Well, she sure burns gas

Tigerkf

Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
86
Location
USA
Well, assuming you are in the U.S., our premium gas, 91 octane or higher generally doesn't contain any ethanol.
Shell gas Canadian tire to name a few.
All depends on where you live and how much the farmers are being subsidized.
If a government mandates the use of ethanol, then you are stuck with it.
Does the burning ethonal reduce pollution, yes, but only very marginally.
So how much diesel fuel is burned in producing ethanol?
Soil tilling, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting to the ethanol plant, then, how much natural gas is burned in the process, along with the air pollution of the fermentation of the corn, I know, I lived down wind from an ethanol plant...Greek
Or is it yuk, kuk, ???
You figure it out.
SHUMBA

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
I read an article a few years ago written in Costco magazine which compared fossil fuels to ethanol. The ethanol side was written by a representative from the corn industry but the fossil fuels side was written by a professor from a major college in the US (I forget which one). The argument for ethanol was basically the one you hear in their marketing campaigns and did not lay out any science behind the argument. The fossil fuel side laid out the science regarding whether one is better for the environment than the other which is the main argument used by the ethanol industry. The main focus was greenhouse gas emissions. The author stated that one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases produced by both fossil fuel and ethanol usage was nitrous oxide. He said the fact is that to make and burn one gallon of fossil fuel vs one gallon of ethanol, a considerably larger amount of nitrous oxide is produced (I think he said like 100 times more but I can't remember exact numbers). The main reason for this is that plants require nitrogen to grow there is nothing else that can replace that therefore plants have to be fertilized with large amounts of nitrogen which releases nitrous oxide into the air! It also produces nitrous oxide when burned.

So to second your point it is not about being green, that is a myth, it's about subsidizing the corn industry. I also should mention that the corn industry lobbied (in the US) to have ethanol content in gas raised to 15% but it was shot down. The vehicle manufacturers and fossil fuel industry worked together to defeat it because the vehicle manufacturers were worried about the increased cost of manufacturing an engine that could withstand that amount of ethanol over the life of the vehicle.
 

Mad Earl

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
41
Location
Munich, Germany
I have BUMOT Xtremada Soft Panniers and they do not seem to collect bugs or have an noticeable effect on wind resistance.
I second that. The bike consumes pretty much exactly 5 l/100km with or without those panniers on. I've also mounted pretty huge fog lights onto the crash bars. Stock windshield with MRA X-Creen. No Autobahn, max 130 kph.
 

Cycledude

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
3,998
Location
Rib lake wi
Yes I agree totally with your thinking, I’m sure mpg is slightly less with panniers mounted but it’s more like 1 or 2 tenths of a mpg not the 3-4 mpg some folks claim.

I second that. The bike consumes pretty much exactly 5 l/100km with or without those panniers on. I've also mounted pretty huge fog lights onto the crash bars. Stock windshield with MRA X-Creen. No Autobahn, max 130 kph.
 

SuckSqueezeBangBlow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
370
Location
Whitby, Ontario

Mak10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
2,567
Location
SE Idaho
Best mileage was in Yellowstone NP. Speeds under 50 mph. My dash read out is optimistic on mpg by about 2-4 mpg. It also will depend on how patient and full you get the tank. But long term averages even that out.

I’ll stand behind my claim that my big boxy happy trails panniers affect my mileage. And yes they collect a lot of bugs.
 

SHUMBA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
1,242
Location
ONTARIO, CANADA
Well, my computer display on my bike tells lies. While it may give you a real time readout of your fuel burn at the moment, its the average fuel burn that is incorrect.
e.g. I dry tanked at 420 km or 420 x .625 = 262.5 miles. My average as per the display was 5.0 liters/100 km. Go figure.
Capacity = 24 litres if one liter gives 20 km then, 24 liters should give 24 x 20 = 480 km
Huh???
Ride like a gentleman = good fuel burn
Ride like an a$$hole = run out of gas.
Ha ha!!
SHUMBA

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
 
Top