Thought I'd try V power.

[ChristoT]

So the weapon of choice is handbags at dawn, Nick and Simon, where's the venue?  :lol :lurk

[nick crisp]

Coming soon to a forum near you.... :lol

[VNA]

Yeah, I've looked at all the stuff on the Shell site, as I have done in the past, and yes we've had these discussions before, and yup they got heated.

A wee thought first.  You might want to ask folks who repair engines, or check them for wear, what they usually find when they take one apart, that is an engine that has had it's basic servicing.

What I think they will tell you is that they find nice clean engines usually with minimal wear.

I mean lets face it when did you last think of buying a de-coke kit, popping the cylinder head off and cleaning out all that gunge - that's err umm not there.

Yup the days of the de-coke are long over.  So in terms of keeping my engine cleaner than clean, well I dunno what V-power is supposed to do for me.

As for the friction reduction claims, well your bike already has some pretty fancy coatings on it's bores to keep friction down and much more importantly reduce and prevent wear. 

We also know our bikes are prone to bore polishing.  Some bikes that have been too gently run in and/or run on fully synthetic oil have ended up with polished bores, which prevents the rings from bedding in and they then become oil burners for the rest of their lives. 

So in short I think all the talk of friction reduction is probably bull.  But if it is true, then it might actually be a good idea to avoid this fuel. 

Finally, everything on the Shell site is marketing spin, it's all intentionally vague,  there are no hard engineering  facts, there are no comparisons or demonstrations of this wonder fuel and what it can achieve in real terms.

Anyway my trusty old VW Bora which I've been driving for the last 9 years runs on 95RON Premium Unleaded.  I'm dreaming of maybe replacing it with a Skoda VRS petrol estate.  As the Skoda is turbo charged and set up for 98RON, well it will get 98RON cos it needs it, and whilst it will run on 95RON (cos it's got 'knock' detection) it won't run as well on it.

So I'll run my car and my bike on 95RON as they are both set up for 92RON.  There is no benefit from using a higher octane, and the only thing you can achieve, as I have explained, is a very slightly lowered power output.

Simon is correct, there are no facts and no demonstration of it's superior performance. 

[darrsi]

Still think people are missing the point all because of given information.


The FACT is, after YEARS of deliberately trying different fuels time and time again, my bike, as an example, without a doubt runs better on 97, and during summer when I occasionally use the V Power 99 it feels even better!


I'm not on about top speed or extra BHP, I'm on about the general feeling and well being of the bike.
And although it doesn't feel "bad" at all using 95, the other 2 definitely do feel noticeably better in comparison.

[nick crisp]

Still think people are missing the point all because of given information.


The FACT is, after YEARS of deliberately trying different fuels time and time again, my bike, as an example, without a doubt runs better on 97, and during summer when I occasionally use the V Power 99 it feels even better!


I'm not on about top speed or extra BHP, I'm on about the general feeling and well being of the bike.
And although it doesn't feel "bad" at all using 95, the other 2 definitely do feel noticeably better in comparison.

Which is all I really care about too - well said.

But technology does interest me, soooo...You may have a point about the running in process VNA, sounds logical, as does your explanation of the timing considerations for high octane fuel, which I don't dispute. But I just get a bit confused when it comes to this flat denial that companies like Shell can ever achieve any advances or improvements. Where is this attitude coming from? Surely they would have examined such things if developing a fuel that will be sold to one and all for road use?

[nick crisp]

And talking of technology and fuel additives, this discussion got me to wondering about whether we will get to a point where totally synthetic fuels replace fossil based fuels. The Germans had a large scale production of synthetics during WW2, and of course we have varying degrees of synthetic oils for use in our engines today. But check this out:

http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promi...ons/17687/

Maybe we won't need electrically powered vehicles after all?

[noggythenog]

Im not a refiner but i do work alongside refineries in getting their fuels in and out.


As far as i can tell then you can have as good quality petrol as you like......at an extra cost.....because the cleaner or purer or whatever you want it will take an extra process with the refinery......eventually it will be too good for a normal engine or too volatile.


I often hear of jet aviation fuel being traded as kero because it hasnt met the spec, even though they are broadly the same thing.


Theres the general acceptance that one refinery produces a better quality diesel than the other.


All sorts of crazy cargoes are made such as Naptha and reformate and many other Gasoline blend stocks.


Stuff is distilled into different stuff and then stuff can be further broken down into other stuff yet the more stuff you want outta stuff then the harder it gets and the more costly and labour intensive it gets to make that stuff :b


Cargoes are mixed and blended like a witches potion.


Even ships off southwold can do ship to ship transfers in a basic mixing and blending process.....i went on a couple of these and i was speaking to a surveyor who told me that half the cargoes were travelling around all these anchored ships and often ending back on their original ship in slightly different form.


I dont know for sure......but my "feeling" is that it all has less to do with how many additives are introduced and more to do with what crap is taken out and whilst i dont know owt about v power or whatever i can quite believe that it's quality is much better and that it has been mixed and blended better.......whilst additives must be added.....the only thing ive routinely heard of being added is dyes......apart from that then cargoes are either on spec or off spec.

[darrsi]

Change the liquid to whiskey instead and I'm sure the attitude would soon change!

They'll all get you pissed eventually, but some just taste that little bit nicer in the process.  :b

[Simon.Pieman]

It looks like the two key components in modern performance fuels are cleaning agents, and friction modifiers. The former to prevent carbon deposit build up which can reduce performance, and the latter to reduce (obviously) friction, especially between the piston rings and the walls of the cylinder. Of course whilst with wet clutch engines you wouldn't want friction modifiers in engine oil as they would reduce clutch bite, in the cylinder there are no such problems, as long as a good seal between cylinder wall and piston rings is maintained.

And of course, if you examine what Shell are prepared to tell Joe Public, you won't get much in depth technical information about the work they have put into fuel development (do you really need me to explain why this would be?!  :rolleyes ). Which of course is nothing, because as you imply, obviously quite rightly, Shell just came up with an advertising campaign that tells a pack of lies as in fact they sat on their arses and did nothing. Just re-labelled the same kinds of fuel that you used in the 80s. Of course when you raced in the 80s, you found out all the science that will ever be possible to know about engine performance and fuels, because you had the full, huge budget of a multi-national company at your disposal, who could see into the future and decide there would never be any further improvement, no matter what anyone did. In a way, it's a shame that by the 80s, everyone knew everything there would ever be to know in the field of science. This is why, presumably, you went on to win in GP racing at circuits around the world, and I would assume, you are still doing. I am suitably and humbly impressed  :lol

Here's something for you to ignore, or skim without really having any interest. Of course the bits you will carefully pick out are the marketing hype (shock, horror, there is some of that?!  :eek ) that prove what you say about "marketing nonsense such as 'longer life, cleaner engine' blah blah."

http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/products-serv...AprN8P8HAQ

So here's an idea. Why don't you, or anyone else for that matter, take Shell to court for false advertising? You are guaranteed a win 

If you choose to reply to this, don't forget to continually bang on about octane boosting whilst ignoring any other possible components that can be added to fuel 
Be warned, I may also choose to ignore your arguments too. Fair's fair, right?  :lol


P.S. Whilst I would normally not write in this style, I am trying to adopt the tone that you set, because I think it is one that you will understand more readily.  :thumbup  Oh, and I just made up everything I said before you joined the discussion because I'm a compulsive liar. But if you wish to (obviously fruitlessly) attempt to verify any of it, contact Brett at Woodford Motorcycles and Del at Del's Motorcycles and Tyres, Cirencester. Of course all the tuning the latter does for road and track is a complete waste of time because you quite clearly know better, so there's no more to be said. What would be the point in having more than one person (yourself) with experience in this field?


:rollin

I suggest you also Google the phrase 'Straw man argument' because that sums up everything you've said above. I'm not replying to misrepresentations of what I've said, no one would.  What has all that mumbo jumbo about science and me 'winning motogp' etc got to do with anything? It just sounds like petty insult and again it's pure straw man arguement, I never made any grandiose comments about the achievements of the endurance team. I don't know if fuel technology has come on since the eighties (and neither do you), I didn't claim to know the future either.
As for 'false advertising' ask yourself this, if the 'superfuels' really made a great difference why would Shell and the others heavily advertise something that would mean you buy less of their product?
Answer:- because the benefits are not significant enough to mean you buy significantly less fuel from them, but they get more profit anyway because these fuels cost more. Shell are running a business, they are not your friend and are not trying to save you money.

[nick crisp]

If my post sounds a little insulting, it was a response to this comment that you made:

puts to rest the cobblers being said on this thread about fuels with zippy names.

Not exactly diplomatic, was it?

I may not have great technical expertise in the field of fuel development to back me up, but neither do you. But sometimes people come across on the internet as arrogant in these things, intentionally or not, and I'm really interested in the facts too, so if I challenged you on your technical background, it's because if of course you had turned out to have much expertise in this subject, I would have paid much more attention. I didn't claim to have any expertise, just personal experience of what I felt/found, and thought it was relevant to the OP. Just to make a bald statement saying what everyone else had said is cobblers, without giving any reasons even for that statement, well, not surprising you'll put someone's back up a bit, is it?

Look, I come to this discussion from the same point of view as darrsi. I notice the difference in smoother running and better pick up when using V Power. I don't think it is all in my mind, and having it recommended by two separate, experienced mechanics does tend to reinforce the idea, rightly or wrongly.
Obviously Shell are not trying to save me money, this is a relatively expensive product after all.

[Simon.Pieman]

Just to make a bald statement saying what everyone else had said is cobblers, without giving any reasons even for that statement, well, not surprising you'll put someone's back up a bit, is it?

There you go again, I did not say that what everyone else said was cobblers, I did not use the word 'everyone' or infer it, yet another misrepresentation. I said there was 'cobblers being said about these fuels' and there ARE comments that presume these fuels perform better because of a higher RON value -you do not have to be engineer to work out that an anti-knock additive is in a fuel to retard the burn in engines that need it, and patently does not offer any advantage in engines that don't need it (like in a standard jap four for example).
Sorry if I appear arrogant but perhaps I should have mentioned relevent credentials, I was a marine engineer (with a good degree) for 35 years and taught it at City of London Poly for 3 of those years before moving into diving tech. I do know a little bit about engines and the stuff that makes the bits move around inside. I don't know what Shell stick in their fuels but I'd bet the bottom line is that your engine runs just as fine without it.

[noggythenog]

Dont worry chaps




All this quality control talk has got me thinking of another tyres thread




We all love those  :groan


Ill leave it for later.

[darrsi]

Dont worry chaps




All this quality control talk has got me thinking of another tyres thread




We all love those  :groan


Ill leave it for later.

(Whatever you do, don't mention Activ8)  :lol

[VNA]

How about a which oil is best thread?

Anyway chill out dudes.  But meanwhile,

The first thing you have to understand is that high octane as Simon points out simply means a slower more controlled burn.  The engine in your Fazer produces optimum performance on 92RON and it's timing is set up for 92RON.

What you might be better doing, rather than umm spending cash on fancy fuels, is looking into ignition advancers.  As we can't get 92RON and have to use 95RON, the theory is that you might want to advance the ignition to match the fuel you are using and ensure max performance.  ( that could be an angry thread too! )

Now I have tried super unleaded in my car.  Simply becuase the local garage was out of ordinary unleaded and I needed fuel.  I noticed no difference.  But I can't remember what brand out petrol station is/was selling (it's changed a few times (see how much I care)).

But anyway I will look out for some V power come the spring and try and get a couple of tank fulls, hopefully 2 in a row, through the bike.  I am puzzled that people claim to notice a difference.  Plus Shell claim more MPG (though they offer no evidence whatsoever.  So OK I'll try it and and report back.

All in the head?  Placebo effect?  Ever heard of God?  Some folks even talk to him you know!

Hey, how about a God thread? :lol

[unfazed]

[quote author=nick crisp link=topic=15423.msg176259#msg176259 date=1417699893]
Just to make a bald statement saying what everyone else had said is cobblers, without giving any reasons even for that statement, well, not surprising you'll put someone's back up a bit, is it?

There you go again, I did not say that what everyone else said was cobblers, I did not use the word 'everyone' or infer it, yet another misrepresentation. I said there was 'cobblers being said about these fuels' and there ARE comments that presume these fuels perform better because of a higher RON value -you do not have to be engineer to work out that an anti-knock additive is in a fuel to retard the burn in engines that need it, and patently does not offer any advantage in engines that don't need it (like in a standard jap four for example).
Sorry if I appear arrogant but perhaps I should have mentioned relevent credentials, I was a marine engineer (with a good degree) for 35 years and taught it at City of London Poly for 3 of those years before moving into diving tech. I do know a little bit about engines and the stuff that makes the bits move around inside. I don't know what Shell stick in their fuels but I'd bet the bottom line is that your engine runs just as fine without it.
[/quote]

:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup You have hit the nail on the head.
To some the spoken cold hard truth is considered arrogance. :rolleyes

Each to their own and if they are happy spending well earned cash on a fuel with a higher RON value, then they are entitled to and if they feel there bike runs better on it, then there is no harm in using it.
I remember the old GS Suzukis which were designed to run on low octane unleaded fuel and 2 in the bike club I was a member of insisted on using high octane leaded fuel and could not be convinced that the low octane fuel was perfectly fine. Even when they were changing plugs more frequently than I was due to lead fouling they still remained unconvinced.

Oh! one question, a good degree of what :lol :lol

[darrsi]

I bet God would use V Power if he/she/it existed!  :angel

[unfazed]

I bet Shell would like to think so :lol

[darrsi]

I bet Shell would like to think so :lol

Di Vine Power  :lol

[NorthWestern]

Aaaaaand just checked my ignition timing after snapping my choke cable this morning  and the bike starting first prod. "+2deg" in marker pen on the plate.  Seems it has had some fettling....

[VNA]

A wee DIY mod? - http://www.yamahafz1oa.com/eskortsadvancermod.shtml

Might explain why it likes higher octane fuel.