Topic: Absolute best fuel for 76 CB550F

[seanbarney41]

Couple things I have noticed...if you are jetted on the rich side of things with %10 ethanol and then go ahead and throw some ethanol free in there for the hell of it, your bike is gonna run like #$%*.  Using 93 in a stock compression bike will net you NO improvement in performance and some sooty spark plugs...but like GeetO says, if its hot and/or you plan on beating the #$%* out of the throttle and/or your gonna be stuck in traffic and/or your not 100% confident your ignition timing is correct, 93 can save the day.  Also realize that habitually running 93 in a stock compression motor can lead to combustion chamber deposits that actually promote MORE detonation.

[HondaMan]

Gasoline usually works fine. You can put high octane gasoline in it if you just unnecessarily wish to blow 60 more cents per gallon.

I popped the extra funds for the "premium" 88 octane stuff they sell in Colorado over the 85 octane regular.

If the engine is stock, it runs fine in town with the mid-grade rating because it has the same burn RATE as the old 91 octane fuels of the 1970s era. Mine is now a little higher compression (9.2:1), so when I hit the lowland hiways I run premium. Otherwise it is midgrade, even in the hills, unless I can find no-ethanol gas (hard to get in CO, though). Throttle response is best when you are close to the ideal burn rate.

[Deltarider]

Also realize that habitually running 93 in a stock compression motor can lead to combustion chamber deposits that actually promote MORE detonation.

Can't understand that you have that phenomenon overthere, if true. Never heard of it here. Octane has nothing to do with burning rate. The premium fuels here like Shell's V-Power and BP Ultimate on the contrary keep things cleaner.

[pjlogue]

Also realize that habitually running 93 in a stock compression motor can lead to combustion chamber deposits that actually promote MORE detonation.

Can't understand that you have that phenomenon overthere, if true. Never heard of it here. Octane has nothing to do with burning rate. The premium fuels here like Shell's V-Power and BP Ultimate on the contrary keep things cleaner.

Octane DOES affect the burn rate, more specifically, it affects the flame front propagation rate in the combustion chamber.  The high octane fuels were designed for the higher compression ratios.  (used in the second world war to get more HP out of the engines)  In high compression engines using low octane fuel causes detonation because the flame front is moving too fast and peak burn is reached before TDC causing the knock.  Using high octane slows the flame front so peak burn (and pressure) is reached at TDC (ideally)

Using high octane fuel in a regular compression engine actually will reduce gas mileage a little.  You can slightly (at your own risk) advance the timing to compensate for this and bring up the mileage.  (Not worth the bother for me)  The main attraction for using high octane fuel in the SOHC is that many areas in the country have non-Ethanol high test.  That's the big plus for many. 

-P.

[AirCanuck]

Not sure it's possible to get non-ethanol "regular" gas in Canada. I think there are only a few choices for non-ethanol and they are all 93+ octane. So is it better to go for the regular (87) with ethanol or the 93+ premium gas without ethanol?

Fellow Canuck looking for an answer to this one!! What gas should I use and how often if at all should I use fuel stabilizer?

[Bodi]

Just to avoid ethanol, I run Shell premium in old bikes and engines. The octane rating is too high but ethanol has caused a lot of issues with carb seals for me, and getting all Viton seals is not so easy. Shell premium is the only ethanol free commonly available fuel in Ontario.
I do advance timing a bit to get some performance improvement with the high octane. Stock full advance is designed for a knock safety margin with the old 87 octane rating. Setting with a few degrees more full advance is safe with high octane ethanol free modern fuel. And the performance boost is noticeable.

[DaveBarbier]

Not sure it's possible to get non-ethanol "regular" gas in Canada. I think there are only a few choices for non-ethanol and they are all 93+ octane. So is it better to go for the regular (87) with ethanol or the 93+ premium gas without ethanol?

Fellow Canuck looking for an answer to this one!! What gas should I use and how often if at all should I use fuel stabilizer?

I'd use the ethanol laced lower octane unless you hear engine knock. If you ride fairly regularly it's not an issue.

The issue is trying to avoid engine knock. Use the lowest octane you can without hearing engine knock. Otherwise you're wasting money and giving in to the marketing. I used 87 on my 550 because it had a stock compression ratio. All the octane ratings do is tell you how much the fuel resists engine knock. Higher the number, the more it resists it. In high compression engines there's a tremendous amount of heat made by squeezing the air/fuel mixture. It requires a fuel that can resist spontaneously igniting as it's being compressed. It's not a cleaner burning fuel, it's not going to give you more power, it's not a "treat" for the engine, the higher octane is just a knock preventative.

IF you think you feel a difference with different octane fuels, I implore you to do a blind test. It'll be fun. Get a buddy to fill your tank a quarter way with anything he chooses. Then test it out. Do that a couple more times and write down what you think and then compare to what he put in. I did that with a buddy's Harley and he had notes going of where he felt more power and which time he thought I put in the high test. After 4 tests I gave in that I was putting 87 in for the entire test.

I've used year old ethanol fuel and I didn't notice a difference. But adding stabilizer when the bike will be sitting for over a month (arguable guess on length of time) wouldn't be bad to add a cap full of stabilizer.

Also think how long the fuel at the pumps have been sitting there, or before it ships to the pumps, in some holding tanks. I doubt it's as fresh as people want it to be.

[AirCanuck]

Not sure it's possible to get non-ethanol "regular" gas in Canada. I think there are only a few choices for non-ethanol and they are all 93+ octane. So is it better to go for the regular (87) with ethanol or the 93+ premium gas without ethanol?

Fellow Canuck looking for an answer to this one!! What gas should I use and how often if at all should I use fuel stabilizer?

I'd use the ethanol laced lower octane unless you hear engine knock. If you ride fairly regularly it's not an issue.

The issue is trying to avoid engine knock. Use the lowest octane you can without hearing engine knock. Otherwise you're wasting money and giving in to the marketing. I used 87 on my 550 because it had a stock compression ratio. All the octane ratings do is tell you how much the fuel resists engine knock. Higher the number, the more it resists it. In high compression engines there's a tremendous amount of heat made by squeezing the air/fuel mixture. It requires a fuel that can resist spontaneously igniting as it's being compressed. It's not a cleaner burning fuel, it's not going to give you more power, it's not a "treat" for the engine, the higher octane is just a knock preventative.

IF you think you feel a difference with different octane fuels, I implore you to do a blind test. It'll be fun. Get a buddy to fill your tank a quarter way with anything he chooses. Then test it out. Do that a couple more times and write down what you think and then compare to what he put in. I did that with a buddy's Harley and he had notes going of where he felt more power and which time he thought I put in the high test. After 4 tests I gave in that I was putting 87 in for the entire test.

I've used year old ethanol fuel and I didn't notice a difference. But adding stabilizer when the bike will be sitting for over a month (arguable guess on length of time) wouldn't be bad to add a cap full of stabilizer.

Also think how long the fuel at the pumps have been sitting there, or before it ships to the pumps, in some holding tanks. I doubt it's as fresh as people want it to be.

All great points, thanks for your advice!

[Deltarider]

All the octane ratings do is tell you how much the fuel resists engine knock. Higher the number, the more it resists it. In high compression engines there's a tremendous amount of heat made by squeezing the air/fuel mixture. It requires a fuel that can resist spontaneously igniting as it's being compressed. It's not a cleaner burning fuel, it's not going to give you more power, it's not a "treat" for the engine, the higher octane is just a knock preventative.

Correct. I could not have put it better. A higher octane brings nothing for an engine that doesn't need it, but a higher octane fuel doesn't burn slower than regular. If there is a difference in burning rate at all, if, in theory the higher octane would have the advantage but even then, it would be well within the noise band and can be neglected altogether. That doesn't rule out that you in practice could have different experiences. I mean, what do I know about local gasolines and the differences between the brands. I run high octane gas in mine NOT for its higher octane but because the designer fuels that clean better all happen to be of the higher octane kind.
As far as what Bodi suggested, I agree, be it that my experience is limited to the CB500/550s. Even with plain regular you can give these bikes a few extra degrees of advance to achieve a better driveability. I don't know how to put it, they simply 'bite' better. It's decades ago I learned this from a Honda mechanic. But you don't need a higher octane fuel for that, not for the CB500/550s. They won't knock, the engine is far too tame for that.

[Bodi]

I think it depends on your mileage, whether the premium gas price has a real impact on your $/km cost. I don't use the bike as a daily rider, my work demands that I carry a toolkit and some instruments plus a laptop: not transportable by motorcycle... so it's a recreational ride. Insurance makes up the majority of my cost of riding, so if I were to ride only 500km a season it's over $1.00 a km just for the insurance and regiatration... If I get five thousand km this year that's roughly $0.10/km fixed cost.
I fill up at around 100 miles on the trip meter (=160km, my speedo is old and in miles), usually around 10 litres per fill.
I don't know the exact differential but I think premium is about $0.15 more than regular. Prices are crazy right now from the hurricane but I'll guess the usual price without hurricanes at $1.10/l for regular and $1.25/l for premium. I don't watch gas prices as I don't have any real choice - if I want to ride or drive I have to buy the stuff. Driving 50km to save $0.05 per litre is probably a break-even proposition at best.

So at 10l/160km I pay (using the guessed prices) around 6.8 ¢/km for regular fuel, for premium it's around 7.8 ¢/km... 1¢/km more. The difference is much higher for my work van that gulps fuel, so I get the cheapest regular I come across for it.

For a guessed 5000km season that's a total $50.00 I will pay to use Shell premium gas and avoid ethanol. I've had definite problems from ethanol: the carb fuel rail connector O-rings have failed, carb bowl gaskets (formed O-rings) swollen so reassembly is not possible without them having a 24 hour drying out, petcock rubber washers wearing out in months rather than years. I could not find Viton fuel connector O-rings and used OEM Honda gasket kit ones when the stack started dribbling - carb rack removal, disassembly, reassembly, and reinstallation is a PITA plus requiring a carb synch... so the $50/year is not very prohibitive.
If I rode 20,000+ km a year the extra cost would be high enough for me to source ethanol compatible seals and I would use regular 87 octane 10% ethanol fuel with no regrets. I don't. If you do, then decide accordingly.
I've seen procedures to remove the ethanol from gasoline... you're increasing the fuel price by 10% right off the bat by removing the 10% ethanol, plus the time and effort, plus the risk inherent in messing with highly flammable gasoline, plus creating what is almost certainly hazardous waste liquid.

[przjohn]

My neighbor Mr. Scott swears by Dilithium Crystals.

[Keith]

Something to think about: US car manufacturers in the 60's snd 70's advertised that their high performance engines made a "magic" one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. For example the Chevy small block 350/350HP engine. Those engines all required high test. Well, the 750 sohc made 67  HP with only 45 cubic inches, or 1.488 HP per cubic inch. Do we not consider this high performance? Today's high perf. Engines use computers and knock  sensors to control detonation and preignition...and the ignition timing is set. You can't even set the idle. Now, let's look at the typical CB...do you know where your ignition timing is REALLY set to? Do you know where, and when you reach full timing advance? How many degrees of advance are you running full on? Dwell settings? Or what your mixture truly is? Do you have any, even tiny, vacuum leaks? How many KV are required to fire your plugs? Your engine could be slowly self destructing...and you wouldn't even know it. What's my point? I think non-ethanol high test is the cheapest insurace you can buy.

[DickL]

In Massachusetts the only non ethanol gas is Sunoco race gas at 7.50 per gallon and Avgas at 5.00 per gallon.

[AirCanuck]

Something to think about: US car manufacturers in the 60's snd 70's advertised that their high performance engines made a "magic" one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. For example the Chevy small block 350/350HP engine. Those engines all required high test. Well, the 750 sohc made 67  HP with only 45 cubic inches, or 1.488 HP per cubic inch. Do we not consider this high performance? Today's high perf. Engines use computers and knock  sensors to control detonation and preignition...and the ignition timing is set. You can't even set the idle. Now, let's look at the typical CB...do you know where your ignition timing is REALLY set to? Do you know where, and when you reach full timing advance? How many degrees of advance are you running full on? Dwell settings? Or what your mixture truly is? Do you have any, even tiny, vacuum leaks? How many KV are required to fire your plugs? Your engine could be slowly self destructing...and you wouldn't even know it. What's my point? I think non-ethanol high test is the cheapest insurace you can buy.

This is a bunch of very interesting points. What does everyone think? Also, does anyone know if you can get non-ethanol fuel in Canada?

ALSO, what is the point of non ethanol fuel anyway? Less varnish and such? Prevent Breaking down seals?

[Bodi]

Shell Premium - 94? - is ethanol free in Ontario for sure and across Canada as far as I know. I have seen unbranded stations claiming to sell "regular" fuel with no ethanol, but I haven't tried it (yet). You can, of course, get 20 or 200 litre drums of assorted octane level racing fuel at many bike or car performance shops but the price is insane and obviously this is not an excellent plan for going far from home and, it's not entirely legal to sell it for road use. Airports should have ethanol free avgas at a couple of (high) octane levels but this is not so easy to get in a not-airplane - airport security has gotten rather tight even at rural strips, ditto re road use legality. Some marinas sell fuel without ethanol but the price for regular is higher than for Shell premium... boat owners usually don't have the option of driving down the road to another gas station.
In southern Ontario there is usually a Shell station within reserve range.

[ofreen]

link=topic=168038.msg1946350#msg1946350 date=1504397844]
What's my point? I think non-ethanol high test is the cheapest insurace you can buy.

It doesn't matter to me what people think they should run in their bikes.  My '75 750F has passed 160,000 miles running regular (85-87 octane) for the past 30 years.  Sadly, 15-20 of those years with 10% ethanol.  Sad because the whole ethanol in gas thing is a huge scam but the main effect I see is slightly less mileage with E10, but otherwise I haven't observed any other adverse effects.  Of course my bike gets regular use, it doesn't sit still much.  If you don't ride your bike much I wouldn't want that crap in there long term either.  Alcohol is hygroscopic. 

Way back when, I ran premium or "Ethyl" because I thought I had to.  I found I didn't so quit wasting money.  To consider these bikes in stock trim "high performance" is sort of funny by today's standards.  But they are still entertaining and have enough power to get out of their own way.

[Deltarider]

This is a bunch of very interesting points. What does everyone think? Also, does anyone know if you can get non-ethanol fuel in Canada?
ALSO, what is the point of non ethanol fuel anyway? Less varnish and such? Prevent Breaking down seals?

Alcohol is hygroscopic.

Again, you may want to read this.

[TwoTired]

I read most of it.
No author credit makes the article dubious.
No sources given.  No way to ascertain credibility.  Reads like internet lore.
The claim that the distribution means has all been dried is particularly dubious, and largely irrelevant.  Our fuel tanks rust because of condensation.  They are all vented to atmosphere where humidity exits.  When temps fall each night condensation occurs, introducing water.
Alcohol IS hygroscopic, and due to impurities, it forms alkaline deposits.  This this is chemistry 101.  This gives gasohol a short life in fuel tanks and is harmful to carbs as it begins to dissolve metals unless constantly replenished/ flushed.

The entire gasohol scam relies on mass useage, high volumes, and constant replacement/consumption, to minimize deleterious effects.  Quite profitable at consumer expense.
Imo, of course.

Cheers,

[DaveBarbier]

Something to think about: US car manufacturers in the 60's snd 70's advertised that their high performance engines made a "magic" one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. For example the Chevy small block 350/350HP engine. Those engines all required high test. Well, the 750 sohc made 67  HP with only 45 cubic inches, or 1.488 HP per cubic inch. Do we not consider this high performance? Today's high perf. Engines use computers and knock  sensors to control detonation and preignition...and the ignition timing is set. You can't even set the idle. Now, let's look at the typical CB...do you know where your ignition timing is REALLY set to? Do you know where, and when you reach full timing advance? How many degrees of advance are you running full on? Dwell settings? Or what your mixture truly is? Do you have any, even tiny, vacuum leaks? How many KV are required to fire your plugs? Your engine could be slowly self destructing...and you wouldn't even know it. What's my point? I think non-ethanol high test is the cheapest insurace you can buy.

This is a bunch of very interesting points. What does everyone think? Also, does anyone know if you can get non-ethanol fuel in Canada?

ALSO, what is the point of non ethanol fuel anyway? Less varnish and such? Prevent Breaking down seals?

I think you're thinking about it too much. Either way you go you'll be fine. I use and will continue to use E10 lowest rating I can get except on my 674cc build because the compression has increased from stock. These bikes are very well engineered but they're not precision aerospace equipment, they won't explode killing hundreds if you put a drop of the wrong liquid in there. They're built like a brick sh*t house and I would venture the longevity of the motor is more determined by your wrist, oil change regimen and air filter replacing.

Just make sure you don't have engine knock. Save your hair pulling for something else.

[b52bombardier1]

The corn and farm agricultural lobby in politics here is why we have ethanol in our fuel. Their argument is that it limits the use of imported / foreign oil but I'm very dubious of that argument,  especially these days.

Rick

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Deltarider]

I read most of it.
No author credit makes the article dubious.
No sources given.  No way to ascertain credibility. Reads like internet lore.

Thank you. The article that I carefully selected for translation, is an official 2011 Aral R&D document. http://www.ktn-ev.de/wb/media/E10/Aral%20ueber%20E10.pdf It was published when a growing number of people became worried by all kinds of rumors in the internet, just what happens here every now and then. Now you might say: why would I believe what the biggest gasoline supplier in Germany says? First of all: why not? Gas companies didn't start this; they simply comply with government rules also known as laws. These originate through the political process. Sorry, but I thought it wise to bring it home somewhat. Over the years I followed what was published furthermore on this, not only in media specifically for the professional automotive branch but also reports by impartial consumer organisations like the German ADAC and the Dutch ANWB that combined their efforts to do tests to the extreme. Although there is a lot more to say about ethanol containing gas, the article I presented, still stands and so far has not been disputed by any party. Note that the article is frank and open on issues that may develop, in particular with classics like we have. But the article is specific and does not simply repeat what's heard elsewhere.

The claim that the distribution means has all been dried is particularly dubious, and largely irrelevant.  Our fuel tanks rust because of condensation.  They are all vented to atmosphere where humidity exits.  When temps fall each night condensation occurs, introducing water.

Then I invite you to read the whole article and not 'most of it'. The practice of reading 'most' of it is everyday practice on the internet and it is exactly what causes all these rumors often accompanied by isolated exclamations like Alcohol IS hygroscopic. Yes, alcohol IS hygroscopic, we already knew that and nobody denies that, but that doesn't automatically lead to disasters. Out of context these phrases can cause anxiety. Alas, it's everyday practice in the internet that develops more and more into a plastic soup of alternative facts. That's why I didn't limit myself to some quotations, but translated the whole article (apart from where it is about diesel)

This gives gasohol a short life in fuel tanks and is harmful to carbs as it begins to dissolve metals unless constantly replenished/ flushed.

Here we go again. How short is 'short'? Can you specify 'constantly' a bit? My experience: there's no need to worry and quite some riders in this forum have stated they have no problems. Even when hibernating, there's no danger for rust in your tank as long as your tank is filled up. But to avoid corrosion... the need to top up was already there with non-ethanol fuel! About dissolving metals in carburetors I can't say much, having not read about it. I remember that in the longperiod tests the ADAC and the ANWB performed, an Opel Signum (with a specific 2.2 engine) had part of it's aluminium high pressure fuel pump damaged after 27.000 kms. The testers had chosen this particular car on purpose: Opel had marked it unfit for E10 and the testers just wanted to see how far it would go. They fitted a new pump and carried on with the test using the same E10 to see if the problem would reoccur after another 27.000 kms.

The entire gasohol scam...

I'm sorry, populist remarks like this will not bring us any further. Except for a few deniers (even in your EPA nowadays), most agree there's a worldwide need to phase out fossil fuels, the sooner the better, unless you prefer to build dikes instead of walls... And if you ment to complain about the price of your almost taxfree gas, well, from where I am, I can assure you, there's very little to complain about. Sad thing is you pay for it with a rotten infrastructure.

The corn and farm agricultural lobby in politics here is why we have ethanol in our fuel.

I'd be far more concerned about the sugar that these corn and farm barons have managed to bring in your daily food.

[TwoTired]

I stopped reading when foundational comments acquired obvious flaws.

As soon as alcohol contacts water, it begins making alkali compounds at a rate consistent with the densities involved and other impurities present.  Labs cannot account for all the variables, so they pick the most likely or most predominant.  The definition of "short" therefore revolves around the exposure time and the quantity build up in strength of the alkali compounds.  We know that it happens, regardless, because the chemical process in known.  How long does acid take to dissolve human teeth?  How many sodas/ lemons are consummed?  And with what food that is counteractive to its acetic activity?  Too many variables to make a relevant prediction. Yet we know that it does take place.  And some of the populace loses teeth.  If they are old, who cares?  They aren't relevant to a vibrant economy.  Just as vintage bikes aren't.

Further, if the test reports only include the most modern or most likely, and overlooks sound science, the test instantly becomes subjective and biased by the choice of assumptions made for the tests.

Why bother to read in detail a report that makes assumptions that do not apply to vintage motorcycles or the storage periods that many undergo routinely on a seasonal basis? 
People are not machines and it is so very unlikely to uniformly top up their tank when variable weather makes useage iffy and then get distracted by other life happenings.
Perfect maintenance is hardly ever performed, despite well intentioned.  Gasohol is another nail in the coffin, to shorten the useful life of our vintage vehicles where engineers had no notion of the routine injection of alchohol into the fuel supply.

Hey its good for the economy if people spend more money on repairs or vehicle replacement.  What do the gas companies care?  You are gonna buy more fuel whether in your vintage machine when repaired or replaced.  Best to ausuage the buyer to feel better about their continued purchase.  That's good marketing strategy.
Gas companies behave as successful parasites, that don't outright kill the host (consumer), just make them suffer somewhat tolerably, to continue on.

Unless, we do our own chemical analysis and service life studies, we just pick and choose other's work that we favor, and live with the consequences of that choice.
Not much in life is guaranteed. Societal imperitives rule over science, right?

Cheers,

[DickL]

Well put twotired.

I think we need to stay away from political discussions. Americans, as a rule, dont appreciate political undertones. We should stick to facts, science and experience.

[Deltarider]

I stopped reading when foundational comments acquired obvious flaws.

You read German? 

Labs cannot account for all the variables, so they pick the most likely or most predominant.

Gee, how many labs have you been to?

we just pick and choose other's work that we favor, and live with the consequences of that choice.

That's very honest of you. Thanks for the warning. BTW, you stlll owe us a calculation of your predicted 'longer spark duration'. Now don't tell us it was just 'subjective and biased by the choice of assumptions'.

Why bother to read in detail a report that makes assumptions that do not apply to vintage motorcycles or the storage periods that many undergo routinely on a seasonal basis?

Actually the article deals with it. But you chooste to stop reading.

People are not machines and it is so very unlikely to uniformly top up their tank when variable weather makes useage iffy and then get distracted by other life happenings.

What can I say? It's better not to be distracted. But a tank half filled with ethanolfree will have water at te bottom of that tank guaranteed. Where do you think all the corroded tankbottoms come from? Corrosion developped long before the arrival of ethanolgas.

Gasohol is another nail in the coffin, to shorten the useful life of our vintage vehicles where engineers had no notion of the routine injection of alchohol into the fuel supply.
Hey its good for the economy if people spend more money on repairs or vehicle replacement.  What do the gas companies care?  You are gonna buy more fuel whether in your vintage machine when repaired or replaced.  Best to ausuage the buyer to feel better about their continued purchase.  That's good marketing strategy.
Gas companies behave as successful parasites, that don't outright kill the host (consumer), just make them suffer somewhat tolerably, to continue on.

Thank you, but I know where to find Breitbart and Foxnews myself if I have to.
Make no mistake. I'm not propagating ethanolgas. I just wanted to separate the facts from the myths since I sensed a lot of hysteria. Sorry I upset you. 

[AirCanuck]

Something to think about: US car manufacturers in the 60's snd 70's advertised that their high performance engines made a "magic" one horsepower per cubic inch of displacement. For example the Chevy small block 350/350HP engine. Those engines all required high test. Well, the 750 sohc made 67  HP with only 45 cubic inches, or 1.488 HP per cubic inch. Do we not consider this high performance? Today's high perf. Engines use computers and knock  sensors to control detonation and preignition...and the ignition timing is set. You can't even set the idle. Now, let's look at the typical CB...do you know where your ignition timing is REALLY set to? Do you know where, and when you reach full timing advance? How many degrees of advance are you running full on? Dwell settings? Or what your mixture truly is? Do you have any, even tiny, vacuum leaks? How many KV are required to fire your plugs? Your engine could be slowly self destructing...and you wouldn't even know it. What's my point? I think non-ethanol high test is the cheapest insurace you can buy.

This is a bunch of very interesting points. What does everyone think? Also, does anyone know if you can get non-ethanol fuel in Canada?

ALSO, what is the point of non ethanol fuel anyway? Less varnish and such? Prevent Breaking down seals?

I think you're thinking about it too much. Either way you go you'll be fine. I use and will continue to use E10 lowest rating I can get except on my 674cc build because the compression has increased from stock. These bikes are very well engineered but they're not precision aerospace equipment, they won't explode killing hundreds if you put a drop of the wrong liquid in there. They're built like a brick sh*t house and I would venture the longevity of the motor is more determined by your wrist, oil change regimen and air filter replacing.

Just make sure you don't have engine knock. Save your hair pulling for something else.

Makes sense. Engine knock... how does one identify that?