E85 is here
Cruiser
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 142
Likes: 44
From: North Saanich, Vancouver Island, BC
[With apologies for the "Cliffy Clayborn"]
I also ride a Ducati Multistrada. The 10% ethanol blend has been damaging the plastic fuel tanks of these bikes, which expand and leak - I can only imagine what E85 at 85% ethanol would do!
As others have pointed out, ethanol receives quite large cash subsidies (approx. $8.4 Billion/yr) - both for corn production ($5.4 Billion/yr) and to the ethanol producers ($3 Billion/yr). The amount of fossil fuel it takes to produce the corn feedstock is about 1.1 barrels of oil per barrel of ethanol. The there's the environment ... using corn-based ethanol as fuel creates over 40% more CO2 than oil.
Including the subsidies for ethanol plus the subsidies for corn production brings the price to $3.00/gal; when the costs of production are included the price increases to $4.71/gal; and then when you consider that gasoline has 60% more energy than ethanol, the price rises to $7.14/gal for an amount of energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
As a result of using corn for subsidized ethanol production, corn prices have increased dramatically. For example, it has been estimated that beef production costs have increased $1 Billion/yr. Also, the costs of other meats, eggs and dairy products are all increasing as a result.
It costs about $1.25 to refine 1 gallon of gasoline.
Ethanol is weakening our countries; it is not a rational answer to the "problems".
I also ride a Ducati Multistrada. The 10% ethanol blend has been damaging the plastic fuel tanks of these bikes, which expand and leak - I can only imagine what E85 at 85% ethanol would do!
As others have pointed out, ethanol receives quite large cash subsidies (approx. $8.4 Billion/yr) - both for corn production ($5.4 Billion/yr) and to the ethanol producers ($3 Billion/yr). The amount of fossil fuel it takes to produce the corn feedstock is about 1.1 barrels of oil per barrel of ethanol. The there's the environment ... using corn-based ethanol as fuel creates over 40% more CO2 than oil.
Including the subsidies for ethanol plus the subsidies for corn production brings the price to $3.00/gal; when the costs of production are included the price increases to $4.71/gal; and then when you consider that gasoline has 60% more energy than ethanol, the price rises to $7.14/gal for an amount of energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
As a result of using corn for subsidized ethanol production, corn prices have increased dramatically. For example, it has been estimated that beef production costs have increased $1 Billion/yr. Also, the costs of other meats, eggs and dairy products are all increasing as a result.
It costs about $1.25 to refine 1 gallon of gasoline.
Ethanol is weakening our countries; it is not a rational answer to the "problems".
Stellar HDF Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 212
Here is the important part that people generally care about in cars:
Ethanol has about 35% less energy per unit than gasoline. That will directly correlate into a drop in gas mileage. So unless it is 35% cheaper you will be losing money. Not to mention it costs more to manufacture than gas. If it's so great, why are the farm tractors and equipment not running E85? It's just not a good fuel. The cool thing is its octane rating is around 104 (R+M)/2, so you can boost and raise your compression ratio and get about equal performance.
All in all, like mercury01 said, it is worse for the environment to manufacture than gasoline, it costs a lot in subsidies that come from your taxes, and it is driving up food prices because we're using good food as a gas. You are being scammed into thinking it is a great alternative, when it is truly not.
Ethanol has about 35% less energy per unit than gasoline. That will directly correlate into a drop in gas mileage. So unless it is 35% cheaper you will be losing money. Not to mention it costs more to manufacture than gas. If it's so great, why are the farm tractors and equipment not running E85? It's just not a good fuel. The cool thing is its octane rating is around 104 (R+M)/2, so you can boost and raise your compression ratio and get about equal performance.
All in all, like mercury01 said, it is worse for the environment to manufacture than gasoline, it costs a lot in subsidies that come from your taxes, and it is driving up food prices because we're using good food as a gas. You are being scammed into thinking it is a great alternative, when it is truly not.
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 8
From: Temecula, CA
We considered running E85 in our race cars just because of the octane rating and it's cost versus "racing gasoline". In the end, the performance just wasn't there I don't believe.
For daily use, no way. The cost per gallon doesn't offset the reduced efficency of the fuel.
For daily use, no way. The cost per gallon doesn't offset the reduced efficency of the fuel.
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
[With apologies for the "Cliffy Clayborn"]
I also ride a Ducati Multistrada. The 10% ethanol blend has been damaging the plastic fuel tanks of these bikes, which expand and leak - I can only imagine what E85 at 85% ethanol would do!
The Ducati has a problem with its plastic tank whether you burn ethanol or not. Naturally, 85% ethanol would make the problem worse. That's why any vehicle using "Flex Fuel" should be approved first.
As others have pointed out, ethanol receives quite large cash subsidies (approx. $8.4 Billion/yr) - both for corn production ($5.4 Billion/yr) and to the ethanol producers ($3 Billion/yr). The amount of fossil fuel it takes to produce the corn feedstock is about 1.1 barrels of oil per barrel of ethanol. The there's the environment ... using corn-based ethanol as fuel creates over 40% more CO2 than oil.
This is kind of a weak arguement since the corn would be produced anyway. The study you are citing has been heavily contested. Given that the corn that is used to make ethanol is returned via the protein of the DDGs, it really doesn't impact food nor actual corn production to the extent used in the study.
Also, farmers receive nothing for ethanol. The only subsidy that is paid is a blenders credit which goes to the company using the ethanol, not the producer.
Including the subsidies for ethanol plus the subsidies for corn production brings the price to $3.00/gal; when the costs of production are included the price increases to $4.71/gal; and then when you consider that gasoline has 60% more energy than ethanol, the price rises to $7.14/gal for an amount of energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
As a result of using corn for subsidized ethanol production, corn prices have increased dramatically. For example, it has been estimated that beef production costs have increased $1 Billion/yr. Also, the costs of other meats, eggs and dairy products are all increasing as a result.
I would be more concerned with the increase in grain usage around the world. China alone has had more of an impact on corn demand than has ethanol. What is primarilly responsible for increased food costs is energy. After all, we can all do the math. If in 2007 the average cost of corn to make a bag of corn chips was 25 cents, and the price of corn tripled (which it hasn't), than the price of a bag of corn chips should have gone up 50 cents. Why has it gone up $1.50. The same is true of beef prices. The cattle producer is getting another 20 to 30 cents a pound for his cattle. Why is hamburger up over a $1.
It costs about $1.25 to refine 1 gallon of gasoline.
Ethanol is weakening our countries; it is not a rational answer to the "problems".
I also ride a Ducati Multistrada. The 10% ethanol blend has been damaging the plastic fuel tanks of these bikes, which expand and leak - I can only imagine what E85 at 85% ethanol would do!
The Ducati has a problem with its plastic tank whether you burn ethanol or not. Naturally, 85% ethanol would make the problem worse. That's why any vehicle using "Flex Fuel" should be approved first.
As others have pointed out, ethanol receives quite large cash subsidies (approx. $8.4 Billion/yr) - both for corn production ($5.4 Billion/yr) and to the ethanol producers ($3 Billion/yr). The amount of fossil fuel it takes to produce the corn feedstock is about 1.1 barrels of oil per barrel of ethanol. The there's the environment ... using corn-based ethanol as fuel creates over 40% more CO2 than oil.
This is kind of a weak arguement since the corn would be produced anyway. The study you are citing has been heavily contested. Given that the corn that is used to make ethanol is returned via the protein of the DDGs, it really doesn't impact food nor actual corn production to the extent used in the study.
Also, farmers receive nothing for ethanol. The only subsidy that is paid is a blenders credit which goes to the company using the ethanol, not the producer.
Including the subsidies for ethanol plus the subsidies for corn production brings the price to $3.00/gal; when the costs of production are included the price increases to $4.71/gal; and then when you consider that gasoline has 60% more energy than ethanol, the price rises to $7.14/gal for an amount of energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
As a result of using corn for subsidized ethanol production, corn prices have increased dramatically. For example, it has been estimated that beef production costs have increased $1 Billion/yr. Also, the costs of other meats, eggs and dairy products are all increasing as a result.
I would be more concerned with the increase in grain usage around the world. China alone has had more of an impact on corn demand than has ethanol. What is primarilly responsible for increased food costs is energy. After all, we can all do the math. If in 2007 the average cost of corn to make a bag of corn chips was 25 cents, and the price of corn tripled (which it hasn't), than the price of a bag of corn chips should have gone up 50 cents. Why has it gone up $1.50. The same is true of beef prices. The cattle producer is getting another 20 to 30 cents a pound for his cattle. Why is hamburger up over a $1.
It costs about $1.25 to refine 1 gallon of gasoline.
Ethanol is weakening our countries; it is not a rational answer to the "problems".
I'm not for ethanol! However, we should at least be against it for the right reasons. So much hype is out there that is more politically motivated than fact based that it is ridiculous. The truth is that we are trying to use ethanol in an engine that was designed to burn petroleum. Until we have an engine that was designed to burn ethanol, I probably won't use it. And I surely won't use E85 unless it's cost effective and in a vehicle that is desgned to burn it.
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
With all due respect, alcohol burns cooler than gasoline. That's one of the benefits of using alcohol in dragsters and immediately tearing down the engine. If that is the case, it makes sense that what you have "heard" is bogus.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Southpaw Super Glide: A Left-Hand-Drive 1979 Harley FXE Built to Fit the Rider
Verdad Gallardo
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Burning E10 in your bike is ok. I don't like doing it, but if your bike is less than 10 years old, it should be fine.
E15, I wouldn't do it. First, I don't think it would make any economic sense, and it may affect the performance of the bike. It shouldn't have any affect on hoses etc. if the bike is newer. However, if its older, your results could vary. At the same time, I doubt if this is ever going to become much more than a fad in any areas away from heavy ethanol production.
E85 -- Stay away from it with your bike. It is only meant for flex fuel vehicles and it is only adviseable in those vehicles when the price is right. In my 2010 Silverado, it has to be at least 25% cheaper to make it effective. Not often the case.
Neither E15 nor E85 are mandated in any state. (Minnesota may be an exception.) So, getting straight unleaded or E10 shouldn't be a problem. Getting them mixed up shouldn't be a problem either. It shouldn't be any different than accidently getting diesel in your tank.....
E15, I wouldn't do it. First, I don't think it would make any economic sense, and it may affect the performance of the bike. It shouldn't have any affect on hoses etc. if the bike is newer. However, if its older, your results could vary. At the same time, I doubt if this is ever going to become much more than a fad in any areas away from heavy ethanol production.
E85 -- Stay away from it with your bike. It is only meant for flex fuel vehicles and it is only adviseable in those vehicles when the price is right. In my 2010 Silverado, it has to be at least 25% cheaper to make it effective. Not often the case.
Neither E15 nor E85 are mandated in any state. (Minnesota may be an exception.) So, getting straight unleaded or E10 shouldn't be a problem. Getting them mixed up shouldn't be a problem either. It shouldn't be any different than accidently getting diesel in your tank.....
Road Master
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 862
Likes: 3
From: East Tennessee
Pure gas
