Ethanol in fuel | Page 3 | FerrariChat

Ethanol in fuel

Discussion in 'Technical Q&A' started by AceMaster, Dec 22, 2009.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. AceMaster

    AceMaster Three Time F1 World Champ

    Feb 6, 2009
    34,548
    Ontario, Canada
    Full Name:
    Mike
    And unfortunately that does not look like it is going to happen anytime soon...."time to give the power back to the people" is long overdue...
     
  2. f1karting

    f1karting Karting

    Jul 19, 2006
    235
    BC Canada
    Full Name:
    Jan H
    Same BS goes for the electric car we are all suppose to own one day.. A watt is a fu*king watt, whether it comes from IC engines or electricity from carbon belching inefficient coal fired power plants.

    An electric car of similar mass/performance/efficiency to a petro-fueled IC engined car will need the same amount of energy (watt) to drive it. A well designed efficient petro-run car will produce so much less carbon emission than ANY electric car charged on a grid powered by coal.. green my ass.. it pisses me off.

    Then.. dont get me started on the cost of production and disposal of batteries of which there will be biillions of to build and dispose of in the years to come. It takes energy to transport make and dispose of batteries.. Of which such energy will likely come from 'developing' nations inefficient coal fired carbon belchers and landfills/ lakes/streams etc...then there is the potential chemical pollution of disposal...

    The carbon responsible option.. the entire program would need to run of off nuclear powered grids.. combined with serious recycling efforts... not likely.

    In the mean time.. invest in coal mining stocks.. I am sure the pricks that drive the green car movement are.

    Greed motivation runs the show IMO...

    Canadas best kept secret.. dont have to worry... once we drain the middle east of oil.. we have enough oil for all of us to run our cars for a hundred years.

    While on my rant of carbon emissions.. at any moment in time there are over 2000 commercial airlines in the upper atmoshere belching literally tonnes of burned kerosene into the stratosphere.. has no one in govt has asked them to go green.. just curious.
     
  3. SonomaRik

    SonomaRik F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 15, 2006
    6,880
    Sonoma, CA
    +3 : Exactly
     
  4. Axecent

    Axecent Formula 3

    Oct 15, 2008
    1,112
    Central Texas
    Full Name:
    John
    How big of a problem is 10% ethanol in modern vehicles, I.E., post 2000 models?
     
  5. davehelms

    davehelms F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2004
    4,629
    Full Name:
    Dave Helms
    As long as the 10% number is accurate it presents little problem to any year car. Advertised 10% is one thing we proved was just advertising, not reality in all cases. I found the problem number to be 14% coming from pumps advertising 10%
     
  6. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    9,252
    Actualy, this is definately and demonstrably NOT true.

    A midling (most of the fleet) of Coaf Fired Power plants run in the high 30s of percent therman efficiency (38% on average.) The very best currently operating Coal Fired Power Plants operate at nearly 48% thermal efficiency. That is for every joule in, one gets almost 0.4 Joules out, and up to 0.48 Joules out.

    The very best gasoline powered automotobile engine operate in the 31% thermal efficiency range (these are race engines) while most passenger car engines operate in the 25%-27% range (street engines). Thus, for every Joule in, one gets only 0.26 Joules out.

    Thus, one gets almost twice as many watts per unit CO2 from a coal fired power plant than from a automotive sized gasoline powered engine. From this power of 2, one can send the power over the transmission line (2% loss), charge up a battery (10% loss), and later drive a motor (10% loss) and more than break even Watts/Joules wise.

    {Note: this is not an argument for coal mining, or for battery powered vehicles, it is a demonstration of the efficiency of scale where really big machines (power plants) are so much more efficient at converting energy from a bad fuel (coal) than anything of more human scale (automobile engine) can from even a good fuel (gasoline)}
     
  7. robertgarven

    robertgarven F1 Veteran
    Owner

    Feb 24, 2002
    5,269
    Ventura, California
    Full Name:
    Robert Garven
    #57 robertgarven, May 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  8. Etcetera

    Etcetera Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 7, 2003
    22,179
    Full Name:
    C9H8O4
    Wow! Dave Helms needs a hair cut!
     
  9. airdelroy

    airdelroy Formula Junior

    May 10, 2007
    420
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Aaron Richardson
    Yikes!! Dont skip on the bill with Dave.

    Aaron
     
  10. saw1998

    saw1998 F1 Veteran

    Jun 8, 2008
    8,237
    San Antonio, Texas
    Full Name:
    Scott
    #60 saw1998, May 29, 2010
    Last edited: May 29, 2010

    I could not agree more. As the individual who drafted and filed the patent applications for many of Dave Helms' SRI products, I can assure you that these hoses are, without equivocation, the finest fuel hoses produced by ANY manufacturer in the world.

    In preparing the aforementioned patent applications, I spent countless hours reviewing all of the domestic and foreign "prior art" patented fuel hoses. In performing these searches, I found absolutely no hose that was even remotely similar to those manufactured by SRI. In addition, as a scientist, I worked with Dave (and his hose fabrication experts) in designing and implementing the various testing methodologies to ascertain the physical and chemical properties of the fuel hoses and the materials from which they are constructed.

    It must be understood that these SRI fuel hoses are not inexpensive, mass produced extruded hoses (which include ALL of the other "high quality" commercially-available hoses), but instead, utilize a mandrel-based, calendered, hand-laid construction methodology using the absolute BEST, most resilient materials available. In brief, they are constructed from multiple calendered layers of extreme duty fluoropolymer elastomers and meta-aromatic polyamides which are then spiral-wrapped with silicone-impregnated meta-aromatic polyamides. There is absolutely nothing else available that is even remotely close to their quality - this hose is absolutely "bullet-proof".

    Are they inexpensive? No, But comparatively, their cost is amazing low considering the cost and quality of the materials and methodologies utilized in their construction. You may call me biased, but I just can't understand why, now that the plethora of problems which are caused by the currently utilized fuel additives (e.g., ethanol) are known, why anyone who owns a valuable vehicle would not utilize the very best product available? Moreover, think of the possible risks from a fuel fire, not only to the vehicle, but to the driver's and/or passenger's lives.

    Excuse me for waxing philosophic for a moment, but, IMHO, if I am going to perform mechanical work or service on my vehicle, I want to do it right the first time, by using the best parts/equipment available and performing said service to the best of my ability. If you replace your fuel hoses with these SRI fuel hoses, you will be doing this service ONE time, the right way, and you also gain the added advantage of having peace-of-mind with respect to safety.


    DISCLAIMER: I have absolutely NO financial interest in Scuderia Rampante or Scuderia Rampante Innovations. I worked with the aforementioned companies and David Helms solely out of a deep respect for Dave, as a individual, and because of the time, effort and expense he has put forth to benefit we Ferrari owners.
     
  11. Birdman

    Birdman F1 Veteran

    Jun 20, 2003
    6,687
    North shore, MA
    Full Name:
    THE Birdman
    +10000000
     
  12. glasser1

    glasser1 Formula Junior

    Sep 2, 2006
    510
    Oregon
    #62 glasser1, May 29, 2010
    Last edited: May 29, 2010
    There's more, as I know you are aware... the energy cost of electricity from coal doesn't begin at the coal-fired plant. It begins at the coal mine. Mining takes energy and so do the coal trains taking the coal to the power plants. On the flip side, what about the cost to find and then transport crude oil to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, then pump it through pipelines, then transport it via trucks to the consumer?

    And remember that electricty in some areas (such as Portland, OR, where we will soon see the Nissan Leaf introduced) comes from dams. Now there's a winner.

    There is no question in my mind that electric power will eventually be the best solution. Obviously it is not the clear winner now, but in decades to come it will be. And in the meantime we need to go through a learning curve to develop all aspects of the technology so we might as well get started. Just don't get me started on hydrogen! Big thumbs down there!
     
  13. staatsof

    staatsof Nine Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 13, 2005
    91,385
    Fuggetaboutitland
    Full Name:
    Bob
    There's no potential future increase in hydro-electric in the USA. We've tapped it all unless you can figure out how to make more out of the existing hydro plants. We also have people wanting to eliminate some of these. So where's the other electric going to come from? The wind doesn't blow non stop (except in DC) so that has to be backstopped with quick firing plants which also happen to pollute more severely. There are some urban areas that have very strained power delivery infrastructure right now. Anyone remember the blackout in the NYC area a few years ago. On hot summer nights there is no excess electricy that can be delivered. We're going to have to utilize fossil fuel for quite some time. In the meantime pursue everything that's rational and has hope of being economically viable. Burning potential food either directly or by proxy via growing something else on productive farmland makes no sense to me. If the world can't eat we got trouble of the biggest sort. I'd like to see a set of latest generation standardized nuclear plans planned and installed. Though I am concerned about who's going to run them. The French? I can guess Obama's idea on this. One million fed. gov. jobs and it will reduce the deficit but not the deceit. He's doing so well so far ... Maybe someone can figure out a co-generation technique for audacity and arrogance. Then we might actually find something to make him useful.

    Bob S.
     

Share This Page