All we need is cheaper petrol (gas)!

[pickersgill1]

All we need is cheaper petrol (gas)!

 

Had a great ride to & from work today via scenic routes, all is needed now is cheaper petrol(gas)!

 

Now we have fantastic riding weather here in the UK all we need now is some cheaper fuel (gas), with gas (petrol) now over $7.00 per US gallon & still forecast set rise even higher riding for pleasure is getting expensive!

[beemerman2k]

Wow, and I've been complaining about $2.80 or so USD/gallon. Still, you can't beat the milage a motorcycle gets, can you? Not in the USA, unless you do mostly city driving and you own a Prius or something like that. These RT's do pretty well on gas in my experience.

[upflying]

What portion of that $7.00 per gallon for UK gas is for taxes?

[David13]

The problem here is that the gas is far too cheap. People waste it and drive huge road hogs that run motorcycles off the road.

dc

[moshe_levy]

Wow, and I've been complaining about $2.80 or so USD/gallon. Still, you can't beat the milage a motorcycle gets, can you? Not in the USA, unless you do mostly city driving and you own a Prius or something like that. These RT's do pretty well on gas in my experience.

 

So far my RT is trailing my 2008 Prius on my commute cycle. The Prius stands at 43.8 average and the RT at 38.7. The commute is 58 miles per day, and according to the RT I'm averaging 47 mph. It's 10 miles of stop and go in town and 19 miles of highway at about 80 mph continuous. The Prius' services (every 5k) cost me $60 - the RT's closer to $400 every 6k. I can take 4 people and luggage in the car. I can carry my laptop on the RT.

 

It's pretty hard to justify the bike on economy alone. But it SURE beats the hell out of the Prius in the fun department!

 

-MKL

[pickersgill1]

Well

 

It's cheaper for my daily 40 mile commute to & from work to use my Jaguar X-Type 2.0 Diesel (130 BHP) that returns 56mpg travelling between 75 - 80 mph.

 

Last weekend I attended a bike show with retired Motor GP racer, our wives, luggage & travelled in my car rather than using bikes, it returned 52 mpg fully loaded for the whole trip & we did not hang around. Take into account the cars tyres last upto 30,000 miles compared to the bikes 6-8,000, the car is far more economical.

 

Downside: No thrill, no fresh air, miss the sounds, smells & seeing other things missed sat low down. Saying that we travelled back through some rain storms & all agreed we had then made the right choice to leave the bikes at home + I would not have kept up with him.

 

Sunshine yesterday, fuel low in my BMW R1150RT, put in $30 (conversion GBP) of gas, still not filled the tank to the top & bars missing on RID display!

[pickersgill1]

If a litre of unleaded cost 119.9p per litre =($6.87 per US gallon) would be split in the following way:

 

Goverment Fuel Duty (GBP -£)57.19p

 

Product/Gas 39.85p

 

VAT (tax 17.5%) 17.86p

 

Retailer Margin 5p

 

We don’t like to get ripped off when buying fuel.UK consumers are still spending more and more money on fuel because of rising oil prices and rising taxation.

 

Fuel is taxed twice – firstly by fuel duty and then by VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed amount (47.1p per litre for unleaded and diesel) and VAT is a percentage (17.5%).

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Sure we're getting ripped off. At the height of the crisis we paid $ 10 a gallon here in Holland. Then oil prices dropped and they are still HALF at what they were a year or so ago. Still , we now almost pay that $10/gallon again already and it is expected we'll go over it before the year is done!

 

That diesel bike is looking more and more attractive......

[tazplas]

That diesel bike is looking more and more attractive......

 

Are BMW doing one?

 

Steve

 

[upflying]

If a litre of unleaded cost 119.9p per litre =($6.87 per US gallon) would be split in the following way:

 

Goverment Fuel Duty (GBP -£)57.19p

 

Product/Gas 39.85p

 

VAT (tax 17.5%) 17.86p

 

Retailer Margin 5p

 

We don’t like to get ripped off when buying fuel.UK consumers are still spending more and more money on fuel because of rising oil prices and rising taxation.

 

Fuel is taxed twice – firstly by fuel duty and then by VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed amount (47.1p per litre for unleaded and diesel) and VAT is a percentage (17.5%).

 

Thanks for the insight. UK fuel is high because it is taxed at 75%.

Got a feeling those 56mpg diesel cars will be a reality in the USA when our gas reaches $7 gallon. Our own form of VAT coming folks.

[Albert]

It's a marketing strategy. Calling something "petrol" instead of "gas" begs a price increase. Think fish eggs or caviar. I rest my case.

[Paul Mihalka]

OK, flameproof and bulletproof gear is on...

For a long time now I am of the opinion that many of the problems in the USA would be solved by increasing the tax on fuel step by step to the level of Europe. When big business raised the gas from about $2.50/gal to $4.00/gal in a very short time frame people were not happy but life didn't stop. If there would have been a tax increase to drive the price to that level there may have been a armed rebellion. Even so with business getting the money it's gone but with taxes we get some of it back in services. Another problem is that fuel tax is on volume, not a % of price. Gas cost goes up, consumption and taxes go down. With increased gas prices people would make a effort to use less of it, like it happened with the $4.00 gas. Trade balance would improve. Pollution level would improve. We might even balance the USA budget!

 

Ken H. will love me. Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

 

[VinnyR11]

OK, flameproof and bulletproof gear is on...

For a long time now I am of the opinion that many of the problems in the USA would be solved by increasing the tax on fuel step by step to the level of Europe. When big business raised the gas from about $2.50/gal to $4.00/gal in a very short time frame people were not happy but life didn't stop. If there would have been a tax increase to drive the price to that level there may have been a armed rebellion. Even so with business getting the money it's gone but with taxes we get some of it back in services. Another problem is that fuel tax is on volume, not a % of price. Gas cost goes up, consumption and taxes go down. With increased gas prices people would make a effort to use less of it, like it happened with the $4.00 gas. Trade balance would improve. Pollution level would improve. We might even balance the USA budget!

 

Ken H. will love me. Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

 

This makes a lot of sense, but I don't see it ever happening in the US. The majority of Tea Party followers and the "less gov't" movement really only want someone else to take the hit. How many of them are willing to lower THEIR social security payments or increase THEIR retirement age?

 

Pay higher taxes to help balance a budget? Reduce spending where it will actually effect my own pocket? Ain't happening.

 

We need to stop saying "Decrease government spending and balance the budget!" Total B.S. and a useless statement We'll start a meaningful dialogue only when people start asking "what am I receiving now or will be entitled to from the government that I am willing to forgo?" You're only allowed to pick stuff that effects YOU directly. You won't find too many takers.

 

Sorry...this is a big hot button for me. I'll stop now.

[Francois_Dumas]

Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

 

LOL, maybe, but you are probably right

[Francois_Dumas]

That diesel bike is looking more and more attractive......

 

Are BMW doing one?

 

Steve

 

Not yet, but these guys are.... http://www.dieselmotorfiets.nl/

 

[beemerman2k]

This makes a lot of sense, but I don't see it ever happening in the US. The majority of Tea Party followers and the "less gov't" movement really only want someone else to take the hit. How many of them are willing to lower THEIR social security payments or increase THEIR retirement age?

 

Pay higher taxes to help balance a budget? Reduce spending where it will actually effect my own pocket? Ain't happening.

 

We need to stop saying "Decrease government spending and balance the budget!" Total B.S. and a useless statement We'll start a meaningful dialogue only when people start asking "what am I receiving now or will be entitled to from the government that I am willing to forgo?" You're only allowed to pick stuff that effects YOU directly. You won't find too many takers.

 

Sorry...this is a big hot button for me. I'll stop now.

 

I happen to be among those Americans calling for smaller government and a move away from socialist policies, and yet I also strongly agree with you. Our government leans toward socialism because WE lean toward socialism! Until we realize the truth in this statement, we will continue to fight for one thing, yet cling to the other, and all the while blame someone else for it all.

[tallman]

OK, flameproof and bulletproof gear is on...

For a long time now I am of the opinion that many of the problems in the USA would be solved by increasing the tax on fuel step by step to the level of Europe. When big business raised the gas from about $2.50/gal to $4.00/gal in a very short time frame people were not happy but life didn't stop. If there would have been a tax increase to drive the price to that level there may have been a armed rebellion. Even so with business getting the money it's gone but with taxes we get some of it back in services. Another problem is that fuel tax is on volume, not a % of price. Gas cost goes up, consumption and taxes go down. With increased gas prices people would make a effort to use less of it, like it happened with the $4.00 gas. Trade balance would improve. Pollution level would improve. We might even balance the USA budget!

 

Ken H. will love me. Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

 

 

 

 

Warning: Although this may be construed as a POLITICAL POST it is not.

Paul,

I read an analysis from back in the day of Desert Storm about what it cost the US Gov't to provide inexpensive gas to us as consumers at the gas pump.

It was about the equivalent of $10 back then.

This included the cost of DOD related to the oil supply and other factors.

 

So, our costs are hidden and go to allocations that not all may care for.

As opposed to something like the UK system.

Just my .02 American.

[4wheeldog]

OK, flameproof and bulletproof gear is on...

For a long time now I am of the opinion that many of the problems in the USA would be solved by increasing the tax on fuel step by step to the level of Europe. When big business raised the gas from about $2.50/gal to $4.00/gal in a very short time frame people were not happy but life didn't stop. If there would have been a tax increase to drive the price to that level there may have been a armed rebellion. Even so with business getting the money it's gone but with taxes we get some of it back in services. Another problem is that fuel tax is on volume, not a % of price. Gas cost goes up, consumption and taxes go down. With increased gas prices people would make a effort to use less of it, like it happened with the $4.00 gas. Trade balance would improve. Pollution level would improve. We might even balance the USA budget!

 

Ken H. will love me. Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

 

I have been advocating somthing similar since the 80s. I think the way you sell it is to give everyone a tax credit (Fixed) on their income tax, roughly equal to the average gas tax paid per year.....If you use more, it cost you, if you use less, you get to keep it. Then you increase the gas tax, along with the income tax credit, so that there is incentive to use less fuel.

 

Part of the problem now is that the true cost is not included in the cost, and we pay other taxes to cover it.

People respond better to monetary pain than they do social pressure.....JMHO.

 

[Quinn]

During the first big gas crisis back in the 70's, I remember one of the Black rabble-rousers saying that it was all a rich White guy plot to keep Black people down. Rich Whites could afford to go out and buy new efficient cars whereas Blacks were stuck driving old gas hogs and effectively taking a pay cut to continue working. He forgot to include that higher gas prices also increase the cost of all the goods and services everyone enjoys.

 

By keeping gas prices low, cost of consumer products and services are also kept low; more people are spending their greater descresionary(sp) income; more employment; and other good things. Then we make up for it with a graduated income tax that requires higher incomes to suppliment costs instead of distributing the cost by useage.

 

---

 

 

[beemerman2k]

During the first big gas crisis back in the 70's, I remember one of the Black rabble-rousers saying that it was all a rich White guy plot to keep Black people down. Rich Whites could afford to go out and buy new efficient cars whereas Blacks were stuck driving old gas hogs and effectively taking a pay cut to continue working. He forgot to include that higher gas prices also increase the cost of all the goods and services everyone enjoys.

 

Ah! You're referring to that post I made on this forum back in 1972. Yes, I remember that thread; it got locked fairly quickly, too. I got mad because no one liked my Jackson 5 inspired hair style or my bell-bottom pants

 

But yeah, you're right, I did forget to include that thought about the cost of goods and such. Sorry!

[motoguy128]

There are motorcycles that far exceed the economy of the Prius while still managing similar performance.... we call them scooters.

 

I'll take the mileage penalty as a fair trade-off for perfromance.

 

I think you have ot compare the mileage and practicality of RT to that of a Corvette, Mustang or 370Z. Although the top speed on those cars are higher than the RT, the performance at legal speeds is comparable.

[4wheeldog]

During the first big gas crisis back in the 70's, I remember one of the Black rabble-rousers saying that it was all a rich White guy plot to keep Black people down. Rich Whites could afford to go out and buy new efficient cars whereas Blacks were stuck driving old gas hogs and effectively taking a pay cut to continue working. He forgot to include that higher gas prices also increase the cost of all the goods and services everyone enjoys.

 

Ah! You're referring to that post I made on this forum back in 1972. Yes, I remember that thread; it got locked fairly quickly, too. I got mad because no one liked my Jackson 5 inspired hair style or my bell-bottom pants

 

But yeah, you're right, I did forget to include that thought about the cost of goods and such. Sorry!

 

Actually, the first gas crisis hit in '73, so you were ahead of your time.

 

I sold my '59 chebby pickup, and my wife and I got around on 2 motorcycles. We didn't own a 4 wheeled vehicle again until we were embarrassed about going to Lamaze class on my CB750K4 in 1978. We bought a fiat that got 35 mpg.

 

There is always a way to avoid the "Man' keeping you down.

[Paul Mihalka]

That time was my first stay in the USA. I was king. R75 with a 8 gal. Heinrich gas tank. Don't worry about Sunday station closures.

 

[tallman]

This is what I bought the afternoon before the first gas crisis started.

 

Prius vs RT

footprint is more than mpg

tires/batteries/fluids

the Prius at 100k+ will eventually need major investment in new batteries that offset cost of ownership data significantly

although the lifespan of the hybrid system is ususally longer than the 100/150k warranty, some owners have had defective ones and new cost to replace a system is @ $3000 or more

[Albert]

This is what I bought the afternoon before the first gas crisis started.

 

I've never seen wheels on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier before.

[Antimatter]

It's funny, but without the first gas crisis (1977 or so) I probably wouldn't be as into motorcycles as I am now. My dad went out and bought a Yamaha Chappy to commute to work on, but I think I put more miles on it riding up and down on the gravel road next to our house. I eventually inherited the Chappy and used it to commute to work and high school, until I bought my first 'real' bike (a Honda CB360).

 

So thanks, OPEC. You ignited my passion for motorcycles.

[tallman]

This is what I bought the afternoon before the first gas crisis started.

 

I've never seen wheels on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier before.

 

Albert,

A boat for sure.

I lived in S. Fla. and the car belonged to the doorman at a posh hotel/club.

When I bought it all the entry/member stickers stayed w/the car granting me entry to places that

would not have been accessible.

I'm not saying I took advantage of that but, someone who had ulterior motives might have.

 

[Selden]

We had a Honda N600 when the first OPEC gas crisis hit.

 

 

33 mpg around town; 43 on the highway. The engine was a 600cc air-cooled parallel twin. With Koni shocks, JDM carb and camshaft, it rocked. And 10" tires were dirt cheap -- like about $100 for a set of 4 Michelins. I still miss that car.

[Ken H.]

OK, flameproof and bulletproof gear is on...

For a long time now I am of the opinion that many of the problems in the USA would be solved by increasing the tax on fuel step by step to the level of Europe. When big business raised the gas from about $2.50/gal to $4.00/gal in a very short time frame people were not happy but life didn't stop. If there would have been a tax increase to drive the price to that level there may have been a armed rebellion. Even so with business getting the money it's gone but with taxes we get some of it back in services. Another problem is that fuel tax is on volume, not a % of price. Gas cost goes up, consumption and taxes go down. With increased gas prices people would make a effort to use less of it, like it happened with the $4.00 gas. Trade balance would improve. Pollution level would improve. We might even balance the USA budget!

 

Ken H. will love me. Many of you will call me names in your mind that are unprintable in bmwst.com

Well of course (big surprise) I agree. The number one way to influence people’s purchasing decisions is pricing. And if we agree that reducing the consumption of petroleum products is a good thing (and I recognize that some people don’t); the number one way to do that would be to dramatically increase the cost.

[Francois_Dumas]

the number one way to do that would be to dramatically increase the cost.

 

Dramatically meaning $ 30 a gallon or so. Because Europe proves that anything else is not going to stop drivers driving..... only have us buy smaller cars (and small is relative)...

[pickersgill1]

Hi Francois

 

Hope you are okay, well its a National holiday this weekend with most having Monday off work & the rain has returned to ruin plans of a weekend on the bike. Hope to get some sunshine & go for ride around Norfolk if we can afford the petrol/fuel.

 

Need to sort out bad earth to headlight, the additional earth wire I fitted must have bad connection

 

 

[SWB]

It's pretty hard to justify the bike on economy alone. But it SURE beats the hell out of the Prius in the fun department!

 

-MKL

 

QUIET! .. you

 

My wife might be watching, and you'll ruin everything!

[rfc1992]

This makes a lot of sense, but I don't see it ever happening in the US. The majority of Tea Party followers and the "less gov't" movement really only want someone else to take the hit. How many of them are willing to lower THEIR social security payments or increase THEIR retirement age?

 

Pay higher taxes to help balance a budget? Reduce spending where it will actually effect my own pocket? Ain't happening.

 

We need to stop saying "Decrease government spending and balance the budget!" Total B.S. and a useless statement We'll start a meaningful dialogue only when people start asking "what am I receiving now or will be entitled to from the government that I am willing to forgo?" You're only allowed to pick stuff that effects YOU directly. You won't find too many takers.

 

Count me in. Taxes ARE too high. That being said, eliminate Social Security for those born after... 1965. We should have been smart enough to figure out the money will run out anyway. Keep the tax to pay for those born prior. Then, keep the tax to assist with the debt. My generation wasn't drafted, so we can suck-it-up.

 

I am also willing to give up Federal Funding for schools, the Department of HHS, and the redundant Department of Homeland Security. I am also willing to give up the IRS marauding horde by simplifying the tax code. While I am at it, I will give up the prescription drug benefit added during Bush's term in office. I can also do without protection against CO2 emissions. I am even willing to give up on many of the government back-stops provided to all-comers.

 

You are correct, restating a problem is not a solution. I have a few solutions. Historically, when we lower tax rates (on those that pay) the government increases revenue. Reality, it turns out, does not succumb to static analysis.

 

So, count this Taxed Enough Already guy as willing to give up a few things from the federal government that would directly impact him.

 

BTW... fuel taxes are too high; but I pay them. Raising the fuel tax will hurt the lower incomes more than the higher - is that the intent? I believe that the market will determine what cars people want to buy. I prefer 4000#-6000# cars with V8 engines. The V8 can move the vehicle at a good speed with good acceleration (and tow whatever it is I am towing at the time). The 5000# is because, in spite of the silly government safety ratings, I did study mass-momentum calculations in school. A 5000# vehicle with a frame strong enough to pull 8000# usually wins against a 5 star safety rated Accord.

 

 

I like lower priced/taxed fuel.

 

/Rant.

 

[i should remember to stay off the computer after 0200 and prior to 0500]

[Francois_Dumas]

[Selden]

You are correct, restating a problem is not a solution. I have a few solutions. Historically, when we lower tax rates (on those that pay) the government increases revenue. Reality, it turns out, does not succumb to static analysis.

Do you have any evidence for this? Lower taxes leading to increased revenue is an old myth, often stated, rarely observed. More commonly, when taxes are lowered, deficits increase. As you can see from the second chart, government revenue almost always goes up, except after the 2003 tax cut.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I imagine it matters little at this point, but it has been pointed out to me that this thread crossed the forbidden line into politics with the Tea Party exchange that I participated in! So my own hands are not clean here.

 

Nonetheless, the rules are the rules and they are the rules for a reason. And even though I messed up, I must recover and do what is in keeping with the board policy. Therefore, this thread is history!