toaster404's California 1400 thread - questions and observations

[toaster404]

"Here's the question, does the Cali have any such system?"  referring to anti-knock system.  I do not know.  That is a key question.

I am not trying to save pennies.  I am trying to keep ethanol fuel out.  My bikes have always done better on 100% gasoline in the past.  If there were R+M/2 91 octane 100% gasoline fuel available at every station, this wouldn't be a question.

91 octane 10% ethanol OR 87 octane 100% gasoline is perhaps a better way to state my concern. 

Another way to look at it is whether the Cali 1400 will adjust itself for lower octane fuel by limiting performance at the edges of the performance envelope, which is generally acceptable to me on routine trips.  The only firm use it gets is up in the mountains.

[rocker59]

Run the 89 or 91 octane 10% ethanol stuff and just live with it.  That's what the rest of us do.

Chasing 100% gasoline is a time-waster in my book.  If the station has it, I'll use it.  If not, I use E10.

Your Cal 14 will not adjust for lower octane like some of the autos out there today, and will knock/ping on 87 octane at the elevations where you'll be riding.

[Lannis]

Run the 89 or 91 octane 10% ethanol stuff and just live with it.  That's what the rest of us do.

Chasing 100% gasoline is a time-waster in my book.  If the station has it, I'll use it.  If not, I use E10.

Your Cal 14 will not adjust for lower octane like some of the autos out there today, and will knock/ping on 87 octane at the elevations where you'll be riding.

I think it's worth going a LITTLE ways to avoid ethanol.   I try to use non-ethanol gas in all my equipment at home, so I fill up my transport cans with it.   And if my pure-gas map shows a non-ethanol station not-too-far out of the way, I'll fill up my vehicle with it. 

Ethanol fuel gives me 10% poorer fuel mileage, and a lot of problems with my small equipment.   It's worth going to a bit of trouble, for me, to avoid it.

Lannis

[Aaron D.]

Dude needs better ethanol.

I have no idea if my fuel economy is affected by ethanol as I have no vehicle that has ever had non ethanol fuel in it.

Are you saying that my Scout will get 55 mpg on non ethanol gasoline? I feel like a straight man playing opposite Maxwell Smart.

[Vasco DG]

Run what the book says.

With the pressure sensor in the plenum telling the 7SM what is happening in there the ECU will then adjust the throttle position and injector pulse width to wherever it needs to be to maintain its target AFR. As long as the fuel is within the prescribed range it will not cause any damage. I don't doubt that the suggested choice is very conservative.

Pete

[Lannis]

Dude needs better ethanol.

I have no idea if my fuel economy is affected by ethanol as I have no vehicle that has ever had non ethanol fuel in it.

Are you saying that my Scout will get 55 mpg on non ethanol gasoline? I feel like a straight man playing opposite Maxwell Smart.

Don't know about your Scout, maybe you should try it.   I only know what happens with my vehicles.

My Stelvio gets 42 MPG on E10, 46.5 on gasoline.    My Festiva gets 40 MPG on E10, 44 on gasoline.  "Burning" E10 is like putting water in your tank with the gas - it seems to do nothing.

Lannis

[ITSec]

My Stelvio gets 42 MPG on E10, 46.5 on gasoline.    My Festiva gets 40 MPG on E10, 44 on gasoline.  "Burning" E10 is like putting water in your tank with the gas - it seems to do nothing.
Lannis

Strangely enough, my Norge gets 10% better mileage once I get away from California gas (which also gets inflicted on southern Nevada, unfortunately). I get 40-42 mpg at home, and that improves to 44-48 mpg once I'm out of range of the California refineries. All with 10% ethanol all the time, since I don't search out 'pure' gas...

I can see the issue with ethanol in some small engines, but ethanol has been in the gas in North America long enough that only the oldest vehicles weren't designed with it in mind.

[190 Octane]

Strangely enough, my Norge gets 10% better mileage once I get away from California gas (which also gets inflicted on southern Nevada, unfortunately). I get 40-42 mpg at home, and that improves to 44-48 mpg once I'm out of range of the California refineries. All with 10% ethanol all the time, since I don't search out 'pure' gas...

I can see the issue with ethanol in some small engines, but ethanol has been in the gas in North America long enough that only the oldest vehicles weren't designed with it in mind.

My 2003 Titanium wasn't designed with ethanol in mind, or it wouldn't have eaten the fuel lines.  Neither were the V7's and Ducati's with tanks that were deformed by ethanol.

Ethanol was forced into the Houston area before it spread to a nearly state wide infection here.  A few years ago I would always get better mileage coming back to Houston than I did leaving, because I would fill up on ethanol free gas when I was outside the Houston area.

[Kev m]

Strangely enough, my Norge gets 10% better mileage once I get away from California gas (which also gets inflicted on southern Nevada, unfortunately). I get 40-42 mpg at home, and that improves to 44-48 mpg once I'm out of range of the California refineries. All with 10% ethanol all the time, since I don't search out 'pure' gas...

Are the CA fuels also "oxygenated"?

Parts of PA (and I believe NJ) run "Oxygenated" fuels for "reduced emissions" seasonally. The effect is an immediate drop in fuel mileage across the board on all our vehicles as soon as I start filling up with winter fuels.

[oldbike54]

 Oh hell we are  :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu

 The simple physics are that ethanol has about 1/3 less energy per unit than gasoline , so yes , fuel mileage will drop , dependent on the mix ratio . This is a sad fact of life , but largely unavoidable . I always seek out straight gasoline , not too hard to find in Oklahoma , but unless one is capable of refining gasoline , well , it is what it is .

 Dusty

[Wayne Orwig]

but if the pre-ignition detonation engine management stuff works,

Fixed it for you......


I don't think there is a detonation sensor, even on the 1400. But I could be wrong. Nothing previously had the sensors.

[ITSec]

Are the CA fuels also "oxygenated"?

Parts of PA (and I believe NJ) run "Oxygenated" fuels for "reduced emissions" seasonally. The effect is an immediate drop in fuel mileage across the board on all our vehicles as soon as I start filling up with winter fuels.

You better believe it! 

Unfortunately, whether winter or summer blends, the smog control stuff is used in CA fuels year round. Since I recall driving into the 'London Fog' that enveloped LA back in the Sixties, I don't have an objection - if something hadn't been done, the LA bowl would be unlivable today (and for the past couple decades). I'm just a bit annoyed that here in Las Vegas we get the same Mickey-Mouse blends instead of the good stuff from Arizona. That being said, the point was that I see more of a difference between CA and non-CA fuel that what's reported for people switching between fuel that does or doesn't contain ethanol.

And Dusty - the horse isn't dead! We all go out riding him every day, and (some of us) try to see if there's a better way to feed him...

As I noted in another (similar) thread, the ethanol issue is not an issue of chemistry, or physics, or even energy economics - it's an issue of the farm lobby and the ethanol lobby, and the huge amount of contributions they make to maintain a system of subsidized production and forced consumption. But that's not the question raised by the OP, who was asking (as people are wont to do) whether there was a consensus on whether fuels other than that in the manual were either good or acceptable.

As we've seen, there still isn't that agreement 

[Vasco DG]

I don't think there is a detonation sensor, even on the 1400. But I could be wrong. Nothing previously had the sensors.

No, there isn't. It isn't needed.

[Aaron D.]

I would try non ethanol fuel if any were to be had. I saw some in Kansas but it was always 87 octane, and it was about 100 degrees, so I passed.

Yes I get the physics of the fuel energy, but there is more involved, and it is a moot point anyway.

[segesta]

What was that? I was out on my motorcycle today, having fun riding it.

[toaster404]

What was that? I was out on my motorcycle today, having fun riding it.

Having fun riding requires putting fuel into a bike, thus my interest.  I understand that the engineering of bikes and their specs involve many compromises and that modern machines are quite adaptable to various fluids & fuels.  The insane ethanol deal bothers me.  I keep wondering if the longevity of various lines and hoses beats the warranty period, but doesn't equal what it would be with 100% gas.  The lower inherent energy just makes filling with ethanol feel like I'm being cheated!

However, with no detonation / pre-ignition sensor, I'll only use 87 blended with 93.  That should do it.  I imagine 89 would be fine, but there's not 89 100% here, only 87 and 91. 

Thanks all.

[Lannis]

 The simple physics are that ethanol has about 1/3 less energy per unit than gasoline , so yes , fuel mileage will drop , dependent on the mix ratio . This is a sad fact of life , but largely unavoidable .

 Dusty

Hey, I just thought of a way to avoid the "unavoidable" consequences of doping gasoline with a less efficient fuel and then having to burn more of it!!

But no, that would be too simple ....

Lannis

[LowRyter]

actually ethanol mixed gas has 98% the BTUs that plain gas has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent#Gasoline_gallon_equivalent_tables

since mixed gas is 10% ethanol that would make it about 2/3 as much energy as gasoline.

[kingoffleece]

The most entertaining thread in a long time.  Whew.

[Zoom Zoom]

Toaster, if you have 91 readily available, then why don't you simply use that? Trying to mix half and half, (or whatever), is a pain.

As I mentioned previously, 91 is the exception around here. It was suggested I use 89 in lieu of 93.

Anyway, cheers.

John Henry

[rocker59]

Toaster, if you have 91 readily available, then why don't you simply use that? Trying to mix half and half, (or whatever), is a pain.

John Henry

He's skeered of that evil ethanol.

[toaster404]

Yup, trying to limit ethanol and get a standard pattern of fueling.  I have had alcohol show up as the culprit in a variety of cases of poor performance. 

[mjptexas]

I did a butt-load of miles on a Cali 14 in the U.S. In 2013. Where I could I put the high octane stuff in. When we were in Bum-F*ck nowhere I put any old lizard piss that came out of the bowser in it.

We were two up and heavily laden. The horizon continued to come towards us no matter what was in the tank but it ran slightly smoother with the high octane stuff in. AFAIK it ALL had the wasteful bioethanol in it, at least I never sought out anything 'Special' for it.

Pete

 :1:
What he said...

I have 11,000 miles on my 1400 Custom.  Always put high octane in it when I can.  I've had to buy some questionable off brand gas in some remote locations with no noticeable effect.

[rocker59]

Yup, trying to limit ethanol and get a standard pattern of fueling.

What is a "Standard Pattern of Fueling" ?

I think you're over-thinking this.

 

[mjptexas]

200 miles of mountains and turns on Cali 1400 today.  Stock saddle is not going to get me across the country, even with an air hawk.  What's the consensus, if any, about the most effective replacment or rework?  I don't know what I'd ask Sargent to do, but I love the Sargent on my DL1000.  The Corbin looks great.  What else to look at or consider?

The stock seat on my Custom worked perfectly for me.  However, not so for the Mrs.  So I bought a Corbin seat:







If you've ever been to the Corbin site there are a ton of options.  This seat is black bomber leather, black stitching, no welts, black logo(I really don't like giving away free advertising if I can help it - no option available to delete the logo).  I thought the workmanship was top shelf.  Fit was perfect.

Reaction after the first ride - OMG! what have I done!   The first thing I noticed was that it sets higher than the stock seat which obviously increases the reach to the ground.  I have pretty short legs (31 inch inseam) so this didn't thrill me.  The second thing I noticed was how hard it was - I've sat on stadium bleacher seats that were softer!

Reaction after the first 400 miles -     I don't know that it really breaks in but the hardness of the seat was never an issue.  the scooped support was a benefit I didn't think much about but was nice.  I got used to the extra reach to the ground and its not as bad I as I first thought.  extra height (I doubt if it's more than an inch) makes this roomy bike feel even roomier.

I'd initially thought the Corbin would spend most of the time hanging on the wall except when the Mrs. rides with me.  I was wrong.  It's permanently on the bike.

[toaster404]

Nice Corbin.  I'm on the list to have a local custom rebuilder do my seat, so will see how that goes.  Certainly can be improved. 

On fueling, I've had several vehicles that didn't mind being fueled with something like 87 then 93 then 87 every half tank, but didn't like the straight 87.  On the 1400, I'm going to try alternating 93 and 89.  That should end up about right. 

About to leave for Chicago, will run the Lincoln LS on 89 instead of 93, see if there's any mileage or noticeable performance difference given the laid back way we travel.  Get consistent 24.8 mpg in V8 now.  Oddly, my BMW 540i would get 28 mpg on the Interstate!  Similar weight and size cars, more or less.  Maybe the Lincoln is more like the 740.  Lincoln rides better than either of those and handles fine at US speeds.  540 would handle fine way into the reckless driving speed range, but I don't go there!

[kingoffleece]

let me know if you need to protect those seats from rain.

[Kev m]

Reaction after the first ride - OMG! what have I done!   The first thing I noticed was that it sets higher than the stock seat which obviously increases the reach to the ground.  I have pretty short legs (31 inch inseam) so this didn't thrill me.  The second thing I noticed was how hard it was - I've sat on stadium bleacher seats that were softer!

Reaction after the first 400 miles -     I don't know that it really breaks in but the hardness of the seat was never an issue. 

The way it was explained to me when I bought one back in the 90s (and was PISSED how uncomfortable it was for the first few hundred, maybe even 1k miles) was that the closed cell foam will slowly break-in to the precise shape of YOUR butt. In doing so it will eliminate points of high pressure, spreading out the load as evenly as can be done.

Yes, it never feels SOFT or PLUSHY, but it feels just right after a time allowing for hours at a time without breaks or squirming.