L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> "castor oil flavoured" You have to do better than that! And yes I
> remember the smell, very much like model airplane fuel, which of course
> is petroleum.

Glow fuel is METHANOL, NITROMETHANE, NITROBENZINE, and CASTOR or
SYNTHETIC OIL. No gasoline or other petroleum distillates are used
ever. Many now run on straight methanol and oil.

 

"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote
L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Plus corrosion is a big problem with gasoline engines, alcohol will
> literally pour water into the crankcase. Aluminum cases will vaporize.

What led you to this imaginary idea?

Sounds a tad exaggerated but I did try "gasohol" (10% mix) in a bike I had. Ran
ok but got 10% poorer gas milage so I suspect the alky didn't burn at all.
Worse, my bike stalled when I switched to reserve after a couple fills of the
mix, leaving me stuck in the sticks. The alchohol had mixed with a tad of water
and the whole mess (about a gallon) had precipitated out into an unburnable mix
in the bottom of my tank. I've avoided it like the plague ever since.

We used to use methanol in race bikes year ago but they needed close to 15:1
compression ratios to burn it efficiently. EPA won't let car mfgrs do that cuz
the nitrogen in the air "burns" at those ratios making nitric oxide - one of the
worst parts of SMOG. Thats why they made mfgrs cut compression ratios back in
1970.

 

"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote
L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Plus corrosion is a big problem with gasoline engines, alcohol will
> literally pour water into the crankcase. Aluminum cases will vaporize.

What led you to this imaginary idea?

Sounds a tad exaggerated but I did try "gasohol" (10% mix) in a bike I had. Ran
ok but got 10% poorer gas milage so I suspect the alky didn't burn at all.
Worse, my bike stalled when I switched to reserve after a couple fills of the
mix, leaving me stuck in the sticks. The alchohol had mixed with a tad of water
and the whole mess (about a gallon) had precipitated out into an unburnable mix
in the bottom of my tank. I've avoided it like the plague ever since.

We used to use methanol in race bikes year ago but they needed close to 15:1
compression ratios to burn it efficiently. EPA won't let car mfgrs do that cuz
the nitrogen in the air "burns" at those ratios making nitric oxide - one of the
worst parts of SMOG. Thats why they made mfgrs cut compression ratios back in
1970.

 

"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote
L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Plus corrosion is a big problem with gasoline engines, alcohol will
> literally pour water into the crankcase. Aluminum cases will vaporize.

What led you to this imaginary idea?

Sounds a tad exaggerated but I did try "gasohol" (10% mix) in a bike I had. Ran
ok but got 10% poorer gas milage so I suspect the alky didn't burn at all.
Worse, my bike stalled when I switched to reserve after a couple fills of the
mix, leaving me stuck in the sticks. The alchohol had mixed with a tad of water
and the whole mess (about a gallon) had precipitated out into an unburnable mix
in the bottom of my tank. I've avoided it like the plague ever since.

We used to use methanol in race bikes year ago but they needed close to 15:1
compression ratios to burn it efficiently. EPA won't let car mfgrs do that cuz
the nitrogen in the air "burns" at those ratios making nitric oxide - one of the
worst parts of SMOG. Thats why they made mfgrs cut compression ratios back in
1970.

 

"Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote
L.W. ------ III (ßill) wrote:
> Plus corrosion is a big problem with gasoline engines, alcohol will
> literally pour water into the crankcase. Aluminum cases will vaporize.

What led you to this imaginary idea?

Sounds a tad exaggerated but I did try "gasohol" (10% mix) in a bike I had. Ran
ok but got 10% poorer gas milage so I suspect the alky didn't burn at all.
Worse, my bike stalled when I switched to reserve after a couple fills of the
mix, leaving me stuck in the sticks. The alchohol had mixed with a tad of water
and the whole mess (about a gallon) had precipitated out into an unburnable mix
in the bottom of my tank. I've avoided it like the plague ever since.

We used to use methanol in race bikes year ago but they needed close to 15:1
compression ratios to burn it efficiently. EPA won't let car mfgrs do that cuz
the nitrogen in the air "burns" at those ratios making nitric oxide - one of the
worst parts of SMOG. Thats why they made mfgrs cut compression ratios back in
1970.

 

Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
asphault simply cannot support the weight.

The solution is not higher taxes but lighter loads and/or more wheels/tires to
------ it over a greater area.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
> > weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
> > Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
> > something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
> > truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
> > ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
> > proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
> > more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
> > the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

 

Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
asphault simply cannot support the weight.

The solution is not higher taxes but lighter loads and/or more wheels/tires to
------ it over a greater area.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
> > weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
> > Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
> > something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
> > truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
> > ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
> > proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
> > more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
> > the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

 

Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
asphault simply cannot support the weight.

The solution is not higher taxes but lighter loads and/or more wheels/tires to
------ it over a greater area.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
> > weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
> > Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
> > something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
> > truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
> > ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
> > proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
> > more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
> > the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

 

Trucks do pay higher taxes but not enough to compensate for the damage they do
to roads. Blame Nixon. The interstates were designed to support a given weight
and trucks were limited to 60,000# IIRC so as not to exceed that even if
slightly overloaded. When Nixon ordered 55MPH the industry hollered so he upped
the limit to 80,000. That flexes the roadbed too much creating breakup and rapid
wear. You can see the damage as tire-size ridges on asphault interstates -
asphault simply cannot support the weight.

The solution is not higher taxes but lighter loads and/or more wheels/tires to
------ it over a greater area.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
> > weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
> > Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
> > something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
> > truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
> > ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
> > proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
> > more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
> > the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.

 

I'm afraid Bret is right. I used castor "bean" oil in racing motors long before
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....