Max wrote:

87 octane regular unleaded just cost my $3.01/gal . . . once more.  Will they be able to remove the 1's and the 2's from dollar place in the pump meters now?

One of our state laws requires service stations to post their prices so they can be read conspicuously from the street. The station I usually go to ran out of threes last week and left the spaces blank. I asked the guy with the extra thumb at the register if the X.0X 9/10 price was accurate, handed him a quarter, and said I wanted to fill my tank. He didn't really find it amusing.

That's OK Max, it's winter time so you're getting more efficient fuel for your money.

Before you ask, Greg a/k/a Go4Broken has been working on a lawuit for a couple of years that alleges people who buy fuel in warmer weather (or in warm climates) are being cheated at the pump.  The science behind the theory is conceptually similar to the Ideal Gas Law which holds that when heated, gases expand.  In colder temperatures, the electrons in the chemicals that make up the fuel molecules are less active and thus condense in size.  So one volumetric gallon of fuel in cold weather contains more fuel molecules and thus is more efficient.  In contrast, in warm weather, your gallon of fuel contains fewer fuel molecules and is less efficient.

There's your science lesson for the day.

LOL

Don't have a clue.  I'm an employment law guy.  I leave the scientific stuff to the experts.

You mention that gasoline is sold in its liquid state.  I understand that.  But liquids expand and contract with heat as well.

Greg's case is probably a much better example for reforming the "class action" system of litigation that tort reform in general.  The attorney's who have brought these lawsuits (there are more than 3 dozen of them across the country) are representing a class of motorists who bought gas when the temperature was above a threshold amount (which I think is somewhere in the 50s).  The obvious issue is how do you determine damages to the class members?  I'm sure I've bought gas when it's been hot out, but have no clue how much.  In theory my damages are greater when the temperature is hotter, so I'd have to know the temperature each time I purchased gas, and more specifically, I'd have to know the temperature of the gas in the underground storage tank which would likely be different from the outside air temperature.  The whole thing is ridiculously speculative.

In the end, we'll all probably get some post card informing us we're part of the class and may someday get a coupon for 5 cents off per gallon for our next gas purchase.  In the meantime, the attorneys representing the class will request and likely be awarded millions of dollars.

Being a class action plaintiff's attorney is the best racket in the profession.

forsberg_us wrote:

LOL

Don't have a clue.  I'm an employment law guy.  I leave the scientific stuff to the experts.

You mention that gasoline is sold in its liquid state.  I understand that.  But liquids expand and contract with heat as well.

Greg's case is probably a much better example for reforming the "class action" system of litigation that tort reform in general.  The attorney's who have brought these lawsuits (there are more than 3 dozen of them across the country) are representing a class of motorists who bought gas when the temperature was above a threshold amount (which I think is somewhere in the 50s).  The obvious issue is how do you determine damages to the class members?  I'm sure I've bought gas when it's been hot out, but have no clue how much.  In theory my damages are greater when the temperature is hotter, so I'd have to know the temperature each time I purchased gas, and more specifically, I'd have to know the temperature of the gas in the underground storage tank which would likely be different from the outside air temperature.  The whole thing is ridiculously speculative.

In the end, we'll all probably get some post card informing us we're part of the class and may someday get a coupon for 5 cents off per gallon for our next gas purchase.  In the meantime, the attorneys representing the class will request and likely be awarded millions of dollars.

Being a class action plaintiff's attorney is the best racket in the profession.

Well, my observation is that every pump in the country lists its octane calculation:

(R+M)/2 Method

and we all read this, even if subconsciously, as we fill the tank.  What does it mean?  Dunno.  Are there any other methods as implied?  Dunno. 

I do recall that many (all) pumps state specifically that octane rating is based upon a given set of conditions.  Also, since gasoline is sold by volume, and a gallon is a gallon no matter where you are, then the qualifier about the octane rating ought to have the gas sellers covered, at least the ones that have the qualifier.

Who knows, maybe the genesis of the whole case came from some guy like me, wondering what the hell that was all about, but who also happened to be class action lawyer who saw an opportunity when he noticed that some pumps do not have disclaimer?

It just goes to show there's lots of way to earn an honest buck in America, if America's definition of an honest buck is broadened to include just about anything that makes money.  Did anybody else see the story on the guy who makes his living by taking spammers to small claims court?

forsberg_us wrote:

Actually the case came about because the fuel companies are aware of the temperature issue. When fuel is delivered to the station, the fuel truck is temperature controlled to ensure that the station doesn't get cheated. The argument is that if the fuel company takes steps to ensure the stations don't get cheated, it should do the same for consumers and by not doing it, the consumers are being cheated.

The means exist for the stations to regulate the temperature of the fuel being pumped, but it requires each pump to be equipped. When you have a station with a dozen or so pumps, that's pretty expensive. Keep in mind that many of the stations are independently owned so its not an issue of BP or Shell being able to afford it, the cost would be borne by the station owner and ultimately passed on to us.

Sounds like BS to me.  As I mentioned, I have often read a disclaimer about how actual energy output would vary.  Additionally, if we are getting ripped off above 50 degrees, then it stands to reason that the stations are ripping themselves off when it is below 50 degrees, and it is surely not in their interests to rip themselves off.  Maybe I would need to hear the whole case laid out, and maybe even then I wouldn't get it.

forsberg_us wrote:

Actually the case came about because the fuel companies are aware of the temperature issue. When fuel is delivered to the station, the fuel truck is temperature controlled to ensure that the station doesn't get cheated. The argument is that if the fuel company takes steps to ensure the stations don't get cheated, it should do the same for consumers and by not doing it, the consumers are being cheated.

The means exist for the stations to regulate the temperature of the fuel being pumped, but it requires each pump to be equipped. When you have a station with a dozen or so pumps, that's pretty expensive. Keep in mind that many of the stations are independently owned so its not an issue of BP or Shell being able to afford it, the cost would be borne by the station owner and ultimately passed on to us.

Isnt this just asking for the type of government intervention that you have spoke against in the gay thread?

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

That's OK Max, it's winter time so you're getting more efficient fuel for your money.

Before you ask, Greg a/k/a Go4Broken has been working on a lawuit for a couple of years that alleges people who buy fuel in warmer weather (or in warm climates) are being cheated at the pump.  The science behind the theory is conceptually similar to the Ideal Gas Law which holds that when heated, gases expand.  In colder temperatures, the electrons in the chemicals that make up the fuel molecules are less active and thus condense in size.  So one volumetric gallon of fuel in cold weather contains more fuel molecules and thus is more efficient.  In contrast, in warm weather, your gallon of fuel contains fewer fuel molecules and is less efficient.

There's your science lesson for the day.

So you shouldnt buy gas in the middle of the day.  I dont see how the lawsuit holds water though.  You are buying it by the gallon, not the molecule.

We could use you on the jury.  (happy)

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

That's OK Max, it's winter time so you're getting more efficient fuel for your money.

Before you ask, Greg a/k/a Go4Broken has been working on a lawuit for a couple of years that alleges people who buy fuel in warmer weather (or in warm climates) are being cheated at the pump.  The science behind the theory is conceptually similar to the Ideal Gas Law which holds that when heated, gases expand.  In colder temperatures, the electrons in the chemicals that make up the fuel molecules are less active and thus condense in size.  So one volumetric gallon of fuel in cold weather contains more fuel molecules and thus is more efficient.  In contrast, in warm weather, your gallon of fuel contains fewer fuel molecules and is less efficient.

There's your science lesson for the day.

So you shouldnt buy gas in the middle of the day.  I dont see how the lawsuit holds water though.  You are buying it by the gallon, not the molecule.

We could use you on the jury.  (happy)

I didnt the same thing when I bought landscaping rock for around the house.  Of course you pay for it by the ton.  If you are smart and have the time you wait for a really dry month it cost you half as much because you dont have to buy the water absorbed by the rock.  Or I guess I could have bought the rock in the spring, after a 3 inch rain and filed a lawsuit.

I would believe in this lawsuit if the gas stations were warming the gas to screw customers even in cold weather.