Love all you arm chair engineers , really I do. Which one of you designed that engine and knows intimately what it requires or doesn't in the way of octane rating? I"m sure the Kwak engineering staff got together, all chuckling and half drunk on Saki (which I like as well of course), and thought what fun we can have by requiring those silly riders to put high test gas in their bikes and waste all of their money. They then drank some more and had even more laughs....they then designed KIPASS (couldn't help myself with that one).
I think we need a volunteer to run the bike on 87 and then take it apart after a year. We don't need a volunteer that's going to baby it or put several thousand miles a year on it. We need someone that will put at least 15k+ and thrash it somewhat. That should be a good test, I would think, but then again, I'm not a Kwak engineer or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately. If it shows nothing in the way of damage, then we'll all have a big dodah, get drunk on our favorite libation, hoist the volunteer in the air and cheer them tremendously. I'll pay for one drink. That's it, no more. Others will have to chip in as well. We'll then face west and laugh in the general direction of Japan and their silly engineers.
It's a high performance engine folks and requires high test. If you want to ride it like it has a high performance engine then I would think you would follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
I've linked a design factoid from Kwak that makes interesting reading. For those of you that don't read the Wiki FAQs, you may not have seen it. The engine design is toward the end but it makes interesting reading.
http://www.kawasaki.com/Content/pdfs/products/concours_QandA.pdf
I like this thread. It's entertaining. However, if you want to talk ethanol, this ain't the place. It's about octane. There's a wonderful thread in Open concerning that c***.
I feel better now.
Okay you're on! At least partially. I'll run my C14 on 87 and report how the engine is doing after 100,000 miles. I won't tear it apart though.
BTW I'm not actually an armchair engineer, I actually worked in engine R&D for a brief period of my life after school. I've done countless destruct tests on motors, using various combinations of oils and octanes which were in part done to establish minimum specifications. The process is, in a nutshell, this: 1. Run engine in conditions of maximum CHT and maximum continuous power, for some extended period of time (say 8 hours.) Decrease the octane. 3. Repeat until engine starts to ping. Note octane. 4. Run engine at maximum CHT and maximum power until something breaks. 5. Decrease the octane. 6. Repeat until the engine destroys itself through detonation. Note the octane. Recommended octane is the next higher of the two. Repeat for RON only spec fuel if engine is to be used internationally. Or better yet, just make an adjustment for RON spec fuel and derate it a for safety as there is no absolute fixed correlation between the two. Japanese engine manufactures likely do the opposite - do their certification tests on RON fuel and adjust and derate for (R+M)/2 rated fuel.
Not all manufacturers do it exactly that way but they all have some form of achieving the same end. But typically, the test conditions used in establishing recommended octane represent unrealistic real world situations.