Steve_Reinig Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I just returned from Death Valley Days. What is in the gas in California? I noticed a dramatic drop in Miles per gallon while there. At first I thought something was wrong with the bike. After I gassed up in Oregon on the way home I was back to normal. So what's in the gas and how do you CA folks deal with it in terms of additives etc? thanks Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Almost certainly ethanol. A blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline has about 95% of the energy content of the same volume of gasoline; for our bikes, a drop of a couple MPG is not unreasonable when running on an ethanol blend. Link to comment
Ken/OC Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 That's because you were doing a century in California and slowed to 80 in Oregon, where they enforce the speed limit! Link to comment
No_Twilight Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I've noticed some tankfulls don't get good gas mileage this winter (here in CA) and wonder if sometimes I'm getting some ethanol. But I suffer from the problem that Ken/OC mentioned. Some tankfulls take me places where 3 digit speeds burn fuel quickly. Did you fill up at that one gas station in Death Valley (Stovepipe Wells) that only sells regular? I did and had no problems--perhaps my timeing is a little slow. cheers, Jerry Link to comment
smiller Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 California was using MTBE as an oxygenator but discontinued use a few years ago due to environmental concerns and I believe switched to using ethanol for this purpose, with the result that Mitch describes. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I get about 10% worse mpg on Ca gas with my RT, my truck doen't seem to be affected by it though (87 v 91 octane?) Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Hey, our gas might not be as good, but at least it costs more!!! Link to comment
peterbulgar Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I believe that some formulations still contain MTBE. A couple of years ago either CARB (California Air Resources Board) decided or a law was passed to phase out the oxygenate and possible carcinogen MTBE. I think the deadline is this year. Ethanol is the substitute oxygenate, with a higher percentage of it being used in the winter months. Neither MTBE or Ethanol has the energy content of straight gasoline, so your mileage suffers. A couple of years ago a friend moved from here to Tucson, and e-mailed me bragging about his suddenly increased MPG. Just one of the many benefits of living in the Golden State. peter '73 R75/5, '04 R1150RA Link to comment
RFW Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Almost certainly ethanol. A blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline has about 95% of the energy content of the same volume of gasoline; for our bikes, a drop of a couple MPG is not unreasonable when running on an ethanol blend. The numbers don't add up. A 10% drop in energy caused by a component that makes up only 10% of the gas volume, should only result in mileage being 99% compared to running pure gasoline. If the mileage used to be (say) 50 MPG with pure gasoline, then that ought to result in only a 0.5 MPG decrease. California gas does apparently contain oxygen-liberating compounds as well, the theory being that because it contains a small amount of O2, combustion will be more complete. Apparently these also reduce mileage. This seems to me to be utterly useless. With any modern motor that is equipped with oxygen sensor feedback. The engine management system will automatically react to the presence of this additional O2 in the fuel, by adjusting the mixture to be a little more rich to ensure the motor is always running at the exact stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The engine management system doesn't know or care WHERE the oxygen comes from, it simply looks at the result of the combustion and adjusts things for perfect combustion. The whole "oxygenated fuel" thing seems useless at best and counterproductive at worst. Bob. Link to comment
PLW Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 [quote California gas does apparently contain oxygen-liberating compounds as well, the theory being that because it contains a small amount of O2, combustion will be more complete. Apparently these also reduce mileage. This seems to me to be utterly useless. With any modern motor that is equipped with oxygen sensor feedback. The engine management system will automatically react to the presence of this additional O2 in the fuel, by adjusting the mixture to be a little more rich to ensure the motor is always running at the exact stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The engine management system doesn't know or care WHERE the oxygen comes from, it simply looks at the result of the combustion and adjusts things for perfect combustion. The whole "oxygenated fuel" thing seems useless at best and counterproductive at worst. Bob. You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the legislators in the People's Republic of California have their own obsolete ideas and don't care. Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 The whole "oxygenated fuel" thing seems useless at best and counterproductive at worst. You're missing the whole point...It costs more. Try to keep up with the conversation, 'mkay? Link to comment
smiller Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 This seems to me to be utterly useless. Well, it's not utterly useless as oxygenated fuel does result in a reduction of tailpipe CO emissions. I think common sense would indicate that the program would not have been adopted on a large scale by several states if there was absolutely no science behind it. This doesn't mean that an oxygenated fuel program is necessarily the best or most cost-effective way to achieve emissions reduction and it is certainly the subject of much controversy, but it's not purely smoke-and-mirrors either. Google will provide a wealth of information on the subject. Link to comment
DiggerJim Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 You're missing the whole point...It costs more. Which means revenue from the gas tax goes up...and everyone blames it on the gas station or big oil while the state just got a nice little tax increase without having to talk about it. Jim Link to comment
No_Twilight Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I try not to worry about things that are out of my control...so long as the bike still goes!!! -Jerry Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Almost certainly ethanol. A blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline has about 95% of the energy content of the same volume of gasoline; for our bikes, a drop of a couple MPG is not unreasonable when running on an ethanol blend. The numbers don't add up. A 10% drop in energy caused by a component that makes up only 10% of the gas volume, should only result in mileage being 99% compared to running pure gasoline. If the mileage used to be (say) 50 MPG with pure gasoline, then that ought to result in only a 0.5 MPG decrease. I guess I didn't state it as clearly as I should have. On a per-volume basis, ethanol has about 62% of the energy content of gasoline. So E10 - a mixture of 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline - will have about 96% of the energy content of gasoline. IOW, you can expect your fuel economy on E10 (a 10% ethanol blend) to be about 96% of what you normally get with pure gasoline. If you normally get 42 MPG, E10 will get you around 40.5; similarly with E15 (15% ethanol) you can expect an MPG just under 40. This seems to me to be utterly useless. With any modern motor that is equipped with oxygen sensor feedback. The engine management system will automatically react to the presence of this additional O2 in the fuel, by adjusting the mixture to be a little more rich to ensure the motor is always running at the exact stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The engine management system doesn't know or care WHERE the oxygen comes from, it simply looks at the result of the combustion and adjusts things for perfect combustion. The whole "oxygenated fuel" thing seems useless at best and counterproductive at worst. There is considerably more to combustion in an engine than just the A/F ratio. The chemical composition of the fuel itself is a major factor. Run an engine on a different hydrocarbons - methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane - and you'll get differing amounts of raw hydrocarbons and other stuff out of the tailpipe. Start adding oxygen to the fuel, and yes, you will reduce CO output, even compared to a stoichiometric mixture of pure gasoline. You also get more aldehydes, which is a bad thing - but the amount generated is small enough that when compared with the reduction in CO output, the use of an ethanol blend is a good thing (in terms of reducing harmful emissions). Link to comment
RFW Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Well, it's not utterly useless as oxygenated fuel does result in a reduction of tailpipe CO emissions. I think common sense would indicate that the program would not have been adopted on a large scale by several states if there was absolutely no science behind it. I worked at one point for the largest manufacturer in Europe of mufflers and catalytic converters located near Stuttgart. They have massive research facilities for developement of their "cats", and they stated that the oxenated fuel thing was essentially useless for reducing tailpipe CO and HC, for any vehicle equipped with a properly functioning engine management system. As for the argument that "they wouldn't have enacted this requirement if it wasn't useful", that is just nonsense. Those enacting the law have their own agenda and there are lots of examples of laws that can be proven to be pointless. Bob. Link to comment
ShovelStrokeEd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Holy Crap!! I'm in full accord with Bob!! When it comes to emmissions and lawmakers, science has little or nothing to do with it. It's all about what they think the public preception will be of their doing something. The more Draconion the better. Link to comment
smiller Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 "they wouldn't have enacted this requirement if it wasn't useful", that is just nonsense. Yes, but that's not what I said and you may want to be more careful in your use of quotation marks. I said that it conflicted with common sense to think that this program would have been enacted on such a large scale if there was zero science behind it. I didn't say that it was useful or necessarily the best way to achieve emissions reduction, in fact I was careful to avoid saying that. But oxygenated fuels do reduce CO emissions, the opinion of your buds in Stuttgart notwithstanding. Link to comment
peterbulgar Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 smiller wrote: "I said that it conflicted with common sense to think that this program would have been enacted on such a large scale if there was zero science behind it. I didn't say that it was useful or necessarily the best way to achieve emissions reduction, in fact I was careful to avoid saying that." Understood. But let me use your comment as a springboard for a small rant to point out that we are talking about California here, and as a resident of this state since 1973 I have to say that common sense has almost nothing to do with CARB, the various other unelected bureaucracies of the state, and especially the legislature. The two prime directives for any governmental agency are first to protect your turf, and second to expand. No bureaucrat ever wants to hear, "You've done a great job, now go home." The heavy lifting on air pollution was finished a decade ago. CA has half again as many people in the state as it did when I moved here, and twice as many vehicles on the road. In spite of that the air is much, much cleaner. The only way that CARB can justify its continued existence at its inflated body count and budget is to keep finding new (and more complex and expensive) ways to cut ever more miniscule amounts of pollution. But, you people in other states can't just shake your heads at us wacky Californians: I understand that MA and NY along with a couple of other states (I suspect VT) have adopted our vehicle emissions standards... peter '73 R75/5, '04 R1150RA Link to comment
smiller Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 OK, but please let me point out once again I am not saying that common sense and public policy go together! (But public policy and conspiracy theories seem to.) Oxygenation as an effective means of large-scale emissions reduction is most certainly unproven, but reduction of CO emissions on a per-vehicle basis due to the use of oxygenated fuels is not. Just because officials in California and other states seem to confuse the two doesn't mean that we have to. That said I agree with you about the CARB. Link to comment
jackflash Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just returned from Death Valley Days. What is in the gas in California? I noticed a dramatic drop in Miles per gallon while there. At first I thought something was wrong with the bike. After I gassed up in Oregon on the way home I was back to normal. So what's in the gas and how do you CA folks deal with it in terms of additives etc? thanks What's in the gas...fruits and nuts of course... Link to comment
RFW Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Holy Crap!! I'm in full accord with Bob!! Scary, huh?? bob. Link to comment
GelStra Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Let's see: more stuff in the gas (for the greater good, of course ) = higher price/gal. Higher price/gal. = higher tax revenue (based on sale price, of course ) Higher tax revenue = more money to improve and maintain the roads. Hey, Russell, Ken/OC, and all the other CA riders, we have a GREAT road system, don't we?! See, it's all worth it, huh? Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Hey, Russell, Ken/OC, and all the other CA riders, we have a GREAT road system, don't we?! LOL!!!! Link to comment
ShovelStrokeEd Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Holy Crap!! I'm in full accord with Bob!! Scary, huh?? bob. Yeah, but we should do more of it. Link to comment
Ken/OC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Which means revenue from the gas tax goes up... I believe the gas tax is so many pennies per gallon -- so increasing gas prices do not mean more revenue. Corrections welcome... Link to comment
No_Twilight Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Which means revenue from the gas tax goes up... I believe the gas tax is so many pennies per gallon -- so increasing gas prices do not mean more revenue. Corrections welcome... I told you guys I wasn't going to worry about things out of my control but the geek in me has to reply to anything that involves a calculation...so here goes: The tax is by the gallon but lower gas mileage means more gallons and therefore more taxes. Whew. Now I can relax again. --Jerry Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The tax is by the gallon but lower gas mileage means more gallons and therefore more taxes. Whew. Now I can relax again I stick it to The Man by driving a $500 car (lower value means lower registration fees) that burns 87 octane and gets 36mpg on my commute. Link to comment
No_Twilight Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I stick it to The Man by driving a $500 car (lower value means lower registration fees) that burns 87 octane and gets 36mpg on my commute. You commute on 4 wheels??? Rather than chide you for it I'll just ask you to explain??? BTW, my commuting bike gets 40 mpg and registers for about $60/year...probably isn't worth much more than $500 since I laid it down... --Jerry Link to comment
TWEETY BYRD Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 look at the brighter side. mtbe is very good at screwing up the well water. bob see no CAPS Link to comment
Steve_Reinig Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Thanks, I think, everyone for the chemistry and economics lessons!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 You commute on 4 wheels??? Rather than chide you for it I'll just ask you to explain??? Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but... The big reason is I carpool with my wife and she doesn't like to show up at work with "Helmet Hair". But...I did the commuting by bike thing for quite a while. To be honest, it ruined motorcycling for me. Sure, I had fun, and it was better than sitting in traffic, but it was still a chore. Plus, it is expensive. My RT takes premium and burns through $200 sets of tires every 6-8K. And I've got to do service every 6K that is fairly time-consuming. With the car, tires are cheap and last MUCH longer, maintenance requirements are much less. As far as fuel economy goes, 2-up I was getting 38-40mpg on the RT burning premium vs. 36mpg in the cage burning the cheap stuff. Plus, the bike doesn't help much with my commute time unless I'm willing to be constantly making illegal passes on Ortega Highway. When I worked somewhere where my commute involved mostly freeway, lane splitting made a big difference. With my current commute, it doesn't. So...I'm enjoying my little POS car on my commute and saving a bunch of money vs. commuting on the bike, and I'm saving the bike for stuff that's actually fun. I do occasionally take the bike to work, but when I do, it is a treat, not a chore. Link to comment
baggerchris Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'm gettin the heck out of Kalifornia just as soon as I can when I retire. I remember good gas, and this ain't it! I commute on my RT when it isn't icy in the morning, which is about 8 months, and it ALWAYS is a treat to me. The wildlife: The scenery; the smells. It's all good! (thanks Cory) Link to comment
No_Twilight Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 You commute on 4 wheels??? Rather than chide you for it I'll just ask you to explain??? Not that I owe anyone an explanation, but... The big reason is I carpool with my wife and she doesn't like to show up at work with "Helmet Hair". Ok. I should have said "explain please"...I'd been drinking. But carpooling makes sense in a car where you can talk and the frustration of sitting behind slow trucks on orgega in a bike makes sense too. And indeed and old cheap car like you describe can be cheaper than a bike to operate but with my cheap bike and mounting my tires myself it would be tough to beat my cost per mile. My commute is mostly freeway along the coast with a few fun turns and I look forward to getting on the bike every day!!! Look forward to meeting you tomorrow, Jerry --Jerry Link to comment
russell_bynum Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Ok. I should have said "explain please"...I'd been drinking. I was just yankin' yer chain. It's all good. But carpooling makes sense in a car where you can talk and the frustration of sitting behind slow trucks on orgega in a bike makes sense too. And indeed and old cheap car like you describe can be cheaper than a bike to operate but with my cheap bike and mounting my tires myself it would be tough to beat my cost per mile. Yep. No question, I can make better time on the bike than I can in the car. I'm basically making 75-100 illegal passes as I cross Ortega (vs. about 3-5 illegal passes in the cage), and when traffic backs up at both ends of the road, I could split right past. It would save me about 10-15 minutes per leg. As for the cost...I mount my own tires as well...but they're still $200 a set and only last 6-8K miles. My commuter is a fun little car, though. It's a 1985 BMW 325e with at least 250K miles (I say "at least" because the odometer hasn't worked in quite some time, so we don't know how many it actually has.) Basically, it has been "Rode hard and put away wet" all its life, and I'm using it not only as a cheap commuter car, but as a fun project car to screw around with in my spare time. Parts are cheap, and these old BMW's have a cult following, so there's tons of good info, tips, tricks, etc out there on the 'net. It is fun to drive, too. My commute is mostly freeway along the coast with a few fun turns and I look forward to getting on the bike every day!!! Yep. I bought the RT when I was commuting from South OC to downtown LA. It make my 3 hour (each way) commute into 1:15 each way. I was basically splitting all the way from the El Toro Y to the point where I'd turn into my office parking garage. Then I got a job much closer to home, but it was still 45 minutes each way in the car...or 30 minutes on the bike. That was a fun one because traffic was in very tight clumps...so I'd split for a few minutes, then I'd have the whole road to myself. Then I'd split for a few minutes, etc. With our typical SoCal weather, I was usually arriving at work under a clear blue sky looking out across the Pacific at Catalina Island, smelling the salty breeze, etc. I took the long way home a bunch, too. Now that Lisa and I are on the same work schedule and work at the same place, along with the nature of our commute, taking the bike makes less and less sense. Look forward to meeting you tomorrow, Likewise! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.