this test program include LEV III, E5 and Tier 3. Several specific fuel
properties are listed in Table 4. Full test reports for each fuel by the EPA Chemistry Laboratory
are contained in Appendix B.
Table 4: Test Fuel Properties for LEV III, E5 and Tier 3X
Analysis Parameter
Unit
LEV III
E5
Tier 3
Value
Value
Value
Ethanol confirmatory
Volume%
9.84
5.2
9.5
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent
Psi
7.01
8.6
8.9
Distillation Initial Boiling Point
F
109
95
99
10% evaporated
F
137
122
129
16
-------
50% evaporated
F
209
205
202
90% evaporated
F
320
324
321
Evaporated final boiling point
F
358
393
386
Total Aromatic Hydrocabons
Volume%
21
32
24
Research Octane
92
99.7
92
Hydrogen
Weight %
13.68
13.54
13.76
Density, 60F
g/mL
0.7484
0.7554
0.7459
SHED Testing Protocol
The SHED tests were done using the protocol listed below for the baseline 3-day diurnal
emission testing.
1. Drain and 50% fill with test fuel (if changing test fuel be sure to operate the vehicle for
15 or more minutes).
2. Soak the vehicle at 68 °F for 6 to 36 hours.
3. The prep is either "UDDS" for any test involving the FTP or the actual WMTC cycle for
a test involving the WMTC cycle on test day
4. Drain and 50% fill with current test fuel.
5. Perform a canister loading using 50/50 butane/nitrogen to 2 gram breakthrough 16
6. Soak the motorcycle at 68-86 °F for 6 to 36 hours.
7. Prep 2 - Drive an FTP 3-bag or WMTC drive cycle (whichever test cycle is specified for
the specific test) on the dynamometer
8. One hour EPA hot soak test in the VT SHED at 68 -86 °F.
9. Leave vehicle in SHED if possible and allow temperature to stabilize to diurnal start
temperature for a minimum of 6 hours.
10. Run 3-day diurnal test with specified temperature profile.17
a. California LEV III fuel cycling of temperatures are 65-105-65 °F.
b. E5 and Tier 3 test fuel cycling temperatures were 68-96-68F.
11. Determine results in grams for hot soak and diurnal tests.
Butane Working Capacity (BWC) Testing Protocol
Two canisters were tested using the Butane Working Capacity (BWC) protocol. These included
a used canister from a Honda Grom (same canister is used on the Honda Super Cub) and a
canister from a Triumph Triple Street with a 765cc engine (California bike version - not
European). The Triumph had sufficient BWC and so was deemed a match for the Wolf as a
prototype canister.
10 The protocol was slightly different for baseline 3-day evaporative SHED testing and for SHED testing with a prototype
canister. The prototype canister tests including a purging of the canister prior to the SHED test due to the fact that the ON-HMC
was not designed with the prototype canister in mind.
17 E5 and Tier 3 test fuel cycling temperatures were 68-96-68F were used in place of the CARB temperatures of 65-105-65 due to
the fact that the E5 and Tier 3 test fuel had similar RVP. LDV testing showed this relationship to yield equivalent results. Note
that the LDV diurnal standard is 0.3g which is much less than the l.Og being considered for ON-HMC by CARB at the time of
writing of this report.
17
-------
The protocols were as follows18:
1. Purge canister
a. Using fresh air volume equal to the equivalent of 300 times the canister carbon
bed volume. Rate for purge is 22.7 L/min unless otherwise specified in the specific test
described herein.
b. Weigh canister and record
2. Load canister
a. BWC: 15 grams per hour butane with 50/50 butane/nitrogen mix until 2g
breakthrough
b. Weigh canister and record
3. Repeat steps 1-2 as necessary for repeat tests
Results
The evaporative test protocol is begun with motorcycles having a 50% fill fuel tank and a
preparatory test cycle of either the FTP or WMTC. The ON-HMCs used in this study have high
fuel efficiency and as a result it means that a small amount of fuel is used over the preparatory
cycle. The FTP covers 11.4 miles and the WMTC is approximately 13.2 miles on the full
WMTC (all three parts). Evaporative emissions are typically higher when there is more open
space in the fuel tank as more vapors are generated.
Metropolitan 49cc
The Metropolitan is not currently emission regulated by CARB, for it is below 50cc, and
as a result does not have a canister on the bike for evaporative emissions. The vehicle
does comply with EPA requirements for hose and fuel tank permeation. The
Metropolitan has a 4.5L fuel tank and has been reported to get 117 mpgxl. At 50% fill, the
fuel tank will have approximately 2.3L of fuel and 2.3L of free space prior to the dyno
test.
SHED Test with FTP and LEV III
Two tests were performed on the Metropolitan using the FTP preparatory cycle. One test
was with the LEV III test fuel and CARB diurnal temperatures and the other test was
with the Tier 3 test fuel and EPA diurnal temperatures. The evaporative emission results
are listed in Table 5 and the single test results show that the total diurnal emissions with
the Tier 3/EPA temperatures were 25% lower than the LEV III/CARB temperatures.19
18 Canister Butane Working Capacity was determined following the EPA light-duty test procedures outlined in 40
CFR § 86.132-96(h)(l)(i-iv) with some modifications for motorcycles including not including the 2g breakthrough
in the reported numbers.
19 Multiple tests were not performed so statistical significance cannot be determined.
18
-------
Table 5 .'Evaporative Emission Results for the Honda Metropolitan (no evaporative canister) with FTP Preparatory Cycle
Test
LEV III fuel
Tier 3 fuel
CARB temperatures
EPA temperatures
Hot Soak (g/1 hour)
0.017
0.05
Day 1 (g)
2.84
2.084
Day 2 (g)
2.72
1.965
Day 3 (g)
1.89
1.555
Total Diurnal (g)
7.45
5.604
Super Cub 125cc
The Super Cub meets the current CARB evaporative emission requirements (2-hour test
including one hour diurnal) and employs an evaporative canister. The fuel tank on the
Super Cub is 3.8L. According to Honda UK Media Newsroom™, the Super Cub is able to
achieve 1.5L/100km (157mpg) (WMTC mode) with a 3.78L/1 gallon fuel tank. For the
FTP preparatory cycle, the 3.78L fuel tank will be filled to 1.9L and use 0.27L during the
FTP preparatory test with a resultant 1.6L of fuel in the fuel tank and 2.2L of free space
during the SHED test. Due to only a 20 minute test with use of the WMTC (part 1 and
2), there should be more slightly fuel in the fuel tank than with the FTP. Three different
fuels (LEV III, E5 and Tier 3) were used in the evaporative tests for this ON-HMC.
SHED Test Results
FTP and LEV III
The Super Cub was tested two times using the FTP with LEV III test fuel. In the first test
the fuel tank was near full and the second test the fuel tank was near empty. Due to the
unique design of the fuel tank there was difficulty initially in verifying the fill in the fuel
tank prior to the test. The SHED results for a one hour hot soak and the three days of
diurnal testing are shown below.
Table 6: Super Cub SHED Test Results with FTP, LEV III Test Fuel and G4RB Temperatures
Test #
1
2
Average
Hot Soak (g/1 hour)
0.021
0.024
0.023
Day 1 (g)
0.325
0.381
0.353
Day 2 (g)
0.276
0.368
0.322
Day 3 (g)
0.193
0.154
0.174
Total Diurnal (g)
0.794
0.903
0.849
Fuel to fill after evap test
0.1L
0.9L
Honda was contacted regarding the proper technique to drain the fuel tank of the Super
Cub ON-HMC. It was learned that a smaller hose and increased attention to removing
fuel around the fuel pump was needed in order to remove all of the fuel from the fuel
tank. This was employed and hence the fuel tank was filled to 50% for the remainder of
the tests.
19
-------
WMTC and LEV III
The Super Cub was tested using the WMTC on LEV III fuel. The WMTC stipulates only
parti for this WMTC classified Class 1 bike (50-150cc, <100kph). However, given that
the part 2 of the WMTC has a reduced speed of 82.5 and this bike can reach 88 kph then
the part 1 and part 2 with reduced speeds were utilized.20 Diurnal testing in this manner
was completed on one two-day test and two three-day tests. Results are shown in Table
7.
Table 7: Super Cub SHED Test Results with miTC, LEV III Test Fuel and Q4KB SHED Temperatures
Test # (3-day)
-
1
2
Average (1&2)
Hot Soak (g/1 hour)
0.01
0.017
0.0176
0.017
Day 1 (g)
0.41
0.54
0.546
0.54
Day 2 (g)
0.53
0.83
0.837
0.83
Day 3 (g)
Na
0.87
0.909
0.89
Total Diurnal (g)
Na
2.24
2.29
2.27
Evaporative emission results for each day on each preparatory cycle were below the
lg/day maximum and as such no changes are needed in the fueling system. Differences
are observed in the evaporative emission results from the tests with the FTP compared to
the WMTC.
1. The evaporative emission results with the FTP cycle show lower daily emissions
compared to those resulting from the WMTC cycle, as shown in Table 6 and Table 7,
respectively.
a. The 3-day total diurnal average with the FTP cycle is 0.85g and with the WMTC
cycle is 2.27g.
b. The results for the 2nd and 3rd day, from the WMTC, were closer to the lg/day
maximum standard and were within 16% and 9% respectively.
2. A decrease in evaporative emissions from day 1 to day 3 occurs with the FTP while
there is an increase in evaporative emissions from day 1 to day 3 with the use of the
WMTC.
3. The hot soak emission levels from the two part WMTC cycle (.017g) are lower than
from the FTP cycle (.023g) and as such may reflect a slightly lower effort on the ON-
HMC to run the two part WMTC compared to the FTP. Test to test variability may
also be a factor due to the low emissions measured.
These differences in evaporative results can be explained through a reduced amount of
canister purge that occurs with running of the ON-HMC over the WMTC compared to
the FTP. Purge of the canister occurs when a vacuum is created from the engine speed
and engine speed is determined by the cycle over which the ON-HMC is operated. Part 1
211 WMTC part 1 average speed is approximately 30 kph, refer to Figure 12, which will not test a 88 kph max bike to
its representative use as is done with other vehicles using the WMTC. Only using part 1 would result in a test cycle
that is less stringent than the FTP.
20
-------
of the WMTC is at much lower speeds than the FTP and part 2 is similar to the FTP and
has a near equal top speed, when compared on the same unit basis. The length of time for
purge is also a factor and for the Super Cub, the FTP test is 30 minutes long while the
WMTC (part 1 and part 2) is only 20 minutes, as shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12
respectively.
Figure 13 illustrates the cumulative diurnal hydrocarbon emissions (g) over time of the
three-day diurnal run with the WMTC. It is seen that there are HC emissions during the
cooling phase of the diurnal test (at 720, 2160 and 3600 minutes)21. Reduction or
elimination of these will provide additional compliance margin for this ON-HMC when
tested with the WMTC preparatory cycle.
Figure 13: SHED Cumulative Emissions from Super Cub Run on WK-fTC, LEV III Test Fuel with Q4RB Temperatures
WMTC and E5 Test Tuel (with EPA temperatures)
Euro5 emission regulations utilize the WMTC with E5 (5% ethanol) test fuel in its testing
for exhaust and evaporative emission requirements. Testing over the WMTC with E5 test
fuel is included in this test program is to see if similar evaporative emission results are
obtained when testing with the E5 test fuel as compared to the LEV III (10% ethanol) test
fuel. Based on a relationship established on light duty vehicles for RVP and SHED
temperatures, EPA SHED temperatures (68-96-68F) are used for fuels with EPA Tier 3
RVP levels (ex: 8.7 psi) compared to CARB SHED temperatures (65-105-65F) when
using LEV III with RVP level (ex: 7.0 psi). EPA temperatures of 68-96-68F are used for
testing of E5 due to the fact that the RVP of the E5 test fuel is similar to EPA Tier 3 test
fuel as shown in Table 4.22 Results from testing of the Super Cub with E5 test fuel,
WMTC and EPA SHED temperatures are shown in Table 8.
21 The dip near 3200 seconds is a factor of switching analyzers and not of the emissions from the Super Cub.
22 The LDV standards are lower than those considered for ON-HMC (LDV: 0. lg/day, ON-HMC standard
consideration: l.Og/day).
21
-------
Table 8: Super Cub SHED Test Results with m iTC, E5 Test Fuel and EPA SHED Temperatures
Test #
1
223
3
Avg (1,3)
Hot Soak (g/1 hour)
0.016
.014
0.016
0.016
Day 1 (g)
0.320
.233
0.344
0.332
Day 2 (g)
0.460
.292
0.484
0.472
Day 3 (g)
0.629
.3435
0.669
0.649
Total Diurnal (g)
1.425
0.96
1.513
1.469
Comparison of the average three-day emission results on the Super Cub using the WMTC
with LEV III/CARB temperatures and E5/EPA temperatures, in Table 7 and Table 824,
reveals that the emissions from the LEV III fuel/CARB temperatures {2.21 g) are higher
than those with the E5/EPA temperatures (1.469g). The difference in results from the
E5/EPA temps test is 0.8g (35%) lower than the LEV III/CARB temp tests with low
variability of data sets within each fuel type/temperature set.
In addition, comparison of the average results in Table 7 and Table 8 show that the same
relationship of fuel RVP and SHED temperatures similarity for LDV does not currently
hold for motorcycles. The evaporative systems for LDV have been developed over many
years and the standard is 1/10 of that being considered for ON-HMC. The canister
systems have also been designed to collect refueling emissions which may also contribute
to their improved performance on LDV.
WMTC and Tier 3 Test Tuel (with EPA temperatures)
EPA utilizes Tier 2 test fuel currently in its motorcycle compliance testing, however Tier
3 fuel will be considered when ON-HMC emission regulations are updated. The Super
Cub was tested with Tier 3 fuel/EPA temperatures with the WMTC and the results are
presented in Table 9. The second test was subject to a humidity control issue and hence
is not included in the overall average emissions. The average of the first and third three-
day diurnal tests are very similar to the average results shown in Table 8.
Table 9: Super Cub SHED Test Results with WA ITC, Tier 3 Test Fuel and EPA SHED Temperatures
Test #
1
225
3
Avg (1,3)
Hot Soak (g/1 hour)
0.015
0.015
0.017
0.016
Day 1 (g)
0.311
0.433
0.297
0.304
Day 2 (g)
0.470
0.586
0.443
0.457
Day 3 (g)
0.597
0.990
0.664
0.631
Total Diurnal (g)
1.378
2.009
1.404
1.391
23 This test was performed in a different SHED from the other tests in this report. Both SHEDs were calibrated and
cause of difference is unknown and may just be test to test variability.
24 Test #2, of Table 7, was run in a different SHED than the rest of the test points and so it is removed from the
average.
25 This test was done over a weekend that had some extreme humid weather and the SHED control was subject to
lab humidity which had an issue that weekend.
22
-------
The results in Table 9 with Tier 3 fuel are very close to those in Table 8 with the E5 test
fuel. This illustrates the similarities in results when using test fuels with like RVP in tests
with the same test temperatures on today's evaporative system on the Super Cub.
Butane Working Capacity (BWC)
EPA had ordered a number of new canisters for the Honda Super Cub for BWC testing,
however during this test program the supply chains had been impacted severely due to the
COVID 19 pandemic. Only three canisters were received and included two new canisters
and one used canister from a Honda Grom (the same canister is used for the Super Cub).
The two new canisters were sent to MECA for canister teardown and evaluation. EPA
kept the used canister for BWC testing. Testing of a used canister would give insight into
the durability of the carbon used in the canister and the likelihood that the ON-HMC
would meet the evaporative emission standards over the useful regulatory life.
The used canister was from a Honda Grom26 which had 1068 miles on it (regulatory
useful life for the Class lb bike is 12,000km/7456mi). EPA performed a number of BWC
tests on the canister and did not count the first 12 tests prior to the test results recorded in
Table 10. The initial tests resulted in the removal of any moisture that may have collected
in the canister over its time of non-use as the grams increased over time.
The results from Butane Working Capacity (BWC) testing of the used canister are shown
in Table 10. Initial testing utilized a 15 g/hr loading with 22.7 liters per minute flow rate
purge which is typical in Light Duty Vehicle testing. An average result of 3.8 g was
achieved. The last five tests were done using a lower purge rate due to consideration that
the canister was purged at a slower flow rate on a motorcycle compared to a light duty
vehicle. A purge rate of 5 L/min was used. The BWC of the canister did increase
slightly to an average of 4.0g with the lower purge rate.
Table 10: BWC for Used Canister for Super Cub27
Used Canister for Su
per Cub - 1068 Miles BWC
Cycle
After Purge
(K)
After Load (g)
Net Load
(K)
15 g/hr loading for BWC with 22.7 L/min purge rate
13
191.7
195.2
3.5
14
192.2
196.3
4.1
15
192.3
196.3
4.0
16
192.5
196.1
3.6
17
192.4
196.2
3.8
18
192.4
196.2
3.8
19
192.3
196.1
3.8
26 The Honda Grom has a 5.8L fuel tank versus a 3.8L fuel tank on the Super Cub.
27 The canister was from a Honda Grom (1.5gal fuel tank) with 1068 miles. This canister is also used on the Super
Cub. The initial tests, 1-12, were used to remove any moisture buildup from the canister non-use.
23
-------
20 | 192.4
196.3
3.9
Average
3.8
15 g/hr loading for BWC with 5 L/min purge rate
21
191.9
195.9
4.0
22
191.7
195.2
3.5
23
191.7
195.9
4.2
24
191.6
196.2
4.6
25
191.6
195.4
3.8
Average
4.0
Carbon Durability
The data in Table 10 show that with a purge rate of 22.7 L/min, the used canister showed
an average BWC of 3.8g. The BWC of the new canister was determined through testing
by MECA and was found to be 5.5gxm with the same procedure as EPA and a purge rate
of 22.7 L/min. As a result, it appears that degradation of 25% did occur in the ability of
the canister/carbon to hold onto vapors under the test parameters28. The useful life for
this 125cc motorcycle is 12,000 km (7456mi) according to EPA definition. The aged
canister was from a motorcycle with 1068 miles which is just 14% of the useful life
miles. Any evaporative emission standards will be required to be met throughout the
useful life and the data from Table 7 (WMTC preparatory cycle, LEV III fuel and CARB
temperatures) shows that the third day is close to the lg/day maximum value. For
additional compliance room improvements in the canister performance over time may be
required. Potential causes and possible remedies for longer life of the carbon are listed in
Table 11.
Table 11: Potential Cause and Possible Remedy for Carbon Life in an Evaporative Canister
Potential Cause
Possible Remedy
Carbon quality was sufficient for only the
current two-hour CARB evaporative test.
Higher quality carbons may be available.
Carbon qualities exist which have shown
less than 10% deterioration over time.
The simple straight flow design of the
canister resulted in the creation of a flow
through path through the carbon and as
such not all of the carbon was exposed to
the vapors and as such only a portion of
the carbon was actively working.
The existing canister interior design
results in a low L/D (length of vapor flow
path to diameter of canister). Increasing
the length of time vapors are in the
canister can be achieved by using a non-
flow through design, such as a U shape or
S shape design.
There is no active pressure on the carbon
to keep it in place (ie: spring with plate)
and as such the pellets can rub against
Include a coil spring at the end of the
canister to put some pressure on the
carbon so that there is less movement.
28 Some difference could be due to part manufacturing variance.
24
-------
each other and break down into powder
and become less effective.
Low purge rate
Higher purge rates would clean out the
canister more effectively and thereby
allow higher vapor capture in the canister.
Improved engine controls for purge.
Small canister
Larger canister would allow for higher
BWC and better evaporative emission
control.
Wolf 300 (278cc)
The Wolf 300 meets the CARB evaporative emission requirements (2 hour test including
one hour diurnal) with a canister although is on the higher end of emissions for
compliance according to CARB. The Wolf 300 has a 14L fuel tank and is noted to
achieve 85 mph(137kph) and 85 mpgxlv. Three parts of the WMTC are utilized for this
vehicle29 and as a result has a 30 minute test cycle for both the WMTC and the FTP. The
WMTC is 13.2 miles for all three parts and therefore approximately 0.6L of fuel may be
used from the fuel tank of the Wolf 300 prior to going into the SHED. As a result, there
could be 6.4L of fuel with 7.6L of free space for vapors. These volumes are much higher
than that for the Super Cub 3.78L fuel tank. The canister on the Wolf 300 is near the
same size as that on the Super Cub and so it is expected that this ON-HMC will have
higher evaporative emissions than the Super Cub due to the larger fuel tank.
SHED Test Results
FTP and LEV III
Production Canister
EPA conducted a three-day SHED test using the FTP, LEV III test fuel and CARB
tempertaures and the total evaporative emission result was 9.57g, as shown in Table 12.30
The results from this motorcycle exceeded the 3g total over the three-day diurnal (lg/day
max) and therefore a higher capacity canister is required.
Table 12: Three Day Diurnal Emission Measurement of Wolf300 with Production Canister on the FTP, LEV III Test Fuel and
Q4KB Temperatures
Test #1
HC (g)
Hot Soak
0.05
Total 3-day Diurnal
9.57
Fuel to fill after evap test
7 L
29 With the Part 3 being at reduced speed for the Wolf 300 lias vmax under 140 kph.
311 The analyzers were not setup to do daily readings for such high evaporative emissions and so this test result did
not yield daily emission results.
25
-------
Feasibility of Canister BWC/Fuel Tank v Three Day Emission Total
A higher BWC canister is needed to reduce evaporative emissions from the Wolf 300.
This can be determined by addressing the initial goal of this project which was to
determine if smaller displacement ON-HMCs would fall on a similar Working Capacity
to Fuel Tank Ratio versus the 3-day total emission linear relationship shown at CARB's
2020 Workshop.
Prior to adding the BWC data points to the CARB figure, the data in the original CARB
figure was checked for "Working Capacity' - Butane or Gasoline. Investigation revealed
that a number of the Working Capacities on the CARB figure were actually Gasoline
Working Capacities. Hence a new figure was created, Figure 21, for several of the Class
III ON-HMCs for BWC/Fuel Tank versus 3-day emissions using BWC measurements
results from MECA testing31.
The points for BWC/Fuel Tank versus 3-day emission results from the two study bikes
with canisters (Class lb and II) were then calculated and added to Figure 21. The figure
shows that the two BWC points from the smaller ON-HMC did fall in the linear line with
the Class III ON-HMC. This relationship can then be used to choose a higher BWC
canister for application to the Wolf 300, keeping in mind that several canisters may have
to be utilized for the relationship is not perfect as there is one point above the 3g line
having a BWC higher than the 1.41 BWC/Fuel Tank ratio shown in Figure 14.
Verified BWC/Fuel Tank (L) v 3 Day Emission Total
ON-HMC with very low mileage
(125cc, 278cc, 750cc, 765cc, 1750cc)
£
O
-Q
&_
(O
u
o
&_
T3
S-
(O
+j
o
I-
s-
(O
o
m
O
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Wolf 300 (278cc)
Various Class III ON-HMC
regraphed with BWC
y = -6.3908x+ 12.017
R2 = 0.8482
Super Cub (125cc)
0.5 1 1.5
Butane Working Capacity/Fuel Tank (L)
Figure 14: BWC/Fuel Tank vs SHED 3-Day Total Flydrocarbons (g) for Various Size ON-FIMC
31 The original WC/FT v 3-day emissions from CARB Workshop was found not to be based on BWC and so a new
linear relationship was found using BWC information from MECA.
26
-------
Prototype Canisters
Since the 3-day diurnal testing of the Wolf 300 exceeded the desired lg/day (3g/3days)
then it is a candidate to apply the canister design criteria idea presented earlier in this
paper as shown in Figure 14.
According to Figure 14, the BWC/Fuel Tank ratio of 1.41 or higher is to be used to
achieve an evaporative emission 3 day total of 3g. Therefore, the minimum BWC of the
new canister is to be 14*1.41=19.7g.
In this test program, EPA performed BWC testing on a canister for a Triumph Triple
Street sold in California which yielded a BWC of 21g (see Appendix A). This canister
was chosen as the first prototype canister candidate for the Wolf 300.
Since the OEM canister on the Wolf 300 (14L fuel tank) was nearly the same size in
outer dimensions as the Super Cub (3.8L fuel tank), see Table 2, an assumption was made
that the purge strategy on the Wolf 300 would not be sufficient for purging the larger
canister so that it would operate at is highest capability. As a result, functional changes
were made to the canister setup and SHED testing of the Wolf 300 in order to
accommodate the prototype canister. Changes included the following:
1. A manually operated valve for canister purge was added and the vacuum purge from
the engine was eliminated.
2. Fuel tank fill of 40% fill (not 50%) was done for a preparatory cycle would not be run
due to purge rate assumed to be insufficient for the larger canister (purge control is a
factor the OEM would have to develop).
3. The prototype canister was purged manually and not connected to the fuel tank until
the SHED test had achieved set temperature of 68F. This is an optimum procedure to
achieve low evaporative emissions and would be adjusted in future testing if it was
shown that the standard of lg/day over three days had been achieved.
Prototype canister test results on FTP with LEV III Test Fuel
The following describes the findings of working to reduce evaporative emissions on the Wolf
300 in a SHED three-day diurnal test using three different canisters.
1. Canister #1: The evaporative canister from the Triumph Street Triple (California
version, BWC=21g, 13.2L fuel tank) was applied to the Wolf 300 (14L fuel tank).
Three SHED tests were performed.
a. The first SHED test with the Triumph canister yielded the same level of
emissions as the base canister test of approximately lOg over the three days.
A sniffer was used to determine the source(s) of the evaporative emissions. It
was determined that the key lock on the fuel tank was the source of the
emissions.
27
-------
The key hole in the fuel tank cap was taped over, with appropriate tape for
evaporative testing, and the ON-HMC was retested. The resultant emissions
from the three-day SHED test was 24g. This is 2.4x the emissions from the
tests with the OEM and first test with the Triumph (CA). The ON-HMC was
analyzed again for leaks and it was found that the gasket for the fuel tank cap
was cracked, see Figure 14, and not sealing correctly. No other leak areas
were identified. This ON-HMC was purchased new, aged 1000km on nearby
pump fuel (E10), and then sat for several months prior to evaporati ve
emission testing. While the cause for the condition of this fuel tank cap gasket
is unknown, this type of deterioration in rubber gaskets can be expedited in
materials that are not ethanol compatible.
Figure 15: Fuel Tank Cap on Wolf300 Showing Deterioration (Splitting Cracking)
b. The fuel tank cap was replaced with a tightly fit rubber plug and a SHED test
was rerun. The first day showed 0.5g however the second day showed higher
emissions, similar to the previous SHED test with the original Triumph (CA)
canister, and the test was stopped. It was determined that the change in
temperature may have edged the plug from its snug position in the fuel tank
and hence allow vapor leakage from the fuel tank. This result showed that
with a completely sealed fuel tank cap on the fuel tank then emissions were
reduced substantially.
2. Canister #2: In order to determine the amount of vapor coming out of the canister
during the three day test, an overcapacity automotive canister (BWC=80g) was
applied to the Wolf 300 and a three-day diurnal was performed, with canister being
weighed before and after the test. Table 13 lists the results from this test and shows
that the three-day SHED emission result was 1.54g and the canister gained 16g32. Use
32 The canister was emptied prior to being applied to the Wolf 300 and being put in the SHED. As noted previously,
there was no loading of the canister and preparatory cycle due to the unknown as to the purge procedure for the base
28
-------
of this canister achieved the goal of maximum Ig/day. The automotive canister has
very little load flow restriction due to the onboard vapor recovery systems included in
today's automotive canister designs. It is expected that the first prototype canister
(Triumph Street Triple-CA) had higher load flow restriction than the automotive
canister which resulted in leakage in other areas of the fuel system which also had
less pressure.
The 1Hz data from the SHED test with the automotive canister was utilized to create a
cumulative hydrocarbon emission curve as shown in Figure 16. The figure shows that
the SHED emissions increased with each heat build. In addition, the figure reveals that
the evaporative emissions did not level off when the SHED was in a cooling mode of
going from 105F to 65F (CARB SHED temperatures when using LEV III fuel). The
cooling temperature emission increases are lower than those found on the Super Cub
cumulative graph in Figure 13.
$
Figure 16: Automotive Canister on Wolf 300
canister being sufficient to clean out the larger automotive canister. The rabber plug was reapplied to the fuel tank
and was used for the SHED test.
29
-------
Sal
03 Sur
04 Mon 05
HC_MASS(grams)|
Figure 17: Hydrocarbon emissions from the Wolf300 with Automotive Canister over a Three-Day Diunial Test
3. Canister #3: A second canister from an ON-HMC with an equivalent fuel tank size
(14L) was chosen, see Figure 17. The new canister was from an ON-HMC whose
evaporative emission test results met the lg/day from the CARB dataset of Class III
ON-HMCs. The canister had an automotive internal design and its BWC was 20.8g as
measured by MECA. MECA also measured that the canister had low load flow
restriction (for an on-highway motorcycle canister) and high-quality carbon. Four
BWC tests were run on the new canister to degreen the canister (get around the heel
and come to a repeatable level). As shown in Table 13, results from the first three-
day diurnal emission result totaled 4.4g and the canister held lOg instead of the 16g
by the larger automotive canister (Canister #2). It is assumed that the higher
emissions are due to leakage in the ON-HMC from the higher load flow restriction of
this canister compared to the larger automotive canister, Canister #2, as the vapors
found another way out of the fuel system rather than through the canister. As a result,
the canister didn't collect as much vapor. The load flow restriction of this canister
was half that of the original Wolf 300 canister and slightly less than half of Canister
#1.
30
-------
Figure 18:Wolf300 with On-Highwav Motorcycle Automotive Style Canister
Review of the fuel tank plug revealed that it was deteriorating and so it was replaced
with a new Wolf fuel tank cap. A two-day test was run and results of 1.2 and 1.3g/day
were measured. Improvements were made to reduce evaporative emissions, however
the goal of less than lg/day maximum was not achieved.
Table 13: LEV III Test Fuel, -with Prototype Canister33
Test #
Automotive
ON-HMC Automotive
2-day test with ON- HMC
canister
Design Canister
Automotive Design Canister
(BWC 80g)
(BWC: 20.8g)
(BWC: 20.8g) - new fuel tank
cap
Day 1
0.304
-
1.2
Day 2
0.524
-
1.3
Day 3
0.716
-
-
Total Diurnal
1.544
4.4 - 3 day
2.5g - 2 day
Fill of Fuel Tank
40%
40%
40%
Fuel
LEV III
LEV III
LEV III
Additional weight
of canister after
16g
lOg
"
test
SHED Test of the Wolf 300 Without the Fuel System
To confirm that hydrocarbon emissions were not being greatly emitted by the non-fuel
system components on the Wolf 300 (plastics/rubber/etc.), the ON-HMC without the fuel
system was put into the SHED for a two-day diurnal, see Figure 18. HC emissions of
0.18g were measured (0.1 lg first heat build and 0.07g second heat build), see Figure 19.
33 These three day shed tests were run with an optimized cleaned out canister and the ON-HMC was not run on the
preparatory cycle which would have exposed the fuel tank and canister to higher temperatures.
31
-------
Due to these low emissions from the non-fuel system parts, it is clear that the majority of
emissions are originating in the fuel system (fuel tank, hose, canister) of the Wolf 300.
Figure 19: Wolf300 Without Fuel System Went into the SHED
0,20- : :
0.10 r ' i U^„..
0.16 1 I
0.14- \ > /¦¥¦
0.12 ¦- >
0.10- I ;
0 08
0 06 : j
0.04 " i
0.02 ¦/•¦ | ;
Wed 00:00 Wed 12:00 Thu &0:00
-0 C2-
~ ~ t
HC_MASS(grams)|
Figure 20: Hydrocarbon (g) Results versus Day of Test from the Wolf300 Without Fuel System in a Two Day SHED Test
32
-------
Summary of Findings
Testing of the Wolf 300 ended without the emission test comparison of the LEV
III/CARB temperatures and E5/Tier 3/EPA temperatures comparison as performed on the
Super Cub since the existing fuel system (in particular the fuel tank cap) was not able to
be sealed sufficiently to allow an upgraded motorcycle evaporative canister to bring the
ON-HMC to the lg/day level.34
The fuel system of the Wolf was examined through pressurization of the fuel system from
the outlet of the canister with the purge hose plugged. Emissions were found coming
from the fuel tank cap as well as the crimped area of the fuel tank. The fuel tank cap was
noted to be hinged on one side which does not allow it to seal evenly around the whole
cap. One solution is to use a screw on fuel tank cap which would allow better sealing of
the fuel tank cap to the fuel tank. This approach has been incorporated on nonroad
motorcycles for compliance with the three-day diurnal SHED test.
The solution to bringing the Wolf 300 into compliance with a lg/day level over three
days may include the following:
a. Eliminate leaks: Evaluate system for leaks. One possible source is the fuel tank cap.
A new fuel tank cap design (without hinge on one side), and possibly a new fuel tank
design (remove crimped area or assure no leaks). Assure durable gasket material is
used in the fuel tank cap that can hold up to fuel with ethanol. Leaks may have to be
evaluated in warm/just after operating conditions.
b. Reduce pressure buildup in the fuel tank: The on-highway motorcycle automotive
style canister (canister #3) connector hose to the canister from the fuel tank was 1mm
larger than that on the Wolf. The smaller opening in the fuel tank can result in an
indirect pressure build mechanism and put more pressure on the fuel tank cap and
other potential leak areas.
c. Increase canister size and amount of carbon: The canister on the Wolf 300 was sized
for meeting the current evaporative requirements. The canister is undersized for its
fuel tank size to meet a three-day diurnal SHED test. Comparing changes in canister
size of the motorcycle evaporative canister with automotive design to the original
Wolf 300 evaporative canister, the new canister is larger by 1.85x and has 2.2x
increase in carbon volume.
d. Utilize a larger canister that has a higher length to diameter ratio. One possible
design is a u-shape design for better flow of vapors and exposure to more of the
carbon.
e. Utilize high quality carbon.
34 Feasibility was shown using an automotive canister with very low load flow restriction (due to ORVR requirements when
refilling at gas pump). The automotive canister is oversized for the application.
33
-------
f. Utilize a canister with a low load flow restriction. The motorcycle canister with
automotive design had a load flow restriction of just less than half that of the Wolf
canister according to testing by MECA.
g. Assure sufficient purge. The feasibility of achieving lg/day over three days on an
ON-HMC that has a 14L fuel tank is shown by one ON-HMC in the CARB
evaporative test program as shown in their Workshop in 20201 (second lowest line in
Figure 20). However, the engine (765cc, 5500 rpm) was just over 2.5 times larger
than the Wolf 300 (278cc) with a maximum speed at 2/3 the maximum rpm of the
Wolf (8000 rpm). The larger engine would likely be able to provide a stronger
vacuum for the purge system.
h. Reduce fuel tank size. The fuel tank on the Wolf is 14L which is large for a 278cc
engine. Given the purge strategy determined in item 'g' to clean out the canister, the
fuel tank may need to be made slightly smaller.
CARB INVENTORY EVAPTEST DATA
MC EVAP RATES OVER TIME (65-105-65 DIURNAL)
Euro 5 Compliant
5
4.5
4
3.5
|
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CARB ONMC PUBLIC WORKSHOP 11/17/20 24
Figure 21: Two Motorcycles Passed CARB lg/day shown at CARB Workshop November 17, 20201
Leak Test
This report shows that several attempts at reducing leaks from the Wolf 300 (with a 14L fuel
tank) were unsuccessful at achieving the desired lg/day. Notable evaporative emission
reductions were seen on this vehicle when a new fuel tank cap was used along with a larger
motorcycle canister (#3).35 The program for Light Duty Vehicles includes a leak check test as
well as a SHED test for evaporative emission testing requirements. EPA performed subsequent
testing on the Wolf fuel tank (with cap) using a leak measurement snap-on tool. Findings
showed no measurable leaks. This area is one for additional study as we know leaks exist due to
the findings in this study. Influences of temperature or vibration may need to be included in the
testing and/or influences of the fuel pump/fuel injector system within the fuel tank need to be
evaluated. The feasible measurement range is to also be evaluated. If developed, a leak test
35 The larger motorcycle canister was taken from a motorcycle with a 750cc engine and a similar sized fuel tank,
14L, which did achieve the desired lg/day in SHED testing with its production canister in the CARB test program,
seen in Figure 20.
34
-------
would be of great importance to perform quick in-use testing to assure durability of the
evaporative system on motorcycles and thus reduce the time of testing of a three-day diurnal
SHED test.
Conclusions
The following findings were realized from this study in the order of the goals identified at the
beginning of this report:
1) EVAPORATIVE CANISTER PLACEMENT AND OUTER DIMENSION
MEASUREMENT: The placement of the canisters on the ON-HMCs in this study were
found to be in different locations.36 The Wolf and the Super Cub each had canisters
located below the fuel tank. The canister on the Wolf 300 was tightly wedged above the
engine and below the fuel tank and the lack of available space may have contributed to its
small size in comparison to the 14L fuel tank37. The Super Cub had the canister behind
the footrest which was easily accessible and was not so space constrained as that on the
Wolf 300.
2) BASELINE EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS: Three low exhaust emission (near Euro5
exhaust standards) on-highway motorcycles were tested in baseline condition for
evaporative hydrocarbon emission levels:
1. The 50cc Honda Metropolitan did not have a canister for <50cc are not regulated
by CARB and do not have to meet CARB evaporative requirements. A baseline
three-day diurnal value was measured for inventory purposes.
2. The 125cc Honda Super Cub met the three-day diurnal lg/day goal each day with
the existing canister on all fuels and with each preparatory test cycles.
3. The 278cc Alliance Powersport Wolf 300 did not meet the three-day diurnal
lg/day goal in its certified condition.
3) WORKING CAPACITY/FUEL TANK VS THREE DAY EMISSION TOTAL
RELATIONSHIP FOR SMALLER ON-HMC SAME AS FOR CLASS III: Initially, use
of the BWC/Fuel Tank ratio, shown Figure 21, was to be a main part of canister design
criteria option to limit emissions from 3-day SHED testing. However, it was determined
through this work that specifying this criteria alone would not be sufficient to assure
evaporative emission compliance due to leaks in the fuel systems cap for the higher
emitting ON-HMC such as the Wolf 300 from this test program. In addition, one concern
arose on the use of the relationship in Figure 21 which was that the choice of a
BWC/Fuel Tank ratio value slightly above 1.41 (solution to equation for a total 3 day
emissions of 3g), could yield points above the 3g line as this line is not an exact fit to the
data.
36 The Metropolitan had no canister.
37 The Wolf 300 was certified to applicable CARB evaporative emission standards.
35
-------
A better relationship amongst the data was found using a BETP/Fuel Tank with 300 bed
volumes of purge, see Figure 22. Three day evaporative emission data was collected by
MECAxm on several leakless fuel systems using the Bleed Emission Test Procedure
(BETP) in a mini SHED using 100 and 300 bed volumes of purge. The first step of
conducting the test was to assure the fuel systems had no leaks. A leak test was
performed on the fuel tank/hose/canister setups at ambient temperatures using a snoop
tool test and any leaks were addressed (tape/glue where necessary). Graphing of the
BETP 3-day emission results versus BWC/Fuel Tank, when done with 300 bed volumes
of purge through the canister, yielded a higher correlation fit than using SHED test
information (g), see Figure 22 (blue line).
o
4-*
to
c
Q
o
LU
"to
X
to
00
E
LU
~a
-------
(7.0 psi RVP and CARB temperatures) were higher than the E5 and Tier 3 test
fuels (8.4psi RVP and EPA temperatures).
2. The E5 (5% ethanol) and Tier 3 (10% ethanol) resulted in very similar
evaporative emission results over the three-day diurnal.
6) APPLY CANISTER DESIGN CRITERIA TO PROVE FEASIBILITY OF METHOD:
The Wolf 300 was fitted with a canister sufficient for the two-hour evaporative
requirement currently in place. In order to meet a three-day diurnal with a goal of
lg/day, a larger canister is required. It was also noted that the fuel tank had multiple leaks
including through the gas cap as well as crimped areas. A new fuel tank is needed along
with a new canister. One of the Class III ON-HMC tested at CARB had a 14L fuel tank
and met the goal of less than lg/day. The canister was 1.85x larger, had 2.2x more
carbon and 0.44x the load flow restriction of the current Wolf canister. The interior
designs of the canisters were similar on both ON-HMC. A smaller fuel tank would also
assist in meeting the target lg/day maximum by generating less vapors.
7) PERFORM BUTANE WORKING CAPACITY TEST ON TWO ON-HMC
CANISTERS:
1. The as-received aged canister for a Super Cub, 1068 miles on a Honda Grom
(same canister), was shown to have notable lower BWC compared to the new
canister tested by MECA. Assuming this BWC difference is outside of canister to
canister variation, then for longer canister active life a table was assembled giving
ideas on improvements which includes higher carbon quality and canister design
to reduce carbon physical bumping and crumbling.
2. The Triumph Triple Street (California version) canister was tested by EPA. BWC
results were similar results to the MECA tested canister.
NEW CANISTER DESIGN CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS:
This work as a whole shows that the use of a BWC/Fuel Tank vs 3 day emissions total is not
sufficient to assure reduced evaporative emissions from motorcycles. If a canister design criteria
is utilized to reduce evaporative emissions from On-Highway Motorcycles, then the following
areas should be considered:
1. Gasket material requirement
Stated that E10/E15 durable gaskets be required throughout the fuel system. Areas
include, but not limited to, the fuel tank cap and fuel pump gasket areas.
2. Design criteria based on the relationship between BETP and BWC/Fuel Tank
A very high correlation coefficient (RA2 value) was achieved when graphing the results
from the BETP (based on 300 bed volume purge) versus the 3-day total evaporative
emission results. This test requires a fuel system with no leaks which should reflect the
production motorcycle.
37
-------
It is understood that canister manufacturers utilize a BETP test on the largest canister of a
canister family and so these results may be useful for some. OEMs will likely have to
perform a BETP test using their specific canister design.
3. Canister Load Flow Restriction
The load flow restriction of the canister should be such that the vapors will flow into the
canister and not seek other avenues for escape. Successfully designed systems (at or very
near lg/day maximum evaporative emissions) from the MECA studyxm show values less
than 2.7 kPa with 20 1/min flow.
4. Carbon quality and canister design requirements
- Durable carbon is to be utilized to assure reduced evaporative emissions throughout the
life of the bike.
- U shape and flowthrough shapes were found, with a properly sized and carbon filled
canister, to bring ON-HMC into compliance with a lg/day test over three days in CARB
testing of Class III motorcycles.
5. Establish a leak measurement test of the fueling system.
A leak measurement standard should be created. A simple device, such as a snap-on tool
as developed for light-duty vehicles, would be key to assure low evaporative emissions
during the certification/production line testing/in-use phases for on-highway motorcycle
production. The snap-on tool for light-duty vehicles would have to be modified to be
routed through the canister vent hose rather than the fuel tank cap in order to detect leaks
in the fuel tank cap.
Testing by EPA and CARB noted no measured leaks in ON-HMC which had high
emissions in SHED testing and showed leaks by other means. Further research is required
in this area to develop an official leak test.
38
-------
Appendix A: Triumph BWC Testing
A new canister was needed for the Wolf 300 according to the 3-day emissions results of the new
ON-HMC being significantly greater thanlg/day (total 3 g for three days). Using CARB's linear
relationship and BWC/Fuel Tank relationship, the calculation of 1.438=BWC/Fuel Tank (L)
means BWC needs to be 1.4*14= 19.6g. EPA's BWC testing of the Triumph Triple Street
canister for the ON-HMC sold in California showed that this canister would be a solution for the
Wolf 300.
Results from the BWC testing for the Triumph canister are shown in Table 15 and
Figure 23. The first BWC test from the new canister shows a net load of 43g with the following
tests showing less than half of that number. This showed that the heel was overcome very
quickly. Initial BWC testing was performed at 10 1pm for an estimated carbon volume. Starting
with Test #6 the purge rate was increased to 22.65 1pm. After Test #7, MECAxm had a chance to
tear down the canister and acquire the exact carbon volume information for the canister. This
information allowed us to adjust the bed volume for the 390ml of carbon in the canister. The
canister was found to have an average of 21g BWC (avg of tests 8-14).
Table 14: BWC Testing of Triumph Canister for California Market
BWC Results from a New Triumph Canister
Cycle
After Purge
(g)
After Load
(g)
Net Load
(g)
Purge Rate: 10 1pm, Bed Volume
Initial tests for getting over ]
estimated
leel
1
305.3
348.3
43.0
2
331.5
350.5
19.0
3
330.9
349.5
18.6
4
331.5
350.8
19.3
5
330.6
346.4
15.8
3urge Rate Increased to 22.65 1pm
6
330.3
349.8
19.5
7
329.5
349.2
19.7
Bed Volume increased to actua
0.39L
8
330.3
351.3
21.0
38 This is an updated number from the 3-day emissions v BWC/Fuel tank figure in this report. Additional data and
information had been collected since this original figure was created.
39
-------
9
327.7
348.8
21.1
10
328.5
348.7
20.2
11
327.7
349.7
22.0
12
326.3
349.0
22.7
13
328 6
348.4
19.8
14
328.4
349.8
21.4
50
45
40
__ 35
tsO
— 30
¦c
ro ->r
o 25
o5 20
z
15
10
5
0
0
Figure 23 BWC Testing of a new Triumph Triple Street Canister Over 14 Cycles
Figure 24: Triumph Canister on the Triumph Street Triple
40
¦ Net Load (g)
After Purge (gj
After Load (g)
360
350 ao
340
330
320
310
73
ro
o
01
<
"sir
eio
k_
3
i—
-------
41
-------
Appendix B: Test Fuels and Parameters
LEV III Test Fuel
EPA analyses for LEV III test fuel.
NVFEL Fuel Analysts Report 26757 mgmu
LEV Itl bb1ch#
FacAty Name US EPA NVFEL Fac*ty Type: In House
Owner USEPA phone (734) 214^661
26$5 Plymouth Road
AiwArtior Ml 4fl105-2425 Washtenaw Gounty US
I'ispectef N Tsihifhart I Aspect cn D.jlc; 9t$fl2Q13 Time In 00 0Q Time Qut 0000
Samptes Type: Test Fuel VOC
Inspection nformaton logged1 in by NST on 6m2017. Scbkjh:
LEV m-Tl** »C W-t7 FT*C: JSTSf Conmirt.: lingular
lei' CcdcTci- MciIkc RevAi UrKj Ft*l 84 Arutysl AjutysH Dait
Cadi
5S6
Total Daiy^anAiftt V-j uiw Pftiijani Tram D4615
3 64 Vcrum a Pweant
HS
6rt®2QI7
59Q0
OikUlior Sickly by 0525
1440 O minutes
Paragon
arain&i7
42£
Suftar m Gasatnc r»y D5453
3 72 Pads Per M lion
NS
M BOO 87
ska
r-Amy, Aicotial m Fud b, D4S1S
O.DO Volume Pinai
HS
W1®3&I7
594
Total OKy^enale Weight Perccnl D4915
*0.40 Weigbl Percent
HS
ft'l^'3017
5«
Total d*YgBn Weight Perce*! try D4B14
3.C2 ftsygen Wetj^t Pensent
HS
4/1^2017
MOT
iw^ropano* vi Fwl fey 04815
O.W P^rran-J
HS
&1&i»(7
O'^hii in MHy-BiiMmi by Q>4ft1£
n DO Ojc«)hm H+Iift PfttUtrtl
HS
&'tS»20«7
5303
sMe-BuUral »n Fitfil by D4fi1£ ¦'
Q.-» Vii ufitt: FurcftV
HS
6.1&20I7
600
DIPEinFud bp B4B15-
D.DO Voumo Pcrcft
HS
Wfrto3Qrl7
596
MTBE m Fud bp D*9C5
~.*0C« Vcflurrw Perce-*
HS
d.'1^0«7
SSfl
TAME in Fud bp D4S1S
O.OO VtfufTW Peroe-J;
HS
*rtW
OS J V-3-ume Pten»nf
F«3
6/130017
GG
PanzfTt Evaporated al 300 Depm F £*§£
03 0 Vfiiimt P^rwrt
RG
6i13f2Qfi7
4U
Aramaic* pvGcHbne MS© CX5?ff&
31 ?1 WiunrM ParafeK
TW
fiftsmi7
40
Aramaics n MSG D&7$&
21 15 '.'iiuma Parc^rc
TW
&*!9J30I7
49
Ctigfn^'n bjr FIA D1J1 &
5.0 VDijmD Peroer^
RCG>
wairaoi?
63
Btifuflr* in Garni na by QCVffiD D57B0
0 tiCI Uniimn Parcs"£
TW
40
Aromafcai byFw P13-10
20.1 V&iima Fwcen?
RCG
«^2I.«^017
630
Telucsne if. gasoline by WED 057W
J* Vpiumn
TW
6/1SU2017
G-3
Benzene in Gawtne by GCMSO Db'OG
0 8? Viairna Partb*?*
TW
wtaooi7
630
Totuwe r> Qirein* WSD D576£
5.35 Vo Lmn Rerccnc
TW
60
Spactt c Gravity $ 60 aca F D*552
0 74015 BOW
NT
&M2'2Q17
i£ urcmclji j-l-zl t include* a wgn« qgw
42
-------
\[V )J
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report
26757
Paoe 2a<
m
Cfcgrwi *Pl CHOW
5T.M Degree! ARi
NT
6'12i2017
69®
OBfie*i>r g 00 F D^OSS1
0 m*l a'cn-rttj (fUotfeg f
NT
w Irtan
101
injtfll String Piini
G3fi
IM4 f;i:y!HK. F
AS
e-tsisoj?
1&t
1 n It j 1 Barfrfl F:> m
nee
ICS 4 Degrees F
RG
6iMH20l7
110
<0 PwccrK
DM
13G S Deaiees F
FIG
«f3/20fT
no
iD Peficerr!
ow
137,3 Degree* F
150
50 PeTOiTi
cm
207.9 Deg=w» F
RG
150
50 Pifciffl
esse
2106 Dfr^aw F
. RG
lyii'JOl?
iso
90 Perce re
DM
3196 Decrees F
F0S
ft'lSraGrtT
ISO
90 Psroenf!
Cm
120 r Dttyen F
m
e^i 3^201 T
SCO
End Ptjrl
nm
353 1 n»g-»Ki F '
RG
6.1^2Dt7
£00
End Puill
DEta
JS3 2 Dc-3'Dt; F
FIG
&11'20I7
201
Reiidus-
DBS
1j0 mL
RG
fe'l 3.r20t 7
201
Rcbdue
DSs
1 JO mL
HXj
(yijrajiT
202
total RECcraay
DM
, B7.6 mL
fi)G
202
Tclal Hncowy
CM
AG
t,l i'K- 7
J03
1 bw
DOS
12 mL
RG
&'1!'20»7
203
Lata
~as
, 3.6 mL
PG
sisraoriJ1
333
Ethanol in Put* b? D4Bift
BIH Vdinw PbwI
HS
&16JiSOt7
5*2
M«*ssnm iii Fv¥ D*Sl5
Q >" VeJuwe Parcbn
H5
anaaMi
502
l-Siili'lll in Fufi by D4B15
0.® VcJuirw PercefiL
H5
mtrzm j
593
ise Bj'.iilGl in Put b;?D4B15
0,00 Vdii-Tts Percent
KS
mitolb ir
30
LmI In Giuine tq
r EH37
0 ® Grow Pb per Gato*
&V?.W17
32
WE-gffl F racfon Carbon DB43
0 9270© kVfmW FiarJwn
" MS
221
Swn Cwfleni WBjiiK)
1 & m$l 1 COrn I
Parooori
&7712Cn 7
m
Cun COfAntl UffMfttha!
104 m^MGCml
' Pamg&-
6.27/3017
391
Plva*(iK*4 in Gaiaira b» ~3211 O.CK»! Stairs dc Galw
P»njgnn
«S-WI7
221
Motor Octane
ft* i Meter O-.Ihmm UjTbtt
^ jijlj j-i
7iiai2&(7
216
7 7 ROHHCN
CPU
fftS/SM
3>n
AM Kim a
BB 1S [RjGWHrtStfJfi
CPU
TrliaOIT
220
RMcansh octane
82.0 Reward H>*nbflt
Purag&*i
7,12'20t7
225
Capper Gamuta
D150
1a Dejigrtpikn
"Paw^a't
6V2ia(3!7
230
Ncl Hca-in; Vai..e
D2«•
1 ?»0 00 BTLl'b
ParaflDi
2Jt
Carton Cortanl
C62B1
62.70 Wcflhl Peroerfi
Paragan
aavaoiv
m
D5J41
13 6S WBijhl Pefflam
Pursy on
eai.tsfli7
m
CSHAmmatiea in Gjiut'rt DS&Si
(J 4^ 'i'ri limn
TVi
6«,t3f20i7
»t
GB^Ammaijcs r Gs'scii"-* 06&80
fl.4S juiTlt: rCICt'f,
TW
W!3»30lT
3M
TgIupts- h 6 wotiw £S5 Sfci
5.23 yo'urrvc Pefcc-J:
TW
S30
TduAW It Gasatn* D558Q
8 22 VtrurTW Ftnwnt
TW
6M3;aoi7
60
Bciicntln OHOlkH DMJ33
&.fi6 VDHjrne fVrcp^.
TW
e.1i3Q!,7
£6
Awnipi in Gasalnt CMGBO
£1.11 Wunw P^rrJi^
TW
&" 312087
, f
Rftpsrt
-------
NVFEL, Fuel Analysis Report
26757
Aromalci- in Ooictnv H4A0
Jl 00 Volu-ne-Ppt=en|
nv
to
BmuDfflS in Gasc4re LiMOU
0 00 Votu-w Hpiranl
TVv
SiiWflir
iW
OtpUn, tr, W«C
4 8 W«gH Puit*ni
LS
6112,1(117
402
HMU b, DfiBKi
4.7 Weight PttlLfril
LS
B13/2D17
44
-------
E5 Test Fuel
EPA fuel analyses for Euro V test fuel.
Type of Fuel
Date Received
Euro V
1/7/2021
FTAG
Date
Processed
28631
6/8/2021
FTAG ID
Sulfur (ppm)
Specific
Gravity
Net KMtmg'
Value
(BTL'.lb)
a. H-to-C ratio
Property
Unit
Vaine
Specification
Reference
Mmimiim
Maximum
procedure
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (DVPE)
psi
8.6
ASTMD5191
Distillation Turin! Rnilinp Pcrim
°F
95
ASTMD86
10% evaporated
T
122
50?« evaporated
°F
205
90* * evaporated
°F
324
Evaporated final boiling point
°F
393
Residue
milliliter
1
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons
volume %
32
ASTMD5769
C6 Aroma tics (benzaie)
volume %
0.1
ASTM D5769
C"7 Aramatics (toluene)
volume %
13.6
C 8 Arcenancs
volume %
0.4
C9 Arcmaacs
\-olume %
15.5
CIO +¦ Aromatics
volume %
2.1
Multi-substituted Aromatic s
volume %
15.7
Olefins
wt%
8
ASTMD6550
Ethanol confirmatory
volume %
5.2
ASTM IMS 15
MTBE
volume %
0.0
Total Content of Oxygenates other than
EthanoL
volume %
0.04
Total Oxygen
wt%
L91
Sulfur
EUgltg
1.3
ASTM D2622.
D5453 or D7039
Lead
gliter
<0.0027
ASTM D3237
P&osph/cnis
gliter
0.00005
ASTMD3231
Copper Corrosion
la
ASTMD130
Solvent-Was hed Gum Content
mg 100 milliliter
2.6
ASTMD3S1
Oxxdatica Stability
minutes
1440
ASTMD525
Motor Octaoa
87.7
ASTM D2700
Research Octane
99.7
ASTM D2699
Annkncck Index (R + M).2
93.7
calculated
Sensitivity (R-M)
12
calculated
Carbon
%
84.55
ASTM D5291
Hydrogen
%
13.54
ASTM D5291
Net Heanns Value
BTU'Tb
18079
ASTM D240
Specific Gravity. 60T
0.75544
ASTM D4052
API
API
55.81
ASTM D+052
Densiry. 60T
g'mL
0.75469
ASTM D4052
CWF
0.8455
calculated
CMF
1
calculated
HMF a. H-to-C ratio
1.91
calculated
OMF p. O-to-C ratio
0017
calculated
SMF
5.54E-07
calculated
O-to-C Etkmol
ratio (vol %)
18079
45
-------
Tier 3 Test Fuel
EPA fuel analysis for Tier 3 fuel
31'May-19 NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report
Tier 3 Batch#
j Facility Name; US EPA NVFEL Testing Fuel Group Facility Type: In House
Owner; USEPA Phone; (734) 214-4448
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor Ml 48105-2425 Washtenaw County
Inspector; Hilda Sola-Soto Inspection Date ; 11/1/2017
Samples Type; Test Fuel
Inspection information logged in by RG on 12/3/2018.
27723
Pago 1 of 4
US
Time In: 00:00 Time Out: 00:00
voc
Season:
Tier 3-Blend 24N 12/3/18
Test Code Test Method
FTAG: 27723 Comments:
Tier 3 blend 776 Gal Tank 31N & 1418 Gal Tank 22
Results Units Fuel_ 74
Code:
Analyst Analysis Date
4814
t ,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
5.53 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4810
3-ETHYLTOLUENE
0.08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4810
3-ETHYLTOLUENE
0 08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4811
4-ETHYLTOLUENE
0 07 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4811
4-ETHYLTOLUENE
0 07 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4812
1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
0.01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4812
1.3.5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
0.01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4817
ALKYL IN DANS
0.00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4813
1-METHYL2-ETHYLBENZENE
0.08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4808
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
0.01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4814
1.2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
5 52 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4815
1.2,3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
0 01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4815
1.2,3-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
0 01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4816
INDAN
0 07 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4816
INDAN
0.07 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
5900
Oxidation Stability by D525
1440.0 minutes
Paragon
12/11/2018
4813
1-METHYL2-ETHYLBENZENE
0.08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4805
ETHYLBENZENE
0.80 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
5808
Total Oxygenate Weight Percent by D5599
10.25 Weight Percent
HS
12/6/2018
5808
Total Oxygenate Weight Percent by D5599
10 00 Weight Percent
HS
12/6/2018
428
Sulfur In Gasoline by D5453
9,88 Parts Per Million
NS
3/8/2019
427
Sulfur in Gasoline by 07039
8 7 Parts Per Million
MJP
2/11/2019
427
Sulfur in Gasoline by D7039
8.6 Parts Per Million
MJP
2/11/2019
4803
BENZENE
0.52 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4809
N-PROPYLBENZENE
0.02 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4804
TOLUENE
6 02 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4809
N-PROPYLBENZENE
0 01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4833
MSAA
15.74 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4»0S
fct/P-XYLENE
3.02 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4806
M/P-XYLENE
3.93 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
Report is unofficial unless it includes a signed cover page
46
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report 27723
4607
O-XYLENE
1.21 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019'
4£07
O-XYLENE
1.20 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4608
ISOPROPYIBENZENE
0.01 Volume Percent
MP
4(25/2019
4805
ETHYLBENZENE
0.80 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
«03
BENZENE
0,53 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4S29
Total Aromalics (vol. %)
23,50 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4823
2-METHYLNAPTHALENE
0.08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4824
1 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
0.20 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4825
1,3-DIETHYLBENZENE
2.01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4804
TOLUENE
6.05 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4826
C10 BENZENES
0.00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4826
C10 BENZENES
0 00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4827
C11 BENZENES
0.03 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4827
C11 BENZENES
0.03 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4823
2-METHYLNAPTHALENE
0.08 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4828
C12BENZENES
0.00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4824
1 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
0.20 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4829
TduI Aromalics (vol- %)
23.49 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4830
C8
5.93 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4830
C8
5 93 Volume Percent
MP
4/26/2019
4831
CB
5.87 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4831
C9
5.87 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4832
CIQPIus
5.16 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4832
ClOPIus
511 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4833
MSAA
15 79 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4817
ALKYL INDANS
0 00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4828
C12BENZENES
0-00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4819
1,2-DI ETHYLBENZENE
0.01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4822
NAPTHALENE
0.07 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4821
1,2,3,5-TETRAM ETHYLBENZENE
0.00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4821
1,2,3,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
0.00 Voiume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4818
1 4-DI ETHYLBENZENE & N-BUT
276 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4820
1,2,4,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZENE
O .OO Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4820
1,2,4,5-TETRAMETHYLBENZEME
O OO Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4818
1,4-DIETHYLBENZENE & N-BUT
2.73 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4822
NAPTHALENE
0.06 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4825
1 3-DI ETHYLBENZENE
2 00 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
4819
1,2-DIETHYLBENZENE
0 01 Volume Percent
MP
4/25/2019
552
Oxygen in MTBE by D5599
0.00 Oxygen Weight Percent
HS
12/6/2018
902
Oxygen in MTBE by D5E99
~ .00 Oxygen Weight Percent
H3
12/6/2018
562
Oxygen in ETBE by D6598
0.00 Oxygen Weight Percent
HS
12/6/2018
UnArt Ie i lAAffiAiil unlckee i
-------
31-May~19
o
NVFEL
562 Oxygen In LTBE by D5599
534 Oxygen in ELthanol by D5599
634 Oxygen m Ethanol by 06599
572 Oxygen in TAME by D6599
572 Oxygen in TAME by D5599
62 Vapor Pressure by D5191 (Modified)
65 Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F 086
66 Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F DS6
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD DS769
48 Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769
55 MTBE m Fuel by P5S99
55 MTBE in Fuel by D5599
593 Total Oxygenates Volume Percent from D5599
593 Total Oxygenates Volume Percent from D5599
532 Ethanol in Fuel by D5599
532 Ethanol in Fuel by D5599
59 Total Oxygen Weight Percent by D5599
57 TAME in Fuel by D5599
59 Total Oxygen Weight Percent by D5599
57 TAME rn Fuel by D5599
56 ETBE in Fuel by D5599
56 ET8E in Fuel by D5599
63 Benzene in Gasoline by GC/MSD D5769
630 Toluene in gasoline by MSD D5769
63 Benzene in Gasoline by GC/MSD 05769
630 Toluene in gasoline byMSDD5769
69 Specific Gravity @ SO deg F D4C-52
692 Degrees API D4D52
691 Density |g 60 deg F D4052
101 Initial Boiling Point D66
110 10 Percent D86
150 50 Percent D&6
190 90 Percent 086
200 End Point D86
201 Residue D86
202 Total Recovery DB6
203 Loss D36
543 Methanol in Fuel by D55S9
543 Methanol in Fuel by D5599
584 tsa-Propanol in Fuel by 05599
584 tso-Propanol in Fuel by D5599
Fuel Analysts Report 27723
0,00 Oxygen Weight Percent
3.47 Oxygen Weight Percent
3.56 Oxygen Weight Percent
0.00 Oxygon Weight Percent
0.00 Oxygen Weight Percent
8.9 PS I
49.7 Volume Percent
84,7 Volume Percent
24.43 Volume Percent
24.56 Volume Percent
O.OO Volume Percent
O.OO Volume Percent
9.63 Volume Percent
9.40 Volume Percent
9 83 Volume Percent
8 40 Volume Percent
3.47 Oxygen Wesght Percent
0.00 Volume Percent
3 56 Oxygen Weight Percent
0.00 Volume Percent
0 00 Volume Percent
0 00 Volume Percent
0 50 Volume Percent
6.15 Volumn Percent
0.51 Volume Percent
6.23 Volumn Percent
0.74685 60/60F
56 01 Degrees API
0,74591 g/om-03 @ 60 dBg F
99.1 Degrees F
128.7 Degrees F
201.9 Degrees F
321.4 Degrees F
385.9 Degrees F
1,1 ml
97,3 mL
1.6 mL
O.OO Volume Percent
0 00 Volume Percent
0 DO Volume PcfGeiil
0.00 Volume Percent
Page 3 Of 4
HS
12/6/2018
BS
12/6'2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6'2018
ETS
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
TW
4/2/2019
TW
4/2/2019
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
TW
4/2/2019
TW
4/2/2019
TW
4/2/2019
TW
4/2/2019
ET
12/4/2018
ET
12/4/2018
ET
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
1.2/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
NL
12/4/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
HS
12/6/2018
Report is unofficial unless it includes a signed cover page
48
-------
-Mey-19
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report 2772.1
Page 4 ot 4
565
t-eutanol in fuel by D5589
0.00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
565
t'Butanol in Fuel by 05599
0 JO Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
586
n-Pnopanol in Fuel by 06599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
586
rt-Propanol in Fuel by 05599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
SB7
sec-Buianol In Fuel by D5699
0-00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2013
587
sec-Butanol in Fuel by D5599
G 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
583
DIPE In Fuel by D5599
O.OO Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
588
DIPE in Fuel by D55S-9
O.OO Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
589
)soButanol in Fuel by D5599
O.OO Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
589
Iso-Butanol in Fuel by D5599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
5801
t-Amyl Alcohol in Fuel by D5599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
5801
i-Amyl Alcohol in Fuel by D5599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
5802
n-Butanol in Fuel by D5599
0 00 Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
5802
n-Bulanol in Fuel by D5599
O-OO Volume Percent
HS
12/6/2018
30
Lead in Gasoline by D3237
O.OO Gram Pb per Gallon
Paragon
12/10/2016
227
Gum Content Washed
0.6 rng/IOOml
Paragon
12/13/2018
228
Gum Content Unwashed
4.0 mg/10O«nl
Paragon
12/13/2018
991
Phosphorus in Gasoline by D3231 0.0000 Grams per Gallon
Paragon
12/12/20t6
221
Motor Octane
83,1 Motor Octane Number
Paragon
12/13/2016
21®
Sensitivity
8,9 RON-MON
CPU
12/13/2016
220
Research Octane
92.0 Research Octane Number
Paragon
12/13/2016
219
Antiknock
87.55 (RON+MQNV2
CPU
(2/13/2016
225
Copper Corrosion D130
1A Designation
Paragon
12/10/2016
230
Net Heating Value D240
17354.00 BTU/lb
Paragon
12/14/2016
231
Carbon Content D5291
82,72 Weight Percent
Paragon
12/11/2016
232
Hydrogen Content D5291
13,76 Weight Percent
Paragon
12/11/2016
492
Olefins by D6550
7,7 Weight Percent
LS
12/11/2018
492
Olefins by D6550
7,8 Weight Percent
LS
12/11/2018
o
Report is unofficial unless it includes a signed cover page
49
-------
References
I "Stakeholder Update on Tentative Regulatory Proposal", November 2020,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/2020-ll/November%202020%20CARB%200NMC%20Workshop.pdf
II "EPA On-Highway Motorcycle Canister Development", Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, June
2021.
III "California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor
Vehicles", https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/evap_tps_clean_complete_10-15_accessible.pdf
IV US EPA Annual Certification Data for Vehicles, Engines and Equipment, https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-
fuel-economy-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-equipment
v https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/veliicle-regulations-wp29/global-teclinical-regulations-gtrs
V1 Researchgate.net/figure/Speed-time-profile-of-the-Federal-Test-Procedure-FTP-75-driving-cycle-The-
California_fig6_259013545
vu "Euro5 Effect Study Update", DG-JRC-Ispra, Institute for Energy and Transport, Sustainable Transport Unit
(VELA laboratories), Alessandro A. Zardini, et al.
vm Commission delegated regulation (EU) No 134/2014, CL2014R0134EN0020010.0001 cp 1..1 (europa.eu)
1X unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-
180a2am4e_for_submission.pdf
x EPA Chemistry Laboratory, US EPA NVFEL, 2021
X1 www.webbikeworld.com
x" 22YM HONDA SUPER CUB 125 (hondanews.eu)
xm "Evaluation of Motorcycle Evaporative Canisters", Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA),
July 2021
X1V secondcityscooters.com/scooters/sym-wolf-cr300i
50
------- |