Best fuel to use for bikes?

cruizin said:

the answer has been provided in posts before, this topic has been done to death as it is

Click to expand...

I could write a treatise about the concept of 'done to death'.

Why do people still believe in things which are obviously not true? Why are there still anti-vaxxers? Why do some people still believe in Bigfoot or LizardPeople? Why are there still people against marriage-equality? Why do some people still join cults? Why do people still believe in psychics and faith-healing or acupuncture or homeopathy?

All of these are obvious, settled-science for those who understand evidence and epistemology. Yet, they're amazing phenomenon for wide-eyed believers. Some reading this probably believe in a few of these things, and might take offense. That would prove my point, wouldn't it?

The point is not whether something is 'done to death' so much as why is something 'settled science' vs. 'open for debate'? Why do people still get it wrong? Why do some people dismiss evidence, no matter how obvious, and others are more able to change their minds?

As I've pointed-out earlier, I used to put premium gas in my 300. I realized I was wrong and I now use 87 and am happy to educate others about the correct fuel to use (along with my own change of mind).

Even if people wander in and make a case for high-octane fuel in a Ninja 300, we're here to correct them with facts. And so, eventually this thread will sink to the bottom...until some new person comes in, re-stating old hearsay about the benefit of premium gas. And the process repeats.

People still get basic stuff wrong, every single day. That doesn't stop nor should it stop the conversation. I mean, interracial marriage was illegal in America until 1967. It took a Supreme Court case (Loving v. Virginia) to settle what is the most obvious thing on the planet, that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry if they so choose. It took a Civil War for America to realize that humans should not be slaves. It took still more work to give minorities and women full right to vote. The most obvious stuff in the world still merits debate, because it takes a while for everyone to get it (even if smart, progressive people get this stuff right away). Old ideas tend to die hard. We see that in every general election here in the States and in-practice around the world.

I am sure some people here believe the old myth that one should drink 8 glasses of water a day. The reality is that this was a truncated message. Most of our water comes from food (meat, for example, is 80% water). But, people still repeat this myth, omitting the second portion of the statement made way back when.

Fuel? It's nothing. It's trivial. It's almost meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But, people still get some of the big things wrong, so I am not surprised or offended that some still make arguments supporting premium fuel, no matter what the target vehicle.

If people cannot bear debate, they need not participate, and nobody's forcing anyone to read this thread. However, I still think the argument is worth pursuing for the uninitiated who are still operating with bad or false information. Educate enough people and eventually, the rumor might just die-off.

Meanwhile, someone out there is non-ironically preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse! We can't win.

xtina said:

The best threads are when the mods troll the mods.

Click to expand...

What happens when a mod mods a mod?

cruizin said:

what is there to debate since Dave provided the answer direct from the manuals about the fuel????

clearly not fuel as we have the answer which is a fact direct from the manual, end of story.

Click to expand...

If people think there's an argument to be made, I am sure they will bring it, but people will also start new threads too, even about the same subject. We can merge those new threads and then just definitively answer the question. If the answer is that obvious (and I think it is), then it's a no-brainer.

Also, I don't think we should make a habit of closing threads just because we consider something 'settled'. I mean, people still believe in homeopathy, which is one of the most obvious types of quackery and nonsense we can review. It literally doesn't work because it cannot work, because there are no molecules of active-ingredient simply based on the level of dilution and bad foundational ideas that comprise homeopathy, about 'like curing like'. Even the very idea is fraught with error. Also, liquid cannot have a 'memory' of active ingredient as the homeopath would believe. But, people still believe in this nonsense and spend hard-earned money on it, because they either don't know, don't want to know, or for some other reason cannot process the data that so obviously tells us that homeopathy is nothing less than 'magic' water and a blatant scam. But yet, you could tell someone this and they'd still happily pay for magic water because they've employed the fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after which because of which) or have fallen for confirmation bias (ignoring misses, counting hits).

Why do people still believe in psychics? Claims of 'psychic' powers are demonstrably false. Nobody is psychic. Yet, people still believe in it. It's actually a settled question for those who understand how evidence works, so would a thread about psychics need to be closed? I don't think so.

Yet, imagine just closing a thread because something is considered 'settled' (which it may very well be). That would miss the point. The point is to explain why something is true or false, especially for those who still don't get it. With the fuel argument, the clear science about which fuel to use is not the issue so much as unraveling the myths that surround 'premium' fuel. Even the name 'premium' implies 'better' and for a new bike owner who wants to be diligent, that may seem like the 'premium' gas to get. Not everyone understands engines or how gas interacts with them, so the reasons why are just as important as the answer itself.

Not everyone handles or is able to deal with evidence in the same way, closed thread or not. That's why conversation (even for settled science) is a good thing.

cruizin said:

what is there to debate since Dave provided the answer direct from the manuals about the fuel????

clearly not fuel as we have the answer which is a fact direct from the manual, end of story.

Click to expand...

End of story? Why because you said so? Sorry, I didnt realise you were the supreme authority here. Or is it because the manual states a fact that people are debating? Just as you have in the past? When I hear you asking?

Do we all remember this, because I certainly do:

cruizin said:

when i did my oil/filter change on my 300 it took almost 4 litres of oil to get it right on the oil sight glass.i think the book is wrong where it says how much oil to put in to the engine, wouldn’t be the first time manuals have been printed incorrectly

Click to expand...

cruizin said:

the only other thing i can suggest is the manual is wrong and has the wrong data in it.

Click to expand...

cruizin said:

mate the book is wrong.

Click to expand...

cruizin said:

i think either the manual is wrong or maybe something has changed on the 2014 bikes

Click to expand...

cruizin said:

i honestly believe something has changed on the motor

Click to expand...

So which is it cruizin, is the manual wrong or is it that you just didnt want to believe the facts stated? The manual definitely is right with its facts, and nothing had changed on the engines. Facts you didnt want to believe. You simply had a different result, and wanted to debate that. Just as people have different results with fuel and like to debate it. You are not the supreme authority on what is right or wrong, nor the authority on what should or shouldnt be debated on a forum. Especially when you dont believe the facts stated in the manual all the time either.

This is exactly the same as we all said to your debate over oil capacity not too long ago, I think you had forgotten already about that one. We had the answer to how much oil is required to be put in your bike. It was in the manual. Facts that are in the manual. Facts that you tried to tell everyone were wrong. It was stlll debated by you and everyone else yeah? Just as the fuel type is a fact and is in the manual, but is still debated.

So it seems even you cruizin pick and choose which facts you want to believe that are directly stated in that manual. You sure debated that oil capacity fact to the end of the earth, even to the point of going to Kawasaki to try and prove your point to yourself and everyone else that the manual was wrong. Which it wasnt. To the point of trying to tell people maybe something had changed on the engines. Which it hadnt. To the point of posting what you call spreading FUD..........."Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt". What were you doing? Spreading FUD. What was there to debate? The facts were in the manual the whole time. There should have been nothing to debate. End of story.

It should have been end of story. Just as the fuel. But it will still be debated by people that think differently or dont agree. Just as you did for not agreeing with the oil capacity fact stated. So its not end of story, nor will it ever be for those that dont agree with what is stated or have a different experience. Just like some have had with fuel, just like you had with oil.

Now, the debate on what fuel type is best for your bike can continue. The correct fuel type is in the owners manual, those who have read it will know this. If you want to choose to use a different fuel, I and others would still love to hear your reasons for. So we can post reasons against. A debate. On a forum. Very normal stuff.

For those interested on where I got those quotes posted above please see here, it really is a good laugh:

http://www.kawasakininja300.com/forum/11-ninja-300-issues-troubleshooting/9682-engine-oil-level.html