Id like to think we can take an informative topic that effects us and use it here without delving into political editorials... Just like being able to discuss motorcycle specific laws (folks here did great work in NYC). 

Let's not show dp he's right again ok?

Quote from: Statler on February 26, 2011, 07:29:15 PM
Let's not show dp he's right again ok?

Oop! 

My bad.

I'll cut back on those smileys.

Quote from: Statler on February 26, 2011, 07:29:15 PM
Id like to think we can take an informative topic that effects us and use it here without delving into political editorials... Just like being able to discuss motorcycle specific laws (folks here did great work in NYC). 

Let's not show dp he's right again ok?

It's a curse I tell ya.

Who needs more Ethanol ? !       

Good news....

Dolph       

Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 26, 2011, 08:37:35 PM
Who needs more Ethanol ? !

I frequently think I need more ethanol.

But never in my gasoline.

Good show, robot masters.

Quote from: Buckethead on February 26, 2011, 06:05:27 PM
And seat belts and car insurance are optional.

you forgot, helmets optional

Quote from: seevtsaab on February 27, 2011, 04:21:07 AM
you forgot, helmets optional

There's lots of states like that. NH requires it if you're <18 years old, just like:     
   
    * Alaska
    * Arizona
    * Colorado
    * Connecticut
    * Hawaii
    * Idaho
    * Indiana
    * Kansas
    * Maine
    * Minnesota
    * Montana
    * New Mexico
    * No. Dakota
    * Ohio
    * Oklahoma
    * So. Dakota
    * Utah
    * Wisconsin
    * Wyoming

...but that has nothing to do with the ethanol content of our fuel, so [/threadjack].

Does anyone find it peculiar that no one ever defends ethanol as a fuel additive?

anyone who grows corn defends ethanol!

Prices for corn are up due to use for more ethanol, which is good for farmers

But,

There are food shortages that some attribute to the large use of corn for ethanol - as long as there is demand, either for ethanol or for food,
it seems to me that it should still be good for farmers

IMO, ethanol additives are just one of many  non-economically feasible stop-gap measures to cut emissions and lower (artificially) energy costs

guys, if this is staying in GMC, please keep it to bike-related stuff and bike-related issues about ethanol.   There's been lots of good ethanol talk in NMC about the marine industry, lots of good ethanol talk (and some crap) in the tank threads, and before that all of that there was some rotten talk about the laws/rules/regulations in the old politics forum.

we all know the political issues surrounding it and if we don't it's easy to find.  We're not going to get into shit fights here because people can't help but post their opinions about it all.

how it effects our bikes, fine.

what we can do about it both technically with the bikes, and overall in terms of who to write to and what to say (to your representatives), fine.

I sent letters to my congressmen from Iowa.  I am sure they are still supporting E15 since it lines their pockets, but maybe word is getting around.



mitt

Quote from: ducatiz on February 27, 2011, 05:42:25 AM
Does anyone find it peculiar that no one ever defends ethanol as a fuel additive?

Sorry for continuing the NMC, but to try and play devil's advocate, one good thing about ethanol
as a blend, is the distribution infrastructure is in place. I believe there are folks working to enable blending at the refinery level instead of downstream.
I'm confident if ethanol was proven viable we'd be able to get past the negative effects on our motos and weedwhackers.
Our industialized agribusiness is srewed up IMO, extracting ethanol from it doesn't help, IMO.

Quote from: seevtsaab on February 28, 2011, 04:31:43 AM
Sorry for continuing the NMC, but to try and play devil's advocate, one good thing about ethanol
as a blend, is the distribution infrastructure is in place. I believe there are folks working to enable blending at the refinery level instead of downstream.
I'm confident if ethanol was proven viable we'd be able to get past the negative effects on our motos and weedwhackers.
Our industialized agribusiness is srewed up IMO, extracting ethanol from it doesn't help, IMO.

In Australia, the ethanol blending is so downstream, it's done at the pump.  This allows the end consumer to decide exactly how much of a blend he wants.  IF they want 100% pure gasoline, then no ethanol flows.  Putting it further upstream just makes it more of fiat at the pump and less choice. 

I've said previously that with the proper vehicle engine, ethanol is viable.  Look at Brazil (which uses ethanol from their ubiquitous cane.)   They have made cars for years that run on high concentrations of it.  Gasoline in Brazil is mandated to have 25% ethanol, and many people just opt for a pure ethanol car anyhow -- it runs about $1.50/gallon.  The downside is that with a regular tuned engine, they keep them small -- no bigger than 1.5L engines running around.

My point is that ethanol as an ADDITIVE is a bad idea.  Offer it as a pure fuel and offer cars that run it, but leave my gasoline alone.

There's no reason someone couldnt develop a motorcycle engine that runs off alcohol -- there are plenty of alky carbs available. 

Take the ethanol out of gasoline, put it alongside.  Sell cars that run it.  If they can get it at $1.50/gallon like in Brazil people will buy it, even with the lower fuel economy, they'll buy it.

Back, oh, around 1979 or so when we started with gasohol (E10) the ethanol was blended at the refinery.  Blending is now downstream to prevent phase separation.  Simply put, the later the fuel is blended the less time it has to absorb moisture before it goes in your vehicle.