I'm not sure what your point is.
As you appear sure your bike runs better on 92 Octane, than it does on 87 Octane, I'm not sure you have a point.
Personally I am against ethanol in gasoline. It is a wrong-headed sideshow brought about by powerful lobby groups that does nothing to make the energy consumption more "green", and it causes all sorts of knock-on issues.
So while the title of this thread has merits, the rest of the OP is unconvincing. I merely offered a counter-point. Our bikes have 145 hp. The reduced energy content of 92 Octane cannot be felt on the road, and the anti-knock compounds are simply no required at that level unless the bike needs them. My point was that at even at the reduced anti-knock of 85 Octane, the bike was running just fine, and I guess the extra energy contained in each gallon of 85 octane was improving the gas consumption.
Ethanol reduces the energy available by 1 to 3%, but the cost differential is greater than that, so it's your money to waste.
There is clearly the point that gas with ethanol is not stable for long, but it never stays in my tank long enough to be an issue. The bikes are engineered to cope with ethanol, whose main detrimental effect was to the rubber parts of older manufactures bikes.
