Oil Company Boycotts
Okay, so after calming down enough to not want to punch inanimate objects, I have some words of rebuttal for one Mr Phillip Hollsworth, a retired Coca-Cola Executive, and his playground justice ideas for lowering the price of petrol.
It is all very well for people to piss and moan about petrol prices sucking the life outta them, and yes, whilst they are becoming a hassle, simply boycotting one brand of petrol isn't the solution.
For a start, NZ has one of the lowest qualities of petrol supplies in the world. Our octane (RON) rating is simply shit. 91 is barely 90, and 96 was downgraded to 95 for a reason - the oil companies were busted selling over-rated fuel.
Now as a mechanically minded person, I take things like octane rating of my fuel into account when purchasing. Higher octane rating whilst equalling more power, also means hotter combustion temperatures in the cylinder. The biggest problem with NZ's aging vehicle fleet, is the percentage of poorly tuned vehicles pouring cubic liters of unburned fuel out their exhaust pipes every day.
Allow me to segue into my point with that very fact.
In order for the price of fuel to stabilise or even receed, the simple fact, is that we need to be consuming LESS of it. Simple economics of supply and demand. The less of something there is, the more expensive it becomes. And if you were a multi-billion dollar industry, wouldn't YOU exploit this model?
British Petrolium (yes, BP, for those who can't deduct their own acronyms..) were the first Oil company supplying into NZ to release a 98 Octane rated fuel to the domestic market. For this, I applaud them. For their marketing scheme however, I do not. Aimed at successful people with high-end late model cars, a certain stigma was created about this fuel. And of course when it was released, being around the 10c/ltr more expensive than the 91 didn't help (strange that we'll happily pay for 91 NOW, what 98 was less than when it was released... anyway, i digress.)
Moving back to the nitty gritty; by using a fuel that yields more kJ/L, and burns hotter, therefore more completely, you are just going to use less fuel, ne? You'll be getting more power for the throttle percentage, so you won't have to give your car 'the jandal' as much to be yielding the same performance. And as said before, by burning hotter, (as long as you haven't had your car tuned by a total muppet) your engine will be undertaking a much more complete combustion of the fuel, reducing wasted power and raw fuel being poured out the tailpipe. Bit better for the ol earth too, eh? CO2's can be handled by the earth, CO's cannot so well. (I'm gonna carry a copy of this around with me, so the next time I get hassled by a greenie I can tell them to fuck off with a clear conscience.)
Now Mr ex Coca-Cola was absolutely right when he said that we rely on our internal-combustion-powered vehicles for day to day life. The modern world revolves around the invention of the automobile. What needs to happen in order for this to be the case for years to come, isn't to start slinging mud-pies in the retail playground, we need to use our vehicles more SMARTLY. This includes, but is not limited to inconvenient things like car-pooling, using public transport, pedal/foot power, choosing economical vehicles (by that I mean appropriate power/weight ratios, not just tiny motors.. they can be some of the worst polluters...) But I mainly mean fueling our cars economically.
I drive a 1990 2ltr 4-door hatch. It has a 50ltr fuel tank. On (circa) 91 octane fuel, I can get approximately 450-500km's out of a full tank, depending on where/how I'm driving, air temperature, relative humidity etc. Using 98 octane fuel, I can get a little over 600km out of a full tank, aforementioned variables considered.
Clear evidence then to me, that use of a higher quality fuel will indeed yield the litreage savings that are needed to halt the seemingly endless price increases. Keep up the good work, BP.
For the record, neither myself nor any of my family work for British Petrolium and/or affiliates.
It is all very well for people to piss and moan about petrol prices sucking the life outta them, and yes, whilst they are becoming a hassle, simply boycotting one brand of petrol isn't the solution.
For a start, NZ has one of the lowest qualities of petrol supplies in the world. Our octane (RON) rating is simply shit. 91 is barely 90, and 96 was downgraded to 95 for a reason - the oil companies were busted selling over-rated fuel.
Now as a mechanically minded person, I take things like octane rating of my fuel into account when purchasing. Higher octane rating whilst equalling more power, also means hotter combustion temperatures in the cylinder. The biggest problem with NZ's aging vehicle fleet, is the percentage of poorly tuned vehicles pouring cubic liters of unburned fuel out their exhaust pipes every day.
Allow me to segue into my point with that very fact.
In order for the price of fuel to stabilise or even receed, the simple fact, is that we need to be consuming LESS of it. Simple economics of supply and demand. The less of something there is, the more expensive it becomes. And if you were a multi-billion dollar industry, wouldn't YOU exploit this model?
British Petrolium (yes, BP, for those who can't deduct their own acronyms..) were the first Oil company supplying into NZ to release a 98 Octane rated fuel to the domestic market. For this, I applaud them. For their marketing scheme however, I do not. Aimed at successful people with high-end late model cars, a certain stigma was created about this fuel. And of course when it was released, being around the 10c/ltr more expensive than the 91 didn't help (strange that we'll happily pay for 91 NOW, what 98 was less than when it was released... anyway, i digress.)
Moving back to the nitty gritty; by using a fuel that yields more kJ/L, and burns hotter, therefore more completely, you are just going to use less fuel, ne? You'll be getting more power for the throttle percentage, so you won't have to give your car 'the jandal' as much to be yielding the same performance. And as said before, by burning hotter, (as long as you haven't had your car tuned by a total muppet) your engine will be undertaking a much more complete combustion of the fuel, reducing wasted power and raw fuel being poured out the tailpipe. Bit better for the ol earth too, eh? CO2's can be handled by the earth, CO's cannot so well. (I'm gonna carry a copy of this around with me, so the next time I get hassled by a greenie I can tell them to fuck off with a clear conscience.)
Now Mr ex Coca-Cola was absolutely right when he said that we rely on our internal-combustion-powered vehicles for day to day life. The modern world revolves around the invention of the automobile. What needs to happen in order for this to be the case for years to come, isn't to start slinging mud-pies in the retail playground, we need to use our vehicles more SMARTLY. This includes, but is not limited to inconvenient things like car-pooling, using public transport, pedal/foot power, choosing economical vehicles (by that I mean appropriate power/weight ratios, not just tiny motors.. they can be some of the worst polluters...) But I mainly mean fueling our cars economically.
I drive a 1990 2ltr 4-door hatch. It has a 50ltr fuel tank. On (circa) 91 octane fuel, I can get approximately 450-500km's out of a full tank, depending on where/how I'm driving, air temperature, relative humidity etc. Using 98 octane fuel, I can get a little over 600km out of a full tank, aforementioned variables considered.
Clear evidence then to me, that use of a higher quality fuel will indeed yield the litreage savings that are needed to halt the seemingly endless price increases. Keep up the good work, BP.
For the record, neither myself nor any of my family work for British Petrolium and/or affiliates.