Gas Tank

[dlaing]

Good point, Ducman.

 

Wouldn't likely be the heat lately, would it? After all, as elsewhere across the planet, the average cold temps in Florida have been dropping low enough to decimate crops on an unprecedented scale, make the iguanas fall outta the trees -- croakin' 'em dead as a doornail -- and it's been snowing all the way down to Key West in recent years. . .

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1006526/Melbourne's-record-breaking-heatwave

"Melbourne has broken another weather record today as temperatures reach 43 degrees, with firefighters on high alert as the mercury soars.

If the weather predictions are correct, it will be the first time since records began in 1855 that the city has had three consecutive days of temperatures above 43C."

Obviously one city's weather has caused Moto Guzzi's plastic tanks to expand almost as fast rubber breaks down in lawn mowers.

Oh the logic is astounding.

[Guest ratchethack]

They assume it's the ethanol. It may instead be something that's added along with the ethanol. I've got a lawnmower and a weedwhacker and a generator and a chainsaw that've been run on ethanol since the late 1990s and haven't had to rebuild the carbs on any of them. Maybe the gas companies don't add to cold Seattle's ethanol gas some chemical that's part of the additive pack added for warmer climates? In both cases, ethanol is in common but the problem is not. Why some refuse to look for any other possible cause should not surprise me.

Hmmm, yes indeed. Whatever it might be that should or shoud not surprise you notwithstanding, you seem to’ve developed yet another target fixation here, Greg. By my count, this is your 4th post saying the same thing. Will you next start up your familiar daily empty Field Forum Filibustering and page counting, to go along with the repetition?

 

You know, Greg, I gotta say that by your 4th post, I was already startin’ to come around. Now I’ve actually turned a corner on this one, and now I agree in full -- Not that any unknown (and unmentioned) of the possible list of additives to ethanol-added fuel in the “additive pack”, are the sole dastardly plastic tank swelling culprit(s), mind you. -- Since there’s no evidence of this of any kind anywhere, despite the possibility, or even the high probability of some multi-combo thereof between ethanol, other additives, and gasoline itself. –- But none of that really matters to you, does it? I b’lieve you’re after blood here, Greg, and on that basis alone, now I’m on board!

 

Why – it’s clearly PUNISHMENT of those who question you with credible challenges that you can't refute with anything other than baseless opinion that you want -- and I agree wholeheartedly that you oughtta have it!

 

Tell you wot, Greg – since Dave is famous hereabouts for speculating castles in the air and then moving himself in on cue, and since you seem to get your unquestionable perspectives from gazing into plastic booze bottles, why don’t you and Dave team up on this one, form a Speculation Posse, and track down everyone on this thread who has posted clear evidence of being a fool ethanol fuel additive pack DENIER. -- You know, all those who’ve clearly stated that it’s ONLY the ethanol, and can only be ethanol ALONE -- not anything else in the ethanol additive pack -- that causes, all by itself, the well-documented set of problems with plastic Guzzi fuel tanks that has shown up on the mysterious geographic pattern all across the planet.

 

You guys round up all the Deniers and bring ‘em in. We’ll strip ‘em down, stake ‘em out spread-eagle on ant hills in the sun, and we’ll let the coyotes and wild dogs gnaw on their nut-bags for a few nights until they admit that you’re right and the rest of the planet is wrong.

 

Then we’ll take wot’s left of ‘em, and make ‘em sign confessions that say that ethanol CANNOT POSSIBLY have anything to do with any funny stuff happening with ANY plastic Guzzi fuel tank -- anywhere, any time -- despite the public statements to the contrary (referenced earlier in this thread with fully backed up source link) published by the National Ethanol Conference, Renewable Fuels Association, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Society of Automotive Engineers, and auto and moto industry OEMs, not to mention the entire petroleum industry, the auto & moto media, countless OEM TSBs, etc. -- and we’ll even throw in a clause that covers all possible ethanol concentrations and additive pack component possibilities across all regional and seasonal variations on the planet, to boot.

 

Compared to yourself, the above expert authorities, of course, are all relatively INFERIOR sources of information on ethanol and the well-known ravages thereof in internal combustion motors, since they all come from professional associations of the planet’s most highly educated, well informed, experienced, and well accomplished petrochemical engineers in their fields – obviously these are nothing but the worthless considerations of “lesser men”.

 

Every time I go to the liquor store, I see rows and rows of plastic bottles full of 80-110-proof booze. Every time, I marvel that none of them seem to be swelling, and then I wonder, "With four times the concentration of ethanol present in gasoline, shouldn't these plastic tanks be melting before my very eyes?"

. . .

Lesser men never even consider such things . . .

 

That's right.^ Far better to trust the “liquor logic” of a “greater man” -- a lawnmowin’, chainsawin’ and weedwackin’ moto parts counter guy, gazing at cheap booze in plastic bottles on the shelf at the regular neighborhood holdup/perpetual crime scene.

[Greg Field]

Hmmm, yes indeed. Whatever it might be that should or shoud not surprise you notwithstanding, you seem to’ve developed yet another target fixation here, Greg. By my count, this is your 4th post saying the same thing. Will you next start up your familiar daily empty Field Forum Filibustering and page counting, to go along with the repetition?

 

You know, Greg, I gotta say that by your 4th post, I was already startin’ to come around. Now I’ve actually turned a corner on this one, and now I agree in full -- Not that any unknown (and unmentioned) of the possible list of additives to ethanol-added fuel in the “additive pack”, are the sole dastardly plastic tank swelling culprit(s), mind you. -- Since there’s no evidence of this of any kind anywhere, despite the possibility, or even the high probability of some multi-combo thereof between ethanol, other additives, and gasoline itself. –- But none of that really matters to you, does it? I b’lieve you’re after blood here, Greg, and on that basis alone, now I’m on board!

 

Why – it’s clearly PUNISHMENT of those who question you with credible challenges that you can't refute with anything other than baseless opinion that you want -- and I agree wholeheartedly that you oughtta have it!

 

Tell you wot, Greg – since Dave is famous hereabouts for speculating castles in the air and then moving himself in on cue, and since you seem to get your unquestionable perspectives from gazing into plastic booze bottles, why don’t you and Dave team up on this one, form a Speculation Posse, and track down everyone on this thread who has posted clear evidence of being a fool ethanol fuel additive pack DENIER. -- You know, all those who’ve clearly stated that it’s ONLY the ethanol, and can only be ethanol ALONE -- not anything else in the ethanol additive pack -- that causes, all by itself, the well-documented set of problems with plastic Guzzi fuel tanks that has shown up on the mysterious geographic pattern all across the planet.

 

You guys round up all the Deniers and bring ‘em in. We’ll strip ‘em down, stake ‘em out spread-eagle on ant hills in the sun, and we’ll let the coyotes and wild dogs gnaw on their nut-bags for a few nights until they admit that you’re right and the rest of the planet is wrong.

 

Then we’ll take wot’s left of ‘em, and make ‘em sign confessions that say that ethanol CANNOT POSSIBLY have anything to do with any funny stuff happening with ANY plastic Guzzi fuel tank -- anywhere, any time -- despite the public statements to the contrary (referenced earlier in this thread with fully backed up source link) published by the National Ethanol Conference, Renewable Fuels Association, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Society of Automotive Engineers, and auto and moto industry OEMs, not to mention the entire petroleum industry, the auto & moto media, countless OEM TSBs, etc. -- and we’ll even throw in a clause that covers all possible ethanol concentrations and additive pack component possibilities across all regional and seasonal variations on the planet, to boot.

 

Compared to yourself, the above expert authorities, of course, are all relatively INFERIOR sources of information on ethanol and the well-known ravages thereof in internal combustion motors, since they all come from professional associations of the planet’s most highly educated, well informed, experienced, and well accomplished petrochemical engineers in their fields – obviously these are nothing but the worthless considerations of “lesser men”.

 

 

 

That's right.^ Far better to trust the “liquor logic” of a “greater man” -- a lawnmowin’, chainsawin’ and weedwackin’ moto parts counter guy, gazing at cheap booze in plastic bottles on the shelf at the regular neighborhood holdup/perpetual crime scene.

 

 

Repetition has convinced me of this for certain: Hatchetwhacker excells at but one thing: Making peoples's eyes bleed with his unreadable "style" of "writing."

[emry]

They assume it's the ethanol. It may instead be something that's added along with the ethanol. I've got a lawnmower and a weedwhacker and a generator and a chainsaw that've been run on ethanol since the late 1990s and haven't had to rebuild the carbs on any of them. Maybe the gas companies don't add to cold Seattle's ethanol gas some chemical that's part of the additive pack added for warmer climates? In both cases, ethanol is in common but the problem is not. Why some refuse to look for any other possible cause should not surprise me.

 

Not to drag this any farther off subject. I have a mid 70's Husky chainsaw that has ran flawless through the leaded 70's, the MTBE 80's & 90's and most of the 00's. Several months ago I had to begin the process of dismantling it because the paint inside the fuel tank (aluminum housing painted orange, inside and out) began to peel and bubble. Everywhere else the paint looks just fine. Hmmm. What has changed? Global warming? Further note, my Craftsman saw just got new fuel lines and a carb rebuild, it was new '05, So it has only seen ethanol fuels.

 

On the up side after airing out my tank for the past week, it actually fit back on the bike. While it was still noticeably longer than OEM, at least the mounting bolt would make it near the slot. On the up side, where I had added rubber buffers (back in 02) to the inner leading edges of the tank to keep them from wearing on the front engine subframe I now have about 20mm of clearence on both sides!!! LOL.

 

While I lived in AZ winter blended fuels (ethanol, was the main additive) tore up fuel lines and filters. We could tell when the mixture was switched because we would have a rash of previously good running cycles come back with clogged petcocks, shriveled filters, and melted floats. Customers that paid to have their carbs cleaned were very unhappy when they had to do it all over again a few months later. Luckily it only took two season changes to get that figured out.

 

Those of you who read this thinking "WTF", be glad you have not run into these issues. While ethanol alone may not be the cause, it is to my experience the catalyst. YMMV.

 

This does seem to be an in issue in the warmer climate states, I am trying to get some info from one of our gas tank suppliers, they may have some more technical insight.

[Skeeve]

Y'all remember the guy who converted his Guzzi to run E85? or was it 100% Meth? up in the great North Wet a few years back? I can't find it (just did a quick search), but I definitely remember it being a topic of discussion here on v11LM some time back. I was just wondering what experience he's had w/ the plastic tank, since he's been running it w/ a considerably higher exposure to ethanol or methanol, whichever one it was he converted it to run on...

[Greg Field]

Y'all remember the guy who converted his Guzzi to run E85? or was it 100% Meth? up in the great North Wet a few years back? I can't find it (just did a quick search), but I definitely remember it being a topic of discussion here on v11LM some time back. I was just wondering what experience he's had w/ the plastic tank, since he's been running it w/ a considerably higher exposure to ethanol or methanol, whichever one it was he converted it to run on...

 

 

You mean this one?

 

 

Of course I do. It's among the 400 or so plastic tanks run on ethanol that I care for. It melted to the ground within 10 microseconds when run on 100 percent ethanol. Actually, nearly three years later, it's in perfect shape, even though it was run on 100 percent ethanol. His tank comes off and goes back on without a hitch. How could this be possible? After all, according to the Hatchetwhackers of this whirled, the world comes to an end when corn likker goes into a V11's tank. Think for yourself. . . . does it?

 

Again, repetitiously, y'all can perseverate on ethanol, but I'm not seeing a problem with it. If you want to be blind, continue to perseverate on ethanol. Or, get smart and start to look at the chemical stew that may be added to the ethanol in the areas where big problems are seen. You won't, though, because it's a political thing, rather than a logic thing. Life goes on, though. Back to the regularly scheduled inane blather here . . .

[GuzziMoto]

You mean this one?

 

 

Of course I do. It's among the 400 or so plastic tanks run on ethanol that I care for. It melted to the ground within 10 microseconds when run on 100 percent ethanol. Actually, nearly three years later, it's in perfect shape, even though it was run on 100 percent ethanol. His tank comes off and goes back on without a hitch. How could this be possible? After all, according to the Hatchetwhackers of this whirled, the world comes to an end when corn likker goes into a V11's tank. Think for yourself. . . . does it?

 

Again, repetitiously, y'all can perseverate on ethanol, but I'm not seeing a problem with it. If you want to be blind, continue to perseverate on ethanol. Or, get smart and start to look at the chemical stew that may be added to the ethanol in the areas where big problems are seen. You won't, though, because it's a political thing, rather than a logic thing. Life goes on, though. Back to the regularly scheduled inane blather here . . .

Thank you Greg. That made my morning.

[raz]

Actually, nearly three years later, it's in perfect shape, even though it was run on 100 percent ethanol.

 

Reversing the ethanol-phobes' logic, this is proof enough that the GASOLINE is the culprit.

[Greg Field]

Reversing the ethanol-phobes' logic, this is proof enough that the GASOLINE is the culprit.

 

Indeed, Raz.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . .[sigh]. . . Looks like it’s time once again to take down yet another GROUPTHINK delusion. . .

 

 

When liquor logic fails, the illiterate attempt to read bumper stickers.

 

So you “care for” a Guzzi that runs on 100% ethanol, Greg? Let’s see some proof of this please – and do make it something more substantial than a bumper sticker, eh?

 

I’m afraid the staggering lack of knowledge and foolishness being spread here is really beyond the pale. "Trusted advisor" indeed. The regular laughing hyenas will of course, continue to lap up the bilge without giving it the smell test first – as usual.

 

You have fallen for a 100% falsehood. The woods ‘r full of ‘em. Nice photo, but the Guzzi "Eco fuel tank" might as well have a nuclear power bumper sticker on it. There is no Guzzi -- not here, not in Seattle, not in Europe, not in Timbuktu – nor is there any other non-diesel road vehicle anywhere on the planet that runs either reliably, efficiently, cost-effectively, or legally on 100% ethanol. Please do hunt down your best evidence to the contrary and provide it here. NOTE: a bumper sticker is NOT evidence.

 

Please consider what “lesser men” than yourself, Greg, who actually ARE experts in their respective fields, know and have published for decades (examples below). I’m begging you. If 100% ethanol fuel is a reality and such a fabulous concept, why do you suppose the 100% ethanol idea behind the nitwit "Greenie Guzzi" that you “care for” hasn’t caught on? Why, if it's such a wonderful thing, by now, every Guzzi that you "care for" should be running on 100% ethanol. And yet -- there are none?!?! Yes, yes -- it isn't cost-effective to buy ethanol yet. And why d'you reckon THAT is??

 

Or maybe your liquor logic and bumper sticker wisdom tells you that there’s a conspiracy to shut the fool behind the bumper sticker up so he can’t spread the “secret” – maybe Dubya and D!ck Cheney took out a contract on him and made him disappear to protect their filthy, greedy Pals in Big Oil? In point of fact, Dubya heavily promoted the same foul ethanol subsidies that Obama continues to heavily promote today. Do look this up.

 

Here's a few more facts for you to challenge (please do), again with the best evidence you've got:

 

1. 100% ethanol is inherently inefficient as a fuel, when compared to gasoline, with only a max of 2/3 the energy of gasoline. This means that if you could get it to run at all, a 80 bhp V11 Guzzi would automatically develop a max of around 50 bhp. Ethanol basics: Bang per gallon: At 75,670 BTUs (British Thermal Unit) per gallon, ethanol has 66 percent of the energy-creating power of gasoline, which has 115,400 BTUs per gallon.

 

2. Costs of producing ethanol as a fuel are (still) extremely prohibitive – here, Europe, Brazil (where the cheapest cane-derived ethanol additive on the planet still has to be very heavily subsidized in order to have the false appearance of “competing” with gasoline), Australia, everywhere on the planet. Look it up (Part II). Government subsidies of any amount or proportion cannot make – and will never make -- ethanol as much as half as cost-effective as gasoline.

 

3. Ethanol concentrations of greater than 10% (max 15%) are ILLEGAL in most states in the US, and elsewhere across the planet, because of excessive AIR POLLUTION caused by the elevated vapor pressure of fuel that ethanol causes when added to gasoline.

 

SOURCES:

 

Ethanol makes gasoline costlier, dirtier

By JERRY TAYLOR and PETER VAN DOREN

Cato Institute scholars

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ethanol-53215-percent-gasoline.html

 

Oregon's ethanol requirement lowers vehicles' miles per gallon

By Shelby Wood, The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/05/oregons_ethanol_requirement_lo.html

 

“Those who don’t read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”

- Samuel Clemens

[Greg Field]

. . .[sigh]. . . Looks like it’s time once again to take down yet another GROUPTHINK delusion. . .

 

 

When liquor logic fails, the illiterate attempt to read bumper stickers.

 

So you “care for” a Guzzi that runs on 100% ethanol, Greg? Let’s see some proof of this please – and do make it something more substantial than a bumper sticker, eh?

 

I’m afraid the staggering lack of knowledge and foolhardiness being spread here is really beyond the pale. "Trusted advisor" indeed. <_ the regular laughing hyenas will of course continue to lap up bilge without giving it smell test first as usual.>

 

You have fallen for a 100% falsehood. The woods ‘r full of ‘em. Nice photo, but the Guzzi "Eco fuel tank" might as well have a nuclear power bumper sticker on it. There is no Guzzi -- not here, not in Seattle, not in Europe, not in Timbuktu – nor is there any other non-diesel road vehicle anywhere on the planet that runs either reliably, efficiently, cost-effectively, or legally on 100% ethanol. Please do hunt down your best evidence to the contrary and provide it here. NOTE: a bumper sticker is NOT evidence.

 

Please consider what “lesser men” than yourself, Greg, who actually ARE experts in their respective fields, know and have published for decades (examples below). I’m begging you. If 100% ethanol fuel is a reality and such a fabulous concept, why do you suppose the 100% ethanol idea behind the nitwit "Greenie Guzzi" that you “care for” hasn’t caught on? Why, if it's such a wonderful thing, by now, every Guzzi that you "care for" should be running on 100% ethanol. And yet -- there are none?!?! Yes, yes -- it isn't cost-effective to buy ethanol yet. And why d'you reckon THAT is??

 

Or maybe your liquor logic and bumper sticker wisdom tells you that there’s a conspiracy to shut the fool behind the bumper sticker up so he can’t spread the “secret” – maybe Dubya and D!ck Cheney took out a contract on him and made him disappear to protect their filthy, greedy Pals in Big Oil? In point of fact, Dubya heavily promoted the same foul ethanol subsidies that Obama continues to heavily promote today. Do look this up.

 

Here's a few more facts for you to challenge (please do, again with the best evidence you've got):

 

1. 100% ethanol is inherently inefficient as a fuel, when compared to gasoline, with only a max of 2/3 the energy of gasoline. This means that if you could get it to run at all, a 80 bhp V11 Guzzi would automatically develop a max of around 50 bhp. Ethanol basics: Bang per gallon: At 75,670 BTUs (British Thermal Unit) per gallon, ethanol has 66 percent of the energy-creating power of gasoline, which has 115,400 BTUs per gallon.

 

2. Costs of producing ethanol as a fuel are (still) extremely prohibitive – here, Europe, Brazil (where the cheapest cane-derived ethanol additive on the planet still has to be very heavily subsidized in order to have the false appearance of “competing” with gasoline), Australia, everywhere on the planet. Look it up (Part II). Government subsidies of any amount or proportion cannot make – and will never make -- ethanol as much as half as cost-effective as gasoline.

 

3. Ethanol concentrations of greater than 10% (max 15%) are ILLEGAL in most states in the US, and elsewhere across the planet, because of excessive AIR POLLUTION caused by the elevated vapor pressure of fuel that ethanol causes when added to gasoline. That's right. When mixed, the vapor pressure of ethanol and gasoline is far higher than either alone.

 

SOURCES:

 

Ethanol makes gasoline costlier, dirtier

By JERRY TAYLOR and PETER VAN DOREN

Cato Institute scholars

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ethanol-53215-percent-gasoline.html

 

Oregon's ethanol requirement lowers vehicles' miles per gallon

By Shelby Wood, The Oregonian

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/05/oregons_ethanol_requirement_lo.html

 

“Those who don’t read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”

- Samuel Clemens

 

What sort of proof would you like? We did the conversion here in our shop. If I had Dave Richardson come on here and confirrm it, or Micha, our service manager, would that do it? Or will you call them liars, too?

 

As for the rest, that's just politics that is outside of this discussion. The discussion here is whether ethanol harms Guzzi gas tanks, or if perhaps there's something else going on. I'm not 100 percent sure what it is, but I have a bit of experience in the matter, and that experience suggests to me that it may not be the ethanol but rather something added along with the ethanol in some areas that is the true culprit. When someone with comparable experience in this matter weighs in, I'd be happy to get back to the core of the discussion, without the political angle that causes you to froth at the mouth so and consequently to seem even more unhinged than is your norm.

[Guest ratchethack]

What sort of proof would you like?

Surely a prestigious and famously "eco-friendly" metropolis such as Seattle has at least ONE credible news outlet that isn't compromised by a history of rabid Eco-fraud that has covered this astonishing unique and decidedly news-worthy Eco-wonder, since it's apparently the only vehicle of its kind on the planet?

 

Please provide a link and/or copy of the best you've got, along with the source. NOTE: An anonymous source, or solitary, unverifiable set of claims from the owner and/or builder is worse than worthless. Please cite an independent publisher that at least appears to have a professional reputation worthy of upholding and protecting, and we'll discover if it is or not.

[Greg Field]

There is no news source. I witnessed much of the conversion with my own eyes, as it was done in our shop by Micha, our service manager, as I've already said. I can have Micha or Dave come on here to verify that. Again, will you call them liars, too?

[Guest ratchethack]

The Ethanol Scam

 

For all those who can't, don't, or simply WON'T read, (except possibly here), here are a few of the most important, yet least well publicized facts you should know about ethanol in fuel here in the USA (see sources provided below).

 

ETHANOL ADDED FUELS

 

• 30% WORSE average gas mileage with e85 than 100% gasoline. Yet you don't pay 30% less.

• Ethanol-added fuel has a higher octane rating but this doesn't improve gas mileage unless your engine is knocking.

• Since 1978, ethanol tax exemptions have cost taxpayers more than $11 billion over and above the cost of gasoline.

• A gallon of gasoline has about 125,000 BTUs of energy, while a gallon of ethanol contains about 84,000 BTUs, meaning that a gallon of ethanol contains about two-thirds as much energy as a gallon of gasoline.

• It takes around 98,000 BTUs to create a gallon of ethanol, 22,000 BTUs for a gallon of gas.

• You may be getting short changed if your state doesn't require pumps to be labeled that they contain 10% ethanol (aka gasohol.)

Let's say you drive 20,000 miles per year in a vehicle that gets 20 miles to the gallon at $2 per gallon of 100% gasoline. Going by the ethanol price difference at the gas station down the street, our example equates to $1.68 per gallon for e85. $0.32 less per gallon is a great deal right? Wrong.

• 1000 gallons = $2000 you would have paid at the pump for 100% gasoline. $166 per month.

• 1400 gallons = $2352 you will have to pay for e85. $196 per month.

• You will have saved 21 barrels of oil and used 6700 bushels (375,000 lbs.) of corn.

Bottom line is that ethanol-added gasoline costs more, raises taxes, and wastes energy.

 

I have supported alternative fuels for 40 years, but none that are either worse for the environment, or worse for people than oil, such as ethanol, which is both.

 

SOURCES:

 

• Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSVm3V6ipm8I&refer=columnist_hassett-redirectoldpage

• Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm?chan=autos_autos+index+page_insight

• USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-02-14-e85-usat_x.htm

[Guest ratchethack]

There is no news source. I witnessed much of the conversion with my own eyes, as it was done in our shop by Micha, our service manager, as I've already said. I can have Micha or Dave come on here to verify that. Again, will you call them liars, too?

Again, I will accept any credible independent, verifiable, well documented source -- the same as I always provide myself. This is the most basic requirement for any credible information that exists anywhere on the planet, and always has been.

 

It appears that you can't provide one.

 

Well, then. There we have it.