Ethanol and racebikes

miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 12:40pm
12/8/2009 12:40pm
Well, I guess I'd say you better start storing fuel, because like it or not, it is a law that will go into effect sometime and will make you run it. Ethanol is used as a octane booster, that is a fact. Your bikes if jetted correctly would run better on 100% ethanol than your 50% mix. Fact again. If you doubt that, I guess Indy cars just run like crap. I'm in no way saying ethanol is the save all. I'm just saying what some people think, is not correct. I actually think that we can have much cleaner energy with water, wind, sun etc. I've invented things that run completely off of the sun and water. You can power your house off of solar and wind easily. There are other things. I'm just saying, you better get used to it, because not only is fossil fuel going to be an unobtainable like factory motocross bikes. It will also run out someday. So be it a war or running out. Fossil fuel won't be here much longer. I personally feel safer that I can make my own fuel. What will you do when it's gone?
ty159
Profile picture for user ty159
Posts
469
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Crawfordville, FL, USA
ty159 12/8/2009 12:43pm
12/8/2009 12:43pm Edited Date/Time 12/8/2009 12:45pm
Dude you don't know what you are talking about!! Ethanol is not Methanol!! My bikes are jetted on a dyno by my engine builder, and don't run as good on gas with ethanol! I'll take my engine builders word over yours!! Thanks for playing!!
miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 12:52pm
12/8/2009 12:52pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 7:21pm
Yup, I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL. Have you had your bikes jetted on the dyno with 100% ethanol? How much would you like to put on the line, to prove to me that 100% ethanol wouldn't give more HP than gasoline? I posted up for you, the BTU of all 3. Methanol is the worst. So why does methanol make more power when run in the same vehicle? Because it burns much much much faster than gasoline. It burns faster than Ethanol. Do me a favor. Ask your engine builder, if he jetted your bike to run 100% ethanol, would it run better than gasoline. Guess what his answer will be. Of course. It is simple physics. Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Again, go ask an Indy car tuner. Ethanol, because it burns faster, even at a lower BTU, it gives overall hp increase. Same as methanol does. Neither of which have a better BTU than gasoline.

I'm posting facts for you, and you seem to be def to knowledge. Do some research before you post again. Ask your tuner. Give him a call. Otherwise you need not post an answer. Because it is wrong. These are facts.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/8/2009 12:54pm
12/8/2009 12:54pm
CamP wrote:
Ethanol doesn't produce more power than gasoline. You are confusing ethanol with methanol, which produces about 20% more power than gasoline, but requires jetting that's 50%+...
Ethanol doesn't produce more power than gasoline. You are confusing ethanol with methanol, which produces about 20% more power than gasoline, but requires jetting that's 50%+ richer than gasoline.
miedosoracing1 wrote:
No, you are confused. Ethanol actually produces about 10% or more % less power than gasoline. The reason you get more horsepower from it, is because...
No, you are confused. Ethanol actually produces about 10% or more % less power than gasoline. The reason you get more horsepower from it, is because you are using 20-30% more fuel. Thus, increase in hp. But not increase of HP per unit used. It is actually a decrease. Methanol is actually even less BTU than Ethanol. It burns faster than gasoline as well. So here is the breakdown

1 gallon of gasoline = 125,000 Btu
1 gallon of ethanol = 84,400 Btu
1 gallon methanol = 62,800 Btu
The net energy is what matters. Pure methanol makes more power than pure ethanol. That's a fact.

Methanol = 3.08 Mj/kg
Ethanol = 3.00 Mj/kg

The Shop

See All »
miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 12:59pm
12/8/2009 12:59pm Edited Date/Time 12/8/2009 1:11pm
CamP wrote:
The net energy is what matters. Pure methanol makes more power than pure ethanol. That's a fact.

Methanol = 3.08 Mj/kg
Ethanol = 3.00 Mj/kg
Net energy only matters for numbers equal to equal amounts. But when you put it through a bike, and run 20-30% or even 50% more fuel through it, to achieve a ratio needed. Then the amount of HP given is not equivalent to the amount of net energy per unit. It's like saying this. Water is heavier than dirt. But if you have 50% more dirt, the total weight is heavier than the total water. What people don't get, is the burning speed, or the amount needed to burn at the ratio needed.


Let's make this even easier. Let's take your bike for instance. If we used the net numbers. Then that means we have to close off the aircleaner almost completely, so the bike will run off of the same jets as your gasoline did. So, in this instance, the net energy would show to be correct. The ethanol would lose by quite a bit. The bike would have much less horsepower. At the same time, we can say the exact same amount of fuel was used. Now, again, take your bike and use the same amount of air you had before, without closing the airfilter. Now you need to enlargen the jets by 20-30% to make your bike run. So you are pulling in the same amount of air, but now you are bringing in quite a bit more fuel. Thus, in a given period, the bike will burn much more fuel.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/8/2009 1:08pm
12/8/2009 1:08pm
CamP wrote:
The net energy is what matters. Pure methanol makes more power than pure ethanol. That's a fact.

Methanol = 3.08 Mj/kg
Ethanol = 3.00 Mj/kg
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Net energy only matters for numbers equal to equal amounts. But when you put it through a bike, and run 20-30% or even 50% more fuel...
Net energy only matters for numbers equal to equal amounts. But when you put it through a bike, and run 20-30% or even 50% more fuel through it, to achieve a ratio needed. Then the amount of HP given is not equivalent to the amount of net energy per unit. It's like saying this. Water is heavier than dirt. But if you have 50% more dirt, the total weight is heavier than the total water. What people don't get, is the burning speed, or the amount needed to burn at the ratio needed.


Let's make this even easier. Let's take your bike for instance. If we used the net numbers. Then that means we have to close off the aircleaner almost completely, so the bike will run off of the same jets as your gasoline did. So, in this instance, the net energy would show to be correct. The ethanol would lose by quite a bit. The bike would have much less horsepower. At the same time, we can say the exact same amount of fuel was used. Now, again, take your bike and use the same amount of air you had before, without closing the airfilter. Now you need to enlargen the jets by 20-30% to make your bike run. So you are pulling in the same amount of air, but now you are bringing in quite a bit more fuel. Thus, in a given period, the bike will burn much more fuel.
Listen man. Run the shit on the dyno and get back to me, or easier yet, call the lead chemist at VP and ask him. He'll tell you that Methanol makes more power than Ethanol. Period.
ty159
Profile picture for user ty159
Posts
469
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Crawfordville, FL, USA
ty159 12/8/2009 1:12pm
12/8/2009 1:12pm
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Yup, I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL. Have you had your bikes jetted on the dyno with 100% ethanol? How much would you like...
Yup, I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL. Have you had your bikes jetted on the dyno with 100% ethanol? How much would you like to put on the line, to prove to me that 100% ethanol wouldn't give more HP than gasoline? I posted up for you, the BTU of all 3. Methanol is the worst. So why does methanol make more power when run in the same vehicle? Because it burns much much much faster than gasoline. It burns faster than Ethanol. Do me a favor. Ask your engine builder, if he jetted your bike to run 100% ethanol, would it run better than gasoline. Guess what his answer will be. Of course. It is simple physics. Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Again, go ask an Indy car tuner. Ethanol, because it burns faster, even at a lower BTU, it gives overall hp increase. Same as methanol does. Neither of which have a better BTU than gasoline.

I'm posting facts for you, and you seem to be def to knowledge. Do some research before you post again. Ask your tuner. Give him a call. Otherwise you need not post an answer. Because it is wrong. These are facts.
Dude, FACT, the higher the OCTANE rating the the higher the flash point, therefor the higher compression needed to burn the fuel. None of my bikes are running a high enough compression to need anything higher than 100 octane, that is why I mix VP 110 with pump 93 (without the shitty ethanol). No stock 4 stroke needs really high octane either. I've seen bikes that run badly if the octane rating of the fuel is too high. Oxengenated fuels produce power better than high octanes!

I'm not deaf to knowledge, I know damn good and well what I'm talking about! As for ethanol being added to pump gas for an octane boost, that is the most ludicris statement in this thread, it is added as a filler.
miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 1:13pm
12/8/2009 1:13pm Edited Date/Time 12/8/2009 1:15pm
CamP wrote:
Listen man. Run the shit on the dyno and get back to me, or easier yet, call the lead chemist at VP and ask him. He'll...
Listen man. Run the shit on the dyno and get back to me, or easier yet, call the lead chemist at VP and ask him. He'll tell you that Methanol makes more power than Ethanol. Period.
I agree. Don't know why you don't understand that. But run the exact same size jets in the carb, and close the air intake to match the air/fuel ratio, and you would be wrong. You will use more methanol than ethanol or gasoline to achieve your hp rating you speak of.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/8/2009 1:18pm
12/8/2009 1:18pm
Miedoso wrote:
How much would you like to put on the line, to prove to me that 100% ethanol wouldn't give more HP? I posted up for you, the BTU of all 3. Methanol is the worst.

I've got $500 that says that Methanol makes more power than Ethanol. Put your money where your mouth it.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/8/2009 1:20pm
12/8/2009 1:20pm
miedosoracing1 wrote:
I agree. Don't know why you don't understand that. But run the exact same size jets in the carb, and close the air intake to match...
I agree. Don't know why you don't understand that. But run the exact same size jets in the carb, and close the air intake to match the air/fuel ratio, and you would be wrong. You will use more methanol than ethanol or gasoline to achieve your hp rating you speak of.
That's stupid. Every fuel requires a different stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. If you don't jet for the fuel type then throw all this shit out the window and play tiddly winks.
miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 1:24pm
12/8/2009 1:24pm Edited Date/Time 12/8/2009 2:19pm
CamP wrote:
Miedoso wrote: [b]How much would you like to put on the line, to prove to me that 100% ethanol wouldn't give more HP? I posted up...
Miedoso wrote:
How much would you like to put on the line, to prove to me that 100% ethanol wouldn't give more HP? I posted up for you, the BTU of all 3. Methanol is the worst.

I've got $500 that says that Methanol makes more power than Ethanol. Put your money where your mouth it.
Your right on that. I was going by the BTU, but at correct air/fuel ratios, you were right if we are talking correct air/fuel ratio. But instead of doing like you say, increasing the fuel amount, you could decrease the air amount. Giving you the correct air/fuel ratio while using the same amount of fuel, then it is backwards hp wise. But either way, I agree with you on this, but do you agree with me on ethanol vs. gasoline?
miedosoracing1 12/8/2009 1:26pm
12/8/2009 1:26pm Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 7:21pm
CamP wrote:
That's stupid. Every fuel requires a different stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. If you don't jet for the fuel type then throw all this shit out the window...
That's stupid. Every fuel requires a different stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. If you don't jet for the fuel type then throw all this shit out the window and play tiddly winks.
It's my whole point of people are trying to compare fuels like they are exactly the same. By the way I'm stating things, you are rejetting per say. It is adjusting the air mixture rather than the fuel mixture. I'm tring to point out that ethanol while it has less btu than gasoline, ran correctly in the same bike, it gives out more hp. That may sound stupid, but it is my way of trying to get through to someone who won't listen to truth. Just the ethanol sucks scenario.


"In the case of the alcohol fuels, like Methanol and Ethanol, since they are partially oxidized fuels they need to be run at much richer mixtures than gasoline. As a consequence the total amount of fuel burned per cycle, counter balances the lower energy per unit volume, and the net energy released per cycle is higher. If gasoline is run at its preferred max power air fuel mixture of 12.5:1, it will release approximately 19,000 BTU of energy, where ethanol run at its preferred max power mixture of 6.5:1 will liberate approximately 24,400 BTU, and Methanol at a 4.5:1 AFR liberates about 27,650 BTU.

To account for these differences, a measure called the fuel's specific energy is sometimes used. It is defined as the energy released per air fuel ratio. For the case of gasoline compared to the alcohol fuels the specific energies are as follows.

Fuel Net energy Units
Gasoline 2.92 MJ/kg
Ethanol 3.00 MJ/kg
Methanol 3.08 MJ/kg"



Now by using these air/fuel ratios, you will see that methanol uses 3 times as much fuel as gasoline.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/8/2009 1:32pm
12/8/2009 1:32pm
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Your right on that. I was going by the BTU, but at correct air/fuel ratios, you were right if we are talking correct air/fuel ratio. But...
Your right on that. I was going by the BTU, but at correct air/fuel ratios, you were right if we are talking correct air/fuel ratio. But instead of doing like you say, increasing the fuel amount, you could decrease the air amount. Giving you the correct air/fuel ratio while using the same amount of fuel, then it is backwards hp wise. But either way, I agree with you on this, but do you agree with me on ethanol vs. gasoline?
Yes, pure or E85 ethanol will make slightly more power than gasoline when jetted correctly.
JB 19
Profile picture for user JB 19
Posts
4350
Joined
3/8/2009
Location
Marion, OH, USA
JB 19 12/8/2009 3:49pm
12/8/2009 3:49pm
Being into turbo and supercharged cars like a drug addict into herion, this is right down my alley. The problem of ethanol absorbing water is about the only issue. The corrosive issues have mostly been thrown out the window due to people running E85 in cars that weren't intended for it for 3-4 years now with no ill effects. (methanol is a different story)

E85 is the fuel that is dominating the turbo car world. Some guys are even making more power on E85 than VP Q16. I'm talking 900+ horsepower from 2 liter 4 cylinder engines and 1200+ on turbo V8's. These are street cars not full blown drag cars. I do my own tuning on my cars and have seen the effects first hand.

E85 is 105 octane and actually "acts" like its higher octane than that. The fuel itself provides little extra power. (per unit is does not...and low octance gasoline actually makes power than high octane gasoline, but that is another debate) It has a slight cooling effect because it is alcohol which is like riding in slightly cooler temps. The massive power comes from the fuel allowing more aggressive tuning due to its resistance to knock.

When tuners make thses new FI bikes feel totally different with tuning( like big mid range VS smooth powerband) they are mostly doing it with timing.
Of course on forced induced engines you have boost to play with also. The fuel curve is important too, but the timing is where the big changes occur.

E85 requires about 20% more fuel than gasoline, but when comparing the price of E85 to race gas this is usually not a big deal. 2.50$ a gallon for E85 VS 15$ for race gas.

.....I could go on and on ,but we went through this about 4 years ago in cars and all the haters talked about how it would ruin engines and make things explode, but now it has been fully accepted as poor mans race gas.


BTW that sweet ass Sunoco 94 octane? 10% ethanol. ( E10)
tuz371
Profile picture for user tuz371
Posts
685
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Chalfont, PA, USA
tuz371 12/8/2009 4:59pm
12/8/2009 4:59pm
Moto East Mag wrote:
This is interesting. EPA is considering allowing (not mandating) up to 15% ethanol in pump gas. Does anybody know potential effects on race bike engines? from...
This is interesting. EPA is considering allowing (not mandating) up to 15% ethanol in pump gas. Does anybody know potential effects on race bike engines?

from Wall Street Journal:
The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, which represents makers of lawn mowers, chainsaws and other power gear, said it is "deeply concerned," since educating millions of consumers to prevent potentially dangerous misfueling would be "a daunting task." Small-engine makers are particularly concerned about the potential liability associated with accidents or strandings because of engine failures caused by extra ethanol in the fuel mix.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487048255045745802913476744…
What was the big problem with the US MXdN bikes about 10 years back? This was before the unleaded vs. leaded issues, if I recall correctly. I thought it had to do with the US bikes having to be retuned to run on sub 87 Octane pump gas.

Could be wrong though and there are great benefits to making things work well with sub-par equipment, like making 50hp with high octane, leaded race gas vs. 87 unleaded pump gas.
Jakes Dad
Profile picture for user Jakes Dad
Posts
1864
Joined
6/22/2009
Location
Brooksville, FL, USA
Jakes Dad 12/8/2009 5:24pm
12/8/2009 5:24pm
Ok all you scientists why the hell aren't we mixing 2 stroke oil with this stuff? I know in our drag motors the high amount of alcohol run through the motor compared to gas we had ring wash and then it ate into the babbitt on the bearings. With roller bearings in these 2 stroke bike engines I don't see the same problem. Don't 2 stroke karts run on methanol?
miedosoracing1 12/9/2009 7:53am
12/9/2009 7:53am
Methanol, while correct gives more hp. It is much more corrosive than E85. E85 in a 2 stroke. Yes, that is what I'm in the process of testing. The oil should give the (spelling?) lubricicity that is needed. I've decided to run 32:1 for testing to make sure there isn't any ill effects because gasoline has more lubricicity. The only thing that may be a problem with the 2 stroke bikes, is the plastic tank? Other than that, the water in the fuel. For now removal of the fuel every ride is the best option.

More info on Methanol:
Quote "Normally, ambient water is necessary to promote corrosion; in this case, methanol will create its own water from aluminum oxides, even in a sealed aluminum system. Methanol is also hygroscopic and will absorb water from the air if the system is not sealed.
Interestingly, can act as its own oxidizer and a reduction agent,
and it can also strip the oxide layer off and corrode aluminum. How long will it take before it begins to corrode the metal?: This process starts immediately, but the rate is low.

Take note: It will cause certain plastics to swell that would otherwise be compatible with gasoline, so you have to check to be sure your tubes and seals are alcohol compatible. Viton and other fluoroelastomers are OK with both gas and alcohol (but $$). If you always run alcohol, there are less expensive alcohol-compatible plastics.

My experience tells me that the corrosion rate is not very high (they ship methanol in steel containers), but its not a good idea to store fuel from a vehicle for a long time in any system. Methanol is worse than gas, not only from the corrosion standpoint, but from the water absorption - water in the system will rust steel, even if the methanol didn't. That's why some people recommend draining the system as soon as you're done with it."

Pit Row

See All »
ScottP
Profile picture for user ScottP
Posts
49
Joined
6/23/2009
Location
Montville, NJ, USA
ScottP 12/9/2009 8:54am
12/9/2009 8:54am
Haha, this thread is awesome. Only because Miedo and CamP are arguing and they are both correct. I love this site.

If you are actually interested check out the National Ethonal Coalition site.
Shell has done tests on Enthanol but they no longer have the report on their site. (Probably because it contradicted some of their previous comments)

More blended fuels are on the way, with more additives that have not been previously seen. Right now the best way to be safe on a budget is run at least a 50/50 race/pump mix. In the futur remapping of the FI bikes will be the norm to compansate for diffent blends in different areas.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/9/2009 10:25am
12/9/2009 10:25am
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Methanol, while correct gives more hp. It is much more corrosive than E85. E85 in a 2 stroke. Yes, that is what I'm in the process...
Methanol, while correct gives more hp. It is much more corrosive than E85. E85 in a 2 stroke. Yes, that is what I'm in the process of testing. The oil should give the (spelling?) lubricicity that is needed. I've decided to run 32:1 for testing to make sure there isn't any ill effects because gasoline has more lubricicity. The only thing that may be a problem with the 2 stroke bikes, is the plastic tank? Other than that, the water in the fuel. For now removal of the fuel every ride is the best option.

More info on Methanol:
Quote "Normally, ambient water is necessary to promote corrosion; in this case, methanol will create its own water from aluminum oxides, even in a sealed aluminum system. Methanol is also hygroscopic and will absorb water from the air if the system is not sealed.
Interestingly, can act as its own oxidizer and a reduction agent,
and it can also strip the oxide layer off and corrode aluminum. How long will it take before it begins to corrode the metal?: This process starts immediately, but the rate is low.

Take note: It will cause certain plastics to swell that would otherwise be compatible with gasoline, so you have to check to be sure your tubes and seals are alcohol compatible. Viton and other fluoroelastomers are OK with both gas and alcohol (but $$). If you always run alcohol, there are less expensive alcohol-compatible plastics.

My experience tells me that the corrosion rate is not very high (they ship methanol in steel containers), but its not a good idea to store fuel from a vehicle for a long time in any system. Methanol is worse than gas, not only from the corrosion standpoint, but from the water absorption - water in the system will rust steel, even if the methanol didn't. That's why some people recommend draining the system as soon as you're done with it."
When I ran Methanol, after each day of riding I had to run the carb dry, then fill it with gasoline and run it dry again to wash the methanol out of the engine. I never had any corrosion or seal problems when doing this. I also had to test new Methanol with a hydrometer to make sure that it had not absorbed too much water. There where a few occasions when the methanol was bad right from the supplier. Too much water made the bike run lean. Because the octane rating of alcohol is so high I milled the head to increase the compression and advanced the ignition timing slightly. Lastly, I used a double power jet Lectron carb that Don Vesco set up for me. The stock carb would not flow the amount of fuel need to get the a/f to 6:1. Once, I had everything sorted out, my 250 ran like an open bike. It was so fast that I was able to do a full lap during practice at the '95 Whitney GNC keeping Charlie Bogard behind me.
miedosoracing1 12/9/2009 10:42am
12/9/2009 10:42am Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 7:22pm
you know, I went over a thread I got in basically these same arguments on allthingsmoto, back in 06. Funny how I was right about fuel costs etc. Seems atleast some people have gone away from the ethanol sucks dealio. The oil cartels were about overthrown when the price of gas went up to $4. (joke) But it did actually open a lot of peoples eyes i think. That there is alternatives. Maybe not ethanol, maybe not wind, maybe not sun. But all the things everyone can come up with together, would lower our dependence on foreign people who don't like us. Anyways, I was actually thinking about the exact things you just listed. I wondered, if a CR250 for example, ran on ethanol 100% could be milled and run at higher compression, and change the ignition curve since the detonation wouldn't be the problem. Thus, maybe run along with a 450 HP wise? Interesting stuff you put up. One question I don't understand though, how at 6:1 ratio, are you not having hydro lock? I mean the combustion area is only so big, and when you send in that much fuel, isn't it just going to go clunk?

I will say, I personally believe biobutanol is the best fuel. It has a lot of btu characteristics of gasoline and it doesn't hold water but is like ethanol. It is made out of algae etc. Not even needing fossil fuels to make it. It could be another to include in the making of alternative fuel program. I say this in closing about ethanol etc. Atleast I have some people on here that actually know what they are talking about. in 06, ethanol sucks was the basic rebuttal. Anyways, I believe we could do the following to lower our dependence from foreign hate oil. All grocery stores etc, that have bad fruits, breads, and other carbonated foods, that will just throw them away, put it in a special food bank. Every lawn cut, puts bags out like they do garbage. But all these things, instead of going to the land fill and adding to it, would go to a biobutanol or ethanol (while making biobutanol, you make other fuels at the same time like ethanol etc) factory, and produce fuel. Thus, instead of buying expensive corn, that actually takes away from our food etc. Let's use the stuff that builds up in our landfills, and get it free basically. Thus, the first part of the production price is saved. Plus it is green, by not filling the landfill. You can be green without being dumb.
CamP
Profile picture for user CamP
Posts
6826
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Colleyville, TX, USA
CamP 12/9/2009 11:13am
12/9/2009 11:13am Edited Date/Time 4/17/2016 7:22pm
At a 6:1 a/f ratio, everything has to be just right or you will blow head gaskets. I went too high on the compression at first, and experienced that problem first hand.

The downside of ethanol is that many vehicles often have components that won't tolerate it. For example, older automotive fuel injectors often have windings held in resin that is alcohol soluble and the ethanol eventually will short them out. Even the plastic carb on my B&S powered power washer was ruined by E10 forcing me to replace it recently. Visually it looked fine but the fuel had caused the body to swell enough that it just would not run properly. Now I just run 100LL avgas in it so that I don't have to deal with that again.
Jakes Dad
Profile picture for user Jakes Dad
Posts
1864
Joined
6/22/2009
Location
Brooksville, FL, USA
Jakes Dad 12/9/2009 5:00pm
12/9/2009 5:00pm
In our drag motors we went from 12 to 1 up 14 to 1 compression and o-ringed the block. Most door cars picked up over a second in ET. At the end of the race day we'd drain fuel and run carb dry and "pickle" the motor with WD 40 until next race. On my briggs motor in race kart just drain and pickle, was very easy maintenance with that.
cpetey_44
Profile picture for user cpetey_44
Posts
57
Joined
4/19/2009
Location
Alden, MN, USA
cpetey_44 12/9/2009 8:20pm
12/9/2009 8:20pm
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Just as an FYI, here goes. Ethanol, while you would use about 20-30% more fuel in your bike, it would give you quite a bit more...
Just as an FYI, here goes. Ethanol, while you would use about 20-30% more fuel in your bike, it would give you quite a bit more horsepower. As per say, we are not worried about fuel economy in motocross so much, it is the ticket for cheap power. That being said, the person who said the water in your fuel will be a big issue is right. Even down here, I have been talking about this for years. Having a sputter going up to a jump would be bad :-( Taking the fuel out every ride and putting it in a metal tank that is sealed. That is a huge pain. their are water removal liquids to add if you so desire. Second, you can not switch back and forth, with the old carbed bikes. The jetting from my testing, is a huge huge change. Much much bigger jets, so the fuel amount flowing rises to match the ratio needed. So, I guess you could change back and forth, but keeping the regular fuel jetting and the ethanol jetting seperated so you don't get them confused. I do believe most current dirtbikes are built with the safety of not melting parts, since they know most common people riding dirtbikes will be running the 10-15% ethanol already. Although this part has not been tested yet from what I have seen around. The fuel injected bikes may be the best chance, although not sure they are setup to pump that much more fuel and or adjust to the change. Our current bikes are built to accept the current fuels. Why, because most riders do not race, and are pumping their bikes with pump fuel. Last but not least, although it is iffy using 100% ethanol to gain the power. It does do one other good thing. Ethanol has higher octane than pump gas. I can't remember the number but it was over 100. I have been testing this, because I am a survivalist and worry about the day that fossil fuel gets very hard to find. Thus, I know how to make ethanol out of old fruits, etc. Things like banana peels etc. All that using sun power and other things that won't polute and doesn't use energy to make. So there are good things and bad things.
CamP wrote:
Ethanol doesn't produce more power than gasoline. You are confusing ethanol with methanol, which produces about 20% more power than gasoline, but requires jetting that's 50%+...
Ethanol doesn't produce more power than gasoline. You are confusing ethanol with methanol, which produces about 20% more power than gasoline, but requires jetting that's 50%+ richer than gasoline.
camP sad to say but your very wrong, havent you ever watched horsepower tv or anything related to motors; why do you think the indy car series runs ethanol instead of race fuel now. Ethanol is also used by drag racers on the weekend instead of 6$ race gas. I know this cuz i make it our family has a ton of money into ethanol and it does make lots more power than regular gas. If i recall right they ran a 350 with 93 pump gas vs. E85 and the E85 made 15 more hp. Grant it if your a tree hugger it also is better for the environment and whatnot but either way it equals more power, not saying you should just go out and pour it in your bike but it does make more power. If you dont believe me my brother graduate first outta 300 people in his class and had a 4.0 in automotive engineering so yes i think i would know what im talking about.
Blake
Profile picture for user Blake
Posts
2934
Joined
9/11/2009
Location
USA
Blake 12/13/2009 10:36am
12/13/2009 10:36am
MMCDan wrote:
Depending on where you buy your pump gas, you've probably run higher than 10% ethanol blend in your car/bike at some point. Smaller refiners/blenders blend on...
Depending on where you buy your pump gas, you've probably run higher than 10% ethanol blend in your car/bike at some point. Smaller refiners/blenders blend on economics and when the wholesale price differential between ethanol and unleaded gets high enough they will splash more ethanol in the mix. Throw on the blenders credit and it's too tempting to pass up. There are plenty of cases where fuel in tanks tested at 15% - 20% ethanol.
False.
Right now, pump gas is about 8.7% with a variance to maximum 10%.

E-85 is the only exception.

The only difference between say Shell or Chevrons Unbranded and Branded fuel is their own detergents/additives, but in a state like CA, junk gas from el cheapo station is the same specs as far as being a legal motor fuel per Calif/CARB specs

Is the few cents more for a branded fuel worth it? In a bike maybe for the extra detergents, in a car........not really. The fuel all has the mandated amounts of detergents/cleaners/lubes for your cars warranty.

I highly doubt anyones tanks have 15-20% ethanol. Just like no shell station is selling unbranded from a branded tank. They would be done instantly.

Ethanol can make power like Methanol, but mileage sucks ass.

Pure Methanol is about 30% worse mileage. There are some tricks to using ethanol but I wont divulge
Blake
Profile picture for user Blake
Posts
2934
Joined
9/11/2009
Location
USA
Blake 12/13/2009 10:44am
12/13/2009 10:44am Edited Date/Time 12/13/2009 5:35pm
miedosoracing1 wrote:
Methanol, while correct gives more hp. It is much more corrosive than E85. E85 in a 2 stroke. Yes, that is what I'm in the process...
Methanol, while correct gives more hp. It is much more corrosive than E85. E85 in a 2 stroke. Yes, that is what I'm in the process of testing. The oil should give the (spelling?) lubricicity that is needed. I've decided to run 32:1 for testing to make sure there isn't any ill effects because gasoline has more lubricicity. The only thing that may be a problem with the 2 stroke bikes, is the plastic tank? Other than that, the water in the fuel. For now removal of the fuel every ride is the best option.

More info on Methanol:
Quote "Normally, ambient water is necessary to promote corrosion; in this case, methanol will create its own water from aluminum oxides, even in a sealed aluminum system. Methanol is also hygroscopic and will absorb water from the air if the system is not sealed.
Interestingly, can act as its own oxidizer and a reduction agent,
and it can also strip the oxide layer off and corrode aluminum. How long will it take before it begins to corrode the metal?: This process starts immediately, but the rate is low.

Take note: It will cause certain plastics to swell that would otherwise be compatible with gasoline, so you have to check to be sure your tubes and seals are alcohol compatible. Viton and other fluoroelastomers are OK with both gas and alcohol (but $$). If you always run alcohol, there are less expensive alcohol-compatible plastics.

My experience tells me that the corrosion rate is not very high (they ship methanol in steel containers), but its not a good idea to store fuel from a vehicle for a long time in any system. Methanol is worse than gas, not only from the corrosion standpoint, but from the water absorption - water in the system will rust steel, even if the methanol didn't. That's why some people recommend draining the system as soon as you're done with it."
CamP wrote:
When I ran Methanol, after each day of riding I had to run the carb dry, then fill it with gasoline and run it dry again...
When I ran Methanol, after each day of riding I had to run the carb dry, then fill it with gasoline and run it dry again to wash the methanol out of the engine. I never had any corrosion or seal problems when doing this. I also had to test new Methanol with a hydrometer to make sure that it had not absorbed too much water. There where a few occasions when the methanol was bad right from the supplier. Too much water made the bike run lean. Because the octane rating of alcohol is so high I milled the head to increase the compression and advanced the ignition timing slightly. Lastly, I used a double power jet Lectron carb that Don Vesco set up for me. The stock carb would not flow the amount of fuel need to get the a/f to 6:1. Once, I had everything sorted out, my 250 ran like an open bike. It was so fast that I was able to do a full lap during practice at the '95 Whitney GNC keeping Charlie Bogard behind me.
Thats called pickleing the engine.

MMCDan
Profile picture for user MMCDan
Posts
110
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Beaumont, CA, USA
MMCDan 12/13/2009 9:35pm
12/13/2009 9:35pm
MMCDan wrote:
Depending on where you buy your pump gas, you've probably run higher than 10% ethanol blend in your car/bike at some point. Smaller refiners/blenders blend on...
Depending on where you buy your pump gas, you've probably run higher than 10% ethanol blend in your car/bike at some point. Smaller refiners/blenders blend on economics and when the wholesale price differential between ethanol and unleaded gets high enough they will splash more ethanol in the mix. Throw on the blenders credit and it's too tempting to pass up. There are plenty of cases where fuel in tanks tested at 15% - 20% ethanol.
Blake wrote:
False. Right now, pump gas is about 8.7% with a variance to maximum 10%. E-85 is the only exception. The only difference between say Shell or...
False.
Right now, pump gas is about 8.7% with a variance to maximum 10%.

E-85 is the only exception.

The only difference between say Shell or Chevrons Unbranded and Branded fuel is their own detergents/additives, but in a state like CA, junk gas from el cheapo station is the same specs as far as being a legal motor fuel per Calif/CARB specs

Is the few cents more for a branded fuel worth it? In a bike maybe for the extra detergents, in a car........not really. The fuel all has the mandated amounts of detergents/cleaners/lubes for your cars warranty.

I highly doubt anyones tanks have 15-20% ethanol. Just like no shell station is selling unbranded from a branded tank. They would be done instantly.

Ethanol can make power like Methanol, but mileage sucks ass.

Pure Methanol is about 30% worse mileage. There are some tricks to using ethanol but I wont divulge
Not False.

I guess I need to be educated on the 8.7% standard you mentioned. The only federal percentage requirement that I am aware of is the 10% mandate in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS 2) and compliance with RFS2 is not based on a requirement that refiners show that they actually blend renewable fuels (e.g. test results). It is based instead on a requirement that refiners obtain RINs as evidence that the renewable fuel has been blended into gasoline. There is no requirement for a refiner to show that they actually performed such blending.

In the US, the primary method for blending ethanol into gasoline is splash blending. Splash blending is when ethanol is splashed into the gasoline, either in the tanker truck or sometimes into the storage tank of the gas station. This is where the inaccuracy and manipulation of blending takes place and why some gas has an ethanol percentage of 4% to 35%.

Most smaller companies prefer splash blending because it is cheaper to splash blend than inline blend. To get the tight blending requirements that you quote a company would have to purchase/install/operate/maintain loading rack modifications that include meters and computer-controlled blenders. Costs for these modifications can reach $2M or more per terminal.

Perhaps the tolerance you quote is applicable to the majors (e.g. Shell, Exxon, etc.) who, to assure quality of fuels marketed under their company brand, generally do not permit splash blending of ethanol by their distributers.

It's all about economics. Read this and you'll get a better understanding:

http://www.virginiahazmat.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=381…

Post a reply to: Ethanol and racebikes