|
Motorcycles » rec.motorcycles.tech » Drop in fuel mileage
| Drop in fuel mileage [message #442802] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 01:14 |
|
So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning light.
The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127 miles.
I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel light is on.
Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
whole trip.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Bryan
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442803 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 01:22 |
|
"Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ke2dnf1uncJlp67eRVn-jw [at] comcast.com...
> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>
> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel
> warning light.
>
> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT.
> 127 miles.
> I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel
> light is on.
>
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I
> drove 80-100mph the whole trip.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
fuel quality anomalies... and elevation changes combined with
the direction of travel. Ring seating issues. but its
probably most likely fuel quality anomalies and you might be
riding more agressively now that you are used to the bike...
if its been dusty at all yer air filter is not as open... that
would run the bike rich.
Phil Scott
>
> Bryan
>
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442804 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 01:32 |
|
Bryan wrote:
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
> whole trip.
ECU running "open loop" due to failure of a sensor? What kind of
sensors does your FI have anyway?
My widdle twuck has an ECU that controls a mixture solenoid in the
carburetor. The mixture solenoid closes off the idle jets when the O2
sensor tells it that the mixture is too rich. Like during closed
throttle deceleration.
Too rich is signalled by a low firing rate for the O2 sensor compared
to the thermal time switch that tells the ECU that the engine is warmed
up.
If the O2 sensor doesn't fire and the engine is still cold, the ECU
stays in open loop.
When the mixture solenoid started screwing up, I disconnected the O2
sensor and the thermal time switch to make the ECU think the engine was
still cold. The acceleration is as glorious as can be for a truck with
160,000 miles on it and the fuel mileage is a bit lower.
A new electronic carb is about $300, and the dairy cows around here in
Kowpoop,
Kaleeforneeyah are the real cause of air pollution anyway. They belch
and fart
a lot as my widdle twuck open loops past the cow sheds...
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442807 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 01:56 |
|
"Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:ke2dnf1uncJlp67eRVn-jw [at] comcast.com:
> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>
> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning
> light.
>
> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127
> miles. I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel
> light is on.
>
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove
> 80-100mph the whole trip.
IN SLC, you're at about 4200 feet elevation and it's pretty much dead flat
from there to Wendover. Where did the rest of your route take you? I was
thinking elevation might be a factor, but I don't see that you could have
gone much lower (in elevation) than where you are within 550 miles.
ab
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442808 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 02:04 |
|
"Andy Burnett" <tzrider [at] DONTEVENTHINKABOUTSPAMMINGyahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns96D9AC56AC731tzrideryahoocom [at] 216.196.97.136...
> "Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in
> news:ke2dnf1uncJlp67eRVn-jw [at] comcast.com:
>
>> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>>
>> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning
>> light.
>>
>> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127
>> miles. I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel
>> light is on.
>>
>> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove
>> 80-100mph the whole trip.
>
> IN SLC, you're at about 4200 feet elevation and it's pretty much dead flat
> from there to Wendover. Where did the rest of your route take you? I was
> thinking elevation might be a factor, but I don't see that you could have
> gone much lower (in elevation) than where you are within 550 miles.
>
> ab
My trip took me from SLC to Baker NV to Ely NV to Wendover to SLC.
Several Passes above 7000 ft.
The F4i is fuel injected, and does an O2 sense at each start. So I filled
in Wendover, should have set the altitude in the computer?
Filled with midrange fuel at Chevron in Wendover.
Bryan
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442809 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 02:07 |
|
Bryan wrote:
> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>
> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning light.
>
> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127 miles.
> I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel light is on.
>
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
> whole trip.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Bryan
It's just one tank. Monitor the milage for the next few tankfuls, then
make a determination. If it's still low after that, suspect:
Tire Pressure,
Worn chain/sprockets
Throttle body sync
Dirty injectors
Valve adjustment
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442812 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 06:36 |
|
"Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:boidnWa4Rv8J267eRVn-iQ [at] comcast.com...
snip
>
> My trip took me from SLC to Baker NV to Ely NV to Wendover to SLC.
> Several Passes above 7000 ft.
>
> The F4i is fuel injected, and does an O2 sense at each start. So I filled
> in Wendover, should have set the altitude in the computer?
>
> Filled with midrange fuel at Chevron in Wendover.
>
> Bryan
>
>
This bike has no form of O2 sensor, and no way of setting anything in the
computer.
Running at 80 - 100 mph will assure you poor mileage.
Did you possibly take a few runs down the Bonneville speedway by any chance?
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442813 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 05:49 |
|
"Battleax" <unavailable [at] thistime.net> wrote in message
news:6rednY3CDrm35a7eRVn-vQ [at] magma.ca...
>
> "Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:boidnWa4Rv8J267eRVn-iQ [at] comcast.com...
>
> snip
>
>>
>> My trip took me from SLC to Baker NV to Ely NV to Wendover to SLC.
>> Several Passes above 7000 ft.
>>
>> The F4i is fuel injected, and does an O2 sense at each start. So I
>> filled
>> in Wendover, should have set the altitude in the computer?
>>
>> Filled with midrange fuel at Chevron in Wendover.
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>>
>
> This bike has no form of O2 sensor, and no way of setting anything in the
> computer.
> Running at 80 - 100 mph will assure you poor mileage.
>
> Did you possibly take a few runs down the Bonneville speedway by any
> chance?
>
>
>
OK, I may have misspoke, the dude I bought the bike from said it does a
little "calibration dance" at each start, so if you go to altitude and the
bike runs like shit you may want to stop and do a re-start so it can do the
little dance again.
But like I said, the whole 550 mile ride was done between 80-100mph (not
counting the 60 or so miles of urban riding on the freeway). My highest avg
speed was in the mid section of the trip. Delta Ut to Baker NV to Ely NV is
pretty lonely, no traffic and no highway patrol, with LONG FLAT
straightaways (20+ miles easily).
The last 120 miles were interstate, and I let many a car /semi go by. And
still avgeraged 80+.
I was getting 150 miles to a tank (47mpg) and never saw the low fuel light,
but suddenly at 137 the light comes on. I need to fill up and check the
mpg.
Bryan
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #442817 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 07:33 |
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:14:57 -0600, "Bryan"
<nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>
>I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning light.
>
>The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127 miles.
>I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel light is on.
>
>Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
>whole trip.
>
>Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>Bryan
Bryan, 600SS's, especially F4i's get worse mileage than I4 liter race
reps. Why?
1) They're revving like crazy during highway runs.
2) They are extremely oversquare and in a higher state of tune than a
R1, GSXR1000 or ZX10R or even it's big brother the CBR1000RR.
3) Honda's are set rich from the factory as a safety measure to
prevent holing pistons or burning valves.
4) High Speed and high altitude can make mileage worse than lower
speeds and lower altitudes.
5) Oxygenated fuels get about 10% worse fuel economy.
Finally, if you want good gas mileqage at near the performance
(200-250 miles before low fuel light ) then get a bike like mine. A
British triple that's purpose built for long rides in lots more ways
than just fuel economy. Doesn't even make your hands numb or butt
sore after 100 miles, plus decent wind protection. IOW, the F4i
(pre-04) was built as the 600SS race replica and has a relatively
rought ride and few touring amenities. It ain't a good street bike
without lots of $$ modifications. If you're never going to do a track
day or race said F4i then consider a real sporting "street" bike.
Spoken from someone who spent lots of money trying to make a
GSXR1000K3 a good street bike. The next step would have been a better
seat and ohlins suspension components. What I did do: Convertabars
~$400, Lower pegs ~$10, Higher wind screen (home-made) ~$100 and
stripped all those silly decals off the very night I bought it.
However, it was still buzzy above 7000RPM and the supension sucked for
the long haul. The seat wasn't bad but tiny and forget any two up
riding or neat stuff like heated grips.
Below are some suggested STREET bikes!
Light:
Ducati ST4s, ST3
Aprilia Futura
Triump Sprint St
Honda VFR 781
Yamaha FJR1300
Heavy:
BMW K1200S
BMW K1200RS
Honda ST1300
Used Triumph Trophy
Used Kawasaki Concours
Kawasaki ZZR1200
600's:
And finally, the smaller YZF600R, new 04+ F4i, Suzuki Katana, Yamaha
FZ1 or that new Kawasaki 650 twin and lastly a naked SV-650 with a
flyscreen. Forget the street fighters too. No wind protection and
thery're usually geared like your 600.
The older F2, 3, 4, 4i's are nice for the racetrack but not much
else;) Bottom line: Please yourself not your peers.
Bob Nixon, Chandler AZ
01 Sprint ST "RED" 50K miles
http://bigrex.net/pictures
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448840 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 15:42 |
|
"sqidbait" <sqid_bait [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127453866.090958.171330 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Battleax wrote:
> > "Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:boidnWa4Rv8J267eRVn-iQ [at] comcast.com...
> [snip]
> > > The F4i is fuel injected, and does an O2 sense at each start. So I
filled
> > > in Wendover, should have set the altitude in the computer?
> >
> > This bike has no form of O2 sensor
>
> While I can't speak for Bryan's bike, my CBR600F4i most certainly
> does have an O2 sensor. It's on the exhaust just behind the rear
> of the right fairing.
>
> -- Michael
>
My mistake, it appears the F4i did use an o2 sensor from 2001 on.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448843 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 16:18 |
|
"_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nu17j11gqkbh8dnueckuqa8v5ba1tas5p9 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:14:57 -0600, "Bryan"
<delete long discussion / recomendations on street vs. track bikes>
True what you wrote, The F4i was a bit unconfortable on that long trip, plus
the long straight roads were more suited to a big old touring bike.
But I had fun, the Corbin seat was great, only suffered minor numbness in my
throttle hand. And Sunday morning leaving Ely was "chilly".
I still can't figure why the sudden drop in fuel mileage on the last leg
though.
BTW, the F4i gets better mileage than the 2002 Nighthawk 750.
Bryan
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448844 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 17:08 |
|
sqidbait wrote:
> Battleax wrote:
> > "Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:boidnWa4Rv8J267eRVn-iQ [at] comcast.com...
> [snip]
> > > The F4i is fuel injected, and does an O2 sense at each start. So I filled
> > > in Wendover, should have set the altitude in the computer?
> >
> > This bike has no form of O2 sensor
>
> While I can't speak for Bryan's bike, my CBR600F4i most certainly
> does have an O2 sensor. It's on the exhaust just behind the rear
> of the right fairing.
Oxygen sensors compare the oxygen in the exhaust system to the oxygen
in the atmosphere. The oxygen sensor will "fire", producing low voltage
pulses between about 0.8 volts (indicating a rich mixture) to about 0.1
volts (indicating a lean mixture). An analog voltmeter will flick the
needle, but a digital meter might take too long to respond, it might
miss the momentary voltage pulse.
If the O2 sensor fails completely, the ECU may stay in the open loop
mode, just like the engine has just been started and is warming up.
Or, it may do something different:
I found out about O2 sensors when my T-Bird failed the California
emissions test. The engine did not run badly at all, but the car failed
the smog test. The print out indicated excess hydrocarbon emissions and
high oxygen in the tail pipe. That didn't make a bit of sense to me. I
took the car to two more places (one place wanted to gouge me, they
wanted to do a lot of expen$ive unnece$$ary work) and the mechanic at
the second place kindly explained that the ECU would not allow the the
injectors to fire long enough for the mixture to become rich enough for
power and that a LEAN mixture wouldn't burn properly, it would expel
excess hydrocarbons out the tail pipe and the O2 would remain high...
Maybe that's just a diference in the ECU programming. I dunno, I like
my carburetors. For all of the clogging and gumming up that happens,
they still don't do the strange things that fuel injection systems do.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448846 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 20:07 |
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:22:00 -0700, "Phil Scott"
<philscott [at] philscott.net> wrote:
>
>"Bryan" <nestleNOSPAM12 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ke2dnf1uncJlp67eRVn-jw [at] comcast.com...
>> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>>
>> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel
>> warning light.
>>
>> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT.
>> 127 miles.
>> I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel
>> light is on.
>>
>> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I
>> drove 80-100mph the whole trip.
>>
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>
>fuel quality anomalies... and elevation changes combined with
>the direction of travel. Ring seating issues. but its
>probably most likely fuel quality anomalies and you might be
>riding more agressively now that you are used to the bike...
>if its been dusty at all yer air filter is not as open... that
>would run the bike rich.
Are the gas companies getting into selling the "winter blends" of
gasoline yet?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.thanever.com
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448847 ] |
Fri, 23 September 2005 20:19 |
|
Bryan wrote:
> "_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nu17j11gqkbh8dnueckuqa8v5ba1tas5p9 [at] 4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:14:57 -0600, "Bryan"
>
> <delete long discussion / recomendations on street vs. track bikes>
>
> True what you wrote, The F4i was a bit unconfortable on that long trip, plus
> the long straight roads were more suited to a big old touring bike.
>
> But I had fun, the Corbin seat was great, only suffered minor numbness in my
> throttle hand. And Sunday morning leaving Ely was "chilly".
>
> I still can't figure why the sudden drop in fuel mileage on the last leg
> though.
>
> BTW, the F4i gets better mileage than the 2002 Nighthawk 750.
And your F4i gets much better mileage than my F4i!
-- Michael
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448852 ] |
Sat, 24 September 2005 00:53 |
|
Bryan wrote:
> So I took a 550 mile trip last weekend on my 2001 CBR600F4i.
>
> I was getting 150 miles to a tank, no problem, no low fuel warning light.
>
> The last leg of my trip was I80 from Wendover NV to SLC UT. 127 miles.
> I just took a 10 mile ride around town and now the low fuel light is on.
>
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
> whole trip.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Bryan
My guess would be that it is because you were in a lower gear when
riding around town. In the lower gear you have to fill the cylinder
more times per mile. You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
80-100mph. When stopped you get 0 mpg, and in 1st or 2nd gear the
engine has to turn two or three times as many revs per mile. Add to
that that it takes more power to accelerate than to ride at a steady
speed, and that the mixture is richened when you start a cold engine,
and you may have gotten less than half the milage around town that you
did on the trip.
Add 20 miles rather than 10 to the 127 already traveled and you get
pretty close to the 150 you expected.
Sounds like a good excuse to go for a 170 mile ride to check :) (Need
to have the engine warm before filling the tank.)
Bruce
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448856 ] |
Sat, 24 September 2005 04:37 |
|
<bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127515993.304371.103490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snip
>You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
> 80-100mph.
snip
Hmmm, fascinating. My throttle is open more than half way at 100mph.
It takes a lot of power to move a bike at 100mph. Fuel milage is less per
mile at this speed than at 50 - 60mph.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448862 ] |
Sun, 25 September 2005 03:35 |
|
Battleax wrote:
> <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1127515993.304371.103490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
> >You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
> > 80-100mph.
>
> snip
>
>
> Hmmm, fascinating. My throttle is open more than half way at 100mph.
>
> It takes a lot of power to move a bike at 100mph. Fuel milage is less per
> mile at this speed than at 50 - 60mph.
Not sure what you ride but if it's a 600 or bigger and you need more
than half throttle to maintain 100 mph you should check that all the
plug wires are connected. A stock 305 Honda could top 100 mph back in
the 60's.
I agree that you get better mileage at 50 - 60 than 80-100 assuming you
are in the same gear. The point I was making was that riding around
town in the lower gears can affect milage more than you might think it
would.
Bruce
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448864 ] |
Sun, 25 September 2005 05:28 |
|
<bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127612101.156295.241100 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Battleax wrote:
> > <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:1127515993.304371.103490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
> > > 80-100mph.
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> > Hmmm, fascinating. My throttle is open more than half way at 100mph.
> >
> > It takes a lot of power to move a bike at 100mph. Fuel milage is less
per
> > mile at this speed than at 50 - 60mph.
>
> Not sure what you ride but if it's a 600 or bigger and you need more
> than half throttle to maintain 100 mph you should check that all the
> plug wires are connected.
My bike will do aprox 150mph, Total throttle grip has aprox. 80 degrees of
rotation. At 100mph the engine is reving at 7000rpm and the grip is aprox.
half way through it's rotation.
This is not rocket science.
>A stock 305 Honda could top 100 mph back in
> the 60's.
Irrelevant.
>
> I agree that you get better mileage at 50 - 60 than 80-100 assuming you
> are in the same gear. The point I was making was that riding around
> town in the lower gears can affect milage more than you might think it
> would.
Pretty obvious.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448868 ] |
Sun, 25 September 2005 07:24 |
|
Bryan wrote:
> Why the sudden drop in gas mileage? Wind? Speed, hell I drove 80-100mph the
> whole trip.
Altitude? My fuel-injected Triumph 955i gets 40-42 mpg at sea level
and almost 50 mpg at 4000 ft elevation. Thin air requires less fuel
to maintain proper air/fuel mix. Less power, but better mileage.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448869 ] |
Sun, 25 September 2005 09:10 |
|
Battleax wrote:
> <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1127612101.156295.241100 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Battleax wrote:
> > > <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1127515993.304371.103490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
> > > > 80-100mph.
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmmm, fascinating. My throttle is open more than half way at 100mph.
> > >
> > > It takes a lot of power to move a bike at 100mph. Fuel milage is less
> per
> > > mile at this speed than at 50 - 60mph.
> >
> > Not sure what you ride but if it's a 600 or bigger and you need more
> > than half throttle to maintain 100 mph you should check that all the
> > plug wires are connected.
>
> My bike will do aprox 150mph, Total throttle grip has aprox. 80 degrees of
> rotation. At 100mph the engine is reving at 7000rpm and the grip is aprox.
> half way through it's rotation.
> This is not rocket science.
The power required to maintain a speed goes up as the cube of the
speed, so it takes more than three times the power to go 150 as 100
mph. Or going the other way it takes less than one third the hp to go
100 mph as 150. And throttle response is not linear. You get more
response from the first few degrees of movement than you do from
subsequent movement. So you should be looking at less than 1/4
throttle for 100 mph. Going 80 takes about 1/2 the power as 100, so
your looking at less than 1/8 throttle for that. I think that
qualifies as barely having the throttle open. It also compares quite
well with what I have experienced in the real world.
> >A stock 305 Honda could top 100 mph back in
> > the 60's.
>
> Irrelevant.
The example was given to contradict your statement, "It takes a lot of
power to move a bike at 100mph." That bike made maybe 30 hp compared
to over 90 hp for a modern 600. And with a fairing the 600 should need
even less hp to do 100 mph.
> >
> > I agree that you get better mileage at 50 - 60 than 80-100 assuming you
> > are in the same gear. The point I was making was that riding around
> > town in the lower gears can affect milage more than you might think it
> > would.
>
> Pretty obvious.
Maybe so, but nobody else thought to mention it.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448872 ] |
Sun, 25 September 2005 17:26 |
|
<bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127632219.422578.200840 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Battleax wrote:
>> <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127612101.156295.241100 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Battleax wrote:
>> > > <bsr3997 [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:1127515993.304371.103490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > > snip
>> > >
>> > > >You hardly have the throttle open at a steady
>> > > > 80-100mph.
>> > >
>> > > snip
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hmmm, fascinating. My throttle is open more than half way at 100mph.
>> > >
>> > > It takes a lot of power to move a bike at 100mph. Fuel milage is less
>> per
>> > > mile at this speed than at 50 - 60mph.
>> >
>> > Not sure what you ride but if it's a 600 or bigger and you need more
>> > than half throttle to maintain 100 mph you should check that all the
>> > plug wires are connected.
>>
>> My bike will do aprox 150mph, Total throttle grip has aprox. 80 degrees
>> of
>> rotation. At 100mph the engine is reving at 7000rpm and the grip is
>> aprox.
>> half way through it's rotation.
>> This is not rocket science.
>
> The power required to maintain a speed goes up as the cube of the
> speed, so it takes more than three times the power to go 150 as 100
> mph. Or going the other way it takes less than one third the hp to go
> 100 mph as 150. And throttle response is not linear. You get more
> response from the first few degrees of movement than you do from
> subsequent movement. So you should be looking at less than 1/4
> throttle for 100 mph. Going 80 takes about 1/2 the power as 100, so
> your looking at less than 1/8 throttle for that. I think that
> qualifies as barely having the throttle open. It also compares quite
> well with what I have experienced in the real world.
>
>> >A stock 305 Honda could top 100 mph back in
>> > the 60's.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> The example was given to contradict your statement, "It takes a lot of
> power to move a bike at 100mph." That bike made maybe 30 hp compared
> to over 90 hp for a modern 600. And with a fairing the 600 should need
> even less hp to do 100 mph.
>
>> >
>> > I agree that you get better mileage at 50 - 60 than 80-100 assuming you
>> > are in the same gear. The point I was making was that riding around
>> > town in the lower gears can affect milage more than you might think it
>> > would.
>>
>> Pretty obvious.
>
> Maybe so, but nobody else thought to mention it.
>
Ok, here is a follow-up. I went for a 150 mile ride yesterday. Over a
mountain pass at maybe 8500 feet, starting in SLC at maybe 4700 feet.
Mileage is back up in the high 40+mpg range. Up from maybe 34 mpg on the
previous tank. I switched from mid-grade fuel to the highest octane. The
trip conisisted of half freeway / half twisty mountain roads. Speeds ranged
from 70-90mph, slower in the twisties.
I will have to assume the low fuel mileage tank was just an anomoly or
perhaps bad fuel.
I always check my mileage at every fill up, so I will continue to monitor.
Good chance it is time for a tune up anyway.
Bryan
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448879 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 05:17 |
|
"Altitude? My fuel-injected Triumph 955i gets 40-42 mpg at sea level
and almost 50 mpg at 4000 ft elevation. Thin air requires less fuel
to maintain proper air/fuel mix. Less power, but better mileage. "
And also less aerodynamic drag due to the lower air density.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448881 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 06:36 |
|
On 25 Sep 2005 20:17:27 -0700, "nrp" <daneth1 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Altitude? My fuel-injected Triumph 955i gets 40-42 mpg at sea level
>and almost 50 mpg at 4000 ft elevation. Thin air requires less fuel
>to maintain proper air/fuel mix. Less power, but better mileage. "
---------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like something for nothing or Sounds like something for nothing
or perpetual motion;) (see below)
>And also less aerodynamic drag due to the lower air density.
This is a very short sited explanation. Maybe, just maybe, the mapping
on yout 955i is set too rich at sea level and too lean at altitude.
It's a known fact that without turbocharging or supercharging that
piston engines ALL lose power at altitude. Sure wind resistance is
lower but unless you have more wing area, it takes higher power
settings to keep you aloft. What's this got to your 955i? Drag vs HP
settings, that's what.
Bob Nixon, Chandler AZ
01 Sprint ST "RED" 50K miles
http://bigrex.net/pictures
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448882 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 07:02 |
|
I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i pass
thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
--
Paul Calman, Hathaway Pines, California
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #448883 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 09:10 |
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:53 -0700, "Paul Calman" <spam [at] trap.com>
wrote:
>I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i pass
>thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
They're likely throwing in increasingly more alcohol or MTBE thus
reducing the BTUs/gallon and therefore reducing fuel economy due you
having to run at higher throttle settings (higher oxidations levels).
IOW, they're screwing us more than by just raising the prices. And
they can get away with it in the name of cleaner burning (oxygenated
fuels). Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
worse, right TTT?
Bob Nixon, Chandler AZ
01 Sprint ST "RED" 50K miles
http://bigrex.net/pictures
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454948 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 15:37 |
|
_Bob_Nixon wrote:
> >And also less aerodynamic drag due to the lower air density.
>
> Sure wind resistance is
> lower but unless you have more wing area, it takes higher power
> settings to keep you aloft.
It's true that reduced air density affects the dynamic pressure of air
acting upon wings and fuselage, but pilots at cruising altitude are
actually setting their throttles at 80%, leaning up their mixtures for
economy and trimming the elevator to reduce angle of attack, decreasing
induced drag.
> What's this got to your 955i?
Yeah. What does it have to do with a wingless vehicle?
> Drag vs HP settings, that's what.
In a piston engined vehicle the reduction in aerodynamic drag and the
loss of horsepower due to decreased air density cancel each other out.
The reason for flying in the stratosphere has to do with smoother air
and the better efficiency of the gas turbine engine in the cooler
temperature up there.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454954 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 19:05 |
|
On 26 Sep 2005 06:37:11 -0700, "krusty kritter" <kriyamanna [at] aol.com>
wrote:
>
>_Bob_Nixon wrote:
>
>> >And also less aerodynamic drag due to the lower air density.
>>
>> Sure wind resistance is
>> lower but unless you have more wing area, it takes higher power
>> settings to keep you aloft.
>
>It's true that reduced air density affects the dynamic pressure of air
>acting upon wings and fuselage, but pilots at cruising altitude are
>actually setting their throttles at 80%, leaning up their mixtures for
>economy and trimming the elevator to reduce angle of attack, decreasing
>induced drag.
>
>> What's this got to your 955i?
>
>Yeah. What does it have to do with a wingless vehicle?
>
>> Drag vs HP settings, that's what.
>
>In a piston engined vehicle the reduction in aerodynamic drag and the
>loss of horsepower due to decreased air density cancel each other out.
>The reason for flying in the stratosphere has to do with smoother air
>and the better efficiency of the gas turbine engine in the cooler
>temperature up there.
This is sort of true up to maybe 10,000ft with a NA piston engine.
Above that, fuel economy will drop without turbo charging.
Gas turbines are a different story. More engine air volume and like
you said much colder inlet temps equal greater efficiencies up to 40K
ft. (above that air temps don't drop anymore) Much higher and you must
have a ramjet to take advantage of the lower air density. (like the
dual stage SR-71).
Then, the higher you go the faster you go and skin temps balance due
to the thinner air. IOW, the Mach 3.3 top speed of the A-12. SR71
blackbird was for classification reasons or an artificial ceiling
based on 80,000 ft. Above that, who knows?, -:)
Bob Nixon, Chandler AZ
01 Sprint ST "RED" 50K miles
http://bigrex.net/pictures
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454957 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 19:31 |
|
The aerodynamic drag at 5000' msl is nominally 75% of the drag at sea
level assuming a standard atmosphere and all other conditions the same.
In addition an engine will have less pumping loss (throttling loss) at
altitude although this is a factor of interest to mostly piston
airplane drivers. For that reason engines will be most efficient (i.
e. have the lowest specific fuel consumption) at the altitude that
allows them to operate with the throttle wide open and fully leaned
out. This may not be the best range for an airplane however as the
airframe aerodynamics have a more complex effect on things.
In an airplane, the aerodynamic drag goes up with speed, is at a
minumum at a moderate speed, and goes up again as the speed is reduced
to stall.
On a motorcycle, the drag only goes up with speed squared.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454959 ] |
Mon, 26 September 2005 21:18 |
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:36:05 -0700, _Bob_Nixon <bilbo [at] nospam.com>
wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2005 20:17:27 -0700, "nrp" <daneth1 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Altitude? My fuel-injected Triumph 955i gets 40-42 mpg at sea level
>>and almost 50 mpg at 4000 ft elevation. Thin air requires less fuel
>>to maintain proper air/fuel mix. Less power, but better mileage. "
>---------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Sounds like something for nothing or Sounds like something for nothing
>or perpetual motion;) (see below)
>
>>And also less aerodynamic drag due to the lower air density.
>
>This is a very short sited explanation. Maybe, just maybe, the mapping
>on yout 955i is set too rich at sea level and too lean at altitude.
>It's a known fact that without turbocharging or supercharging that
>piston engines ALL lose power at altitude. Sure wind resistance is
>lower but unless you have more wing area, it takes higher power
>settings to keep you aloft. What's this got to your 955i? Drag vs HP
>settings, that's what.
What sensors does the 955i use to detect an altitude change? Does it
have an MAF? MAP? 02 sensor?
I'm curious because it seems like not many bikes with FI close the
loop.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.thanever.com
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454986 ] |
Tue, 27 September 2005 16:08 |
|
"_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3q5fj11outqlq7emgb9bshne4jgv1pgtcl [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:53 -0700, "Paul Calman" <spam [at] trap.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i pass
>>thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
>
> They're likely throwing in increasingly more alcohol or MTBE thus
> reducing the BTUs/gallon and therefore reducing fuel economy due you
> having to run at higher throttle settings (higher oxidations levels).
> IOW, they're screwing us more than by just raising the prices. And
> they can get away with it in the name of cleaner burning (oxygenated
> fuels). Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
> barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
> eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
> worse, right TTT?
It ain't gonna get better...until we get a decent recession going anyway.
And you want to know what we are ALL going to notice this winter? Higher
natural gas prices, you heat your house with it, or your utility generates
its electricity with it, and things are going UP!
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #454999 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 01:46 |
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:08:08 -0600, "Troy the Troll"
<f4boy [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3q5fj11outqlq7emgb9bshne4jgv1pgtcl [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:53 -0700, "Paul Calman" <spam [at] trap.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i pass
>>>thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
>>
>> They're likely throwing in increasingly more alcohol or MTBE thus
>> reducing the BTUs/gallon and therefore reducing fuel economy due you
>> having to run at higher throttle settings (higher oxidations levels).
>> IOW, they're screwing us more than by just raising the prices. And
>> they can get away with it in the name of cleaner burning (oxygenated
>> fuels). Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
>> barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
>> eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
>> worse, right TTT?
>
>It ain't gonna get better...until we get a decent recession going anyway.
>And you want to know what we are ALL going to notice this winter? Higher
>natural gas prices, you heat your house with it, or your utility generates
>its electricity with it, and things are going UP!
>
Yup just heard natural gas up here is going to $12.00 & change a
gigajoule up here next month. I think they said that is three times
what it cost in October last year.
I hope it's not too cold next month.
--
Don
RCOS# 7
2000 - Yamaha Venture Millennium Edition
Disclaimer:
This message may contain incidental references to various
brands of motorcycles, vehicles or parts manufacturers.
They are included for informational purposes only and
are not intended to upset, inflame or otherwise disturb
the sensibilities of anyone associated with the brands.
Hyper-sensitive readers of the post who might be upset
with the content are advised to make copious notes,
organize them into a coherent message and then hit the
delete button.
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/radium1.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/banff.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/kananaskis.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/calgarybrowning.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455002 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 04:31 |
|
Calgary <caldlbdeleteallthis [at] telus.net> wrote in
news:gbmjj1lcn030q73tb3fam4tgrfvicvbvri [at] 4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:08:08 -0600, "Troy the Troll"
> <f4boy [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:3q5fj11outqlq7emgb9bshne4jgv1pgtcl [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:53 -0700, "Paul Calman" <spam [at] trap.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i
>>>>pass thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
>>>
>>> They're likely throwing in increasingly more alcohol or MTBE thus
>>> reducing the BTUs/gallon and therefore reducing fuel economy due you
>>> having to run at higher throttle settings (higher oxidations levels).
>>> IOW, they're screwing us more than by just raising the prices. And
>>> they can get away with it in the name of cleaner burning (oxygenated
>>> fuels). Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
>>> barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
>>> eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
>>> worse, right TTT?
>>
>>It ain't gonna get better...until we get a decent recession going
>>anyway. And you want to know what we are ALL going to notice this
>>winter? Higher natural gas prices, you heat your house with it, or your
>>utility generates its electricity with it, and things are going UP!
>>
>
> Yup just heard natural gas up here is going to $12.00 & change a
> gigajoule up here next month. I think they said that is three times
> what it cost in October last year.
>
> I hope it's not too cold next month.
You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
pierce
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455003 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 05:00 |
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:31:41 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote:
>Calgary <caldlbdeleteallthis [at] telus.net> wrote in
>news:gbmjj1lcn030q73tb3fam4tgrfvicvbvri [at] 4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:08:08 -0600, "Troy the Troll"
>> <f4boy [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"_Bob_Nixon" <bilbo [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3q5fj11outqlq7emgb9bshne4jgv1pgtcl [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:02:53 -0700, "Paul Calman" <spam [at] trap.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have been getting 10-20% less distance on Utah's gas every time i
>>>>>pass thru. Oregon's fuel is getting worse, too.
>>>>
>>>> They're likely throwing in increasingly more alcohol or MTBE thus
>>>> reducing the BTUs/gallon and therefore reducing fuel economy due you
>>>> having to run at higher throttle settings (higher oxidations levels).
>>>> IOW, they're screwing us more than by just raising the prices. And
>>>> they can get away with it in the name of cleaner burning (oxygenated
>>>> fuels). Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
>>>> barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
>>>> eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
>>>> worse, right TTT?
>>>
>>>It ain't gonna get better...until we get a decent recession going
>>>anyway. And you want to know what we are ALL going to notice this
>>>winter? Higher natural gas prices, you heat your house with it, or your
>>>utility generates its electricity with it, and things are going UP!
>>>
>>
>> Yup just heard natural gas up here is going to $12.00 & change a
>> gigajoule up here next month. I think they said that is three times
>> what it cost in October last year.
>>
>> I hope it's not too cold next month.
>
>You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
>is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
>have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
>
>pierce
>
Scrounge, hell, Alberta is the coal capital of North America. I think
most of it is shipped overseas.
I must have a vision problem cuz I just can't see myself shoveling
coal all winter.
--
Don
RCOS# 7
2000 - Yamaha Venture Millennium Edition
Disclaimer:
This message may contain incidental references to various
brands of motorcycles, vehicles or parts manufacturers.
They are included for informational purposes only and
are not intended to upset, inflame or otherwise disturb
the sensibilities of anyone associated with the brands.
Hyper-sensitive readers of the post who might be upset
with the content are advised to make copious notes,
organize them into a coherent message and then hit the
delete button.
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/radium1.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/banff.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/kananaskis.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/calgarybrowning.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455004 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 05:02 |
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in:
> You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
> is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
> have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
Buffalo chips or cow pies! Cheap! Doesn't annoy the tree huggers! Burns
well, gives off lots of heat and..... bonus! They're aromatic!
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455006 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 05:15 |
|
Calgary wrote:
>>You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
>>is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
>>have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
>>
>>pierce
>>
>
>
> Scrounge, hell, Alberta is the coal capital of North America. I think
> most of it is shipped overseas.
>
> I must have a vision problem cuz I just can't see myself shoveling
> coal all winter.
If everyone starts burning coal, it will accelerate global warming,
meaning you won't need heating in winter in years to come......a win,
win situation (unless you own beachfront property) :)
Three times the price in a year is too steep for gas. There will be some
cold pensioners this winter. Maybe one of them will shovel for you for a
bit of cash to pay their bills......
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455010 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 05:59 |
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:15:12 +1200, Brian <briank [at] itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>Calgary wrote:
>
>>>You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
>>>is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
>>>have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
>>>
>>>pierce
>>>
>>
>>
>> Scrounge, hell, Alberta is the coal capital of North America. I think
>> most of it is shipped overseas.
>>
>> I must have a vision problem cuz I just can't see myself shoveling
>> coal all winter.
>
>If everyone starts burning coal, it will accelerate global warming,
>meaning you won't need heating in winter in years to come......a win,
>win situation (unless you own beachfront property) :)
>
>Three times the price in a year is too steep for gas. There will be some
>cold pensioners this winter. Maybe one of them will shovel for you for a
>bit of cash to pay their bills......
All kidding aside it is a tremendous increase in a commodity you can't
do without. We do have a government subsidy for the winter months but
it doesn't kick in until November.
--
Don
RCOS# 7
2000 - Yamaha Venture Millennium Edition
Disclaimer:
This message may contain incidental references to various
brands of motorcycles, vehicles or parts manufacturers.
They are included for informational purposes only and
are not intended to upset, inflame or otherwise disturb
the sensibilities of anyone associated with the brands.
Hyper-sensitive readers of the post who might be upset
with the content are advised to make copious notes,
organize them into a coherent message and then hit the
delete button.
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/reeky.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/radium1.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/banff.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/kananaskis.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/walkercalgary.htm
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/calgarybrowning.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455011 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 06:10 |
|
>>> Blame in on greed via the oil companies. IOW, if the price per
>>> barrel goes up $1.00 then everyone in the fuel chain has an excuse to
>>> eek out more profits. Basic supply & demand principles. It's gonna get
>>> worse, right TTT?
>>
>>It ain't gonna get better...until we get a decent recession going anyway.
>>And you want to know what we are ALL going to notice this winter? Higher
>>natural gas prices, you heat your house with it, or your utility generates
>>its electricity with it, and things are going UP!
>>
>
> Yup just heard natural gas up here is going to $12.00 & change a
> gigajoule up here next month. I think they said that is three times
> what it cost in October last year.
>
> I hope it's not too cold next month.
Me too. Plus, in a meeting today, me and boss were speculating on $20/Mcf
based on what we are hearing coming up outta the Gulf.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455012 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 06:11 |
|
>>You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource that
>>is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you might
>>have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this winter.
>>
>>pierce
>>
>
> Scrounge, hell, Alberta is the coal capital of North America.
Can anyone say Powder River Basin Baby!
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455013 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 06:16 |
|
Calgary wrote:
> All kidding aside it is a tremendous increase in a commodity you can't
> do without. We do have a government subsidy for the winter months but
> it doesn't kick in until November.
And you can gaurantee any subsidy won't cover the price rise.Home
heating is more critical than your V8 running out of petrol, especially
if it snows where you live (The only snow around here stays on the
mountain where it belongs) and you are on a fixed income. Time to but
some shares in the gas company?
We are having an 'electricity crisis' every year....because demand
'might' go up over winter, and the lake levels 'may' get low, they put
the price up to discourage people using too much. We have coal and oil
fired power stations, but getting resource consent from the govt. to
fire them up is a nightmare. Everyone wants their TV, video, stereo,
computer, fridge/freezer, heaters, hot water etc. etc., but when it
comes to using fossil fuels to generate power, it's a big no-no.
|
|
|
| Re: Drop in fuel mileage [message #455014 ] |
Wed, 28 September 2005 07:13 |
|
XS11E <xs11eNO [at] SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns96DECBE1FF055xs11eyahoocom [at] 68.6.19.6:
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks [at] google.com> wrote in:
>
>> You might have to start looking at coal as a fuel. It is a resource
>> that is plentiful and cheap. The tree huggers won't be happy and you
>> might have to scrounge a bit to get it, but you will be warm this
>> winter.
>
> Buffalo chips or cow pies! Cheap! Doesn't annoy the tree huggers!
> Burns well, gives off lots of heat and..... bonus! They're aromatic!
>
>
I wonder what would happen if you found a geothermal vent on your
property. The heat is free, there is near zero pollution and everyone is
happy. You would make the cover of "Green Magazine". Wealth, fame,
women! What more could you ask for. (:>)
pierce
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Wed Jan 7 22:06:11 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.25343 Sekunden |
