A gold mine on HDEOs and testing IMO.

[Craig750]

Well said and clarified. I didn't say you or anyone else had any data or claimed they had. What I was getting at was, not crticising his claims or facts without posting up contradicting claims or facts. Otherwise were just opening up cans of worms, for want of a better expression.

I thought we had confirmation on the association with the lab, the quals being an unknown, then again I understand the skepticism concerning confidentiality agreements.

He seemed to know a lot. That sort of environment and the data would be extremeley enlightening.

What is interesting was his comment about 40 and 50 weight multigrades and wear numbers. Sunruh is real big on viscosity retention and this guy also places a lot of importance on HTHS and viscosity and the effects of wear multipling the lower the oil weight.

That should be an easy one to counter claim if it has no foundation.

Is the guy posting anymore? He seemed a little delirious and said he was on pain medication. Maybe he was out there and they pulled him back in line.

 

[sunruh]

his data was probably spot on ...... 6 years ago.

is it valid today?

the theories behind the data might be. but all of the oils have changed. which may require a re-think.

 

[bigbird_1]

Originally Posted By: sunruh
his data was probably spot on ...... 6 years ago.
is it valid today? all of the oils have changed. which may require a re-think.


No such thing as Rotella T6 5W-40 synthetic back then. You can't compare 6 year old subjective observations on oil's properties to today's oil properties. Saying a 2004 new Mercedes Benz is better than a 2010 new Mercedes Benz without actually testing them together is not a reasonable assumption. The same logic applies here to his oil recommendations.
Is this same oil guy even still around?

 

[whitesands]

Originally Posted By: Craig750
Well said and clarified. I didn't say you or anyone else had any data or claimed they had. What I was getting at was, not crticising his claims or facts without posting up contradicting claims or facts. Otherwise were just opening up cans of worms, for want of a better expression.

I thought we had confirmation on the association with the lab, the quals being an unknown, then again I understand the skepticism concerning confidentiality agreements.

He seemed to know a lot. That sort of environment and the data would be extremeley enlightening.

What is interesting was his comment about 40 and 50 weight multigrades and wear numbers. Sunruh is real big on viscosity retention and this guy also places a lot of importance on HTHS and viscosity and the effects of wear multipling the lower the oil weight.

That should be an easy one to counter claim if it has no foundation.

Is the guy posting anymore? He seemed a little delirious and said he was on pain medication. Maybe he was out there and they pulled him back in line.


He's not quite as open as he used to be...He has posted up some charts explaining the difference in wear rates for different viscosity using radiometric wear measurements..That is measuring the wear rate in real time while the engine is running in parts per BILLION, actually isolating individual components in the engine such as the rings, piston, cylinder ect ect...The owners of that website know who he is and he's legit...

However, what I find amusing is to suggest that a technician in that environment for years wouldn't know how to interpret data unless they had a phd in chemistry...Years of exposure to tests and seeing the results would sink in to what performs well...Mind you, he's very careful in what he says..for example, he never says which brand has more failure rates but he will mention what his favorites are.

 

[whitesands]

Originally Posted By: sunruh
his data was probably spot on ...... 6 years ago.

is it valid today?

the theories behind the data might be. but all of the oils have changed. which may require a re-think.


I agree...The basic construct of the theory is applicable...But the oils do change so the performance of some oils today may be better than his favorites back then.

 

[Craig750]

Good point about being a technician.

I know engineers that know squat and technicians that leave a lot of engineers for dead.

I know of physicists that had no trouble doing electrical engineering.

History is also scattered with people with no qualifications that went on to do great things. The Frazier lens is a good story. It was knocked back for an Australian Government grant as the scientist examing the application said it could not work even theoretically.

What is also valuable and not outdated from that information is the level of testing diesel HDEOs undergo, compared to other oils. Quite simply they have to perform or they will be destined to failure. So chances of getting a quality product are much greater if you can use one of them. The same is not true for PCMOs or MCOs. Is that still a valid point?

 

[Scooter_man]

Originally Posted By: Craig750
What is also valuable and not outdated from that information is the level of testing diesel HDEOs undergo, compared to other oils. Quite simply they have to perform or they will be destined to failure. So chances of getting a quality product are much greater if you can use one of them. The same is not true for PCMOs or MCOs. Is that still a valid point?


+1

Very well stated! And quite applicable!


Rob

 

[sunruh]

craig,
one of the reasons i was/am a HUGE fan of the CI4+ (plus) was that the plus meant the oil passed the Allison wet clutch test. Allison makes huge diesels and transmissions. for the big stuff like bulldozers, earthmovers, cranes, bucket loaders and the like. where 500-1000 ft/lbs of torque is the normal. if the oil can stand up to that, no bike needs to worry. and you are also certain it is not going to foul the clutch either.

as to your comments on why none of us have done the radioactive type testing. quite simple really, when you hand me 100k+ to have it done. i will. i have spent a lot of my own money on tests, but not a drop in the oil pan compared to the oil companies testing of their products. which is why those tests were/are done.

 

[Craig750]

About your second paragraph, that was my point exactly . Who has the resources to do that sort of oil anaylsis. It also has the benefit of showing exactly what parts the metal originated from and at what stage during the testing.

 

[beanoil]

Quote "I'm a Staff engineer and have been designing and running oil test for 23 years now."
I read the thread. Seems an engineer that has to communicate his findings to a group of professionals on an on-going basis would have better grammar and typing skills, but thats just me. A while back, M1 red cap was the shiznit. Thats why I still have about 40 quarts left, and run it in my SV today. And of course in bike engines with shared sumps, the gearbox is going to chew up oil and reduce viscosity, that's a given. Starting with a higher vis oil gives you an advantage over a 3000 mile OCI. All in all, it's a basic parroting of what is common knowledge, IMO. YMMV.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: beanoil
Seems an engineer that has to communicate his findings to a group of professionals on an on-going basis would have better grammar and typing skills, but thats just me.

You'd be surprised.

Like I said, it rubs me the wrong way too, but not for that reason.

 

[Ken2]

Also keep in mind that he was testing oils to be retailed in the future, so what he tested in 2004 might be on our retail shelves in 2005 or 2006. Yes, not current. I didn't detect anything obviously phony in the technical data he talked about. Everything that he posted that related to my training matched at 100%.

 

[Jared H]

I didn't see mentioned anywhere the impact of running a higher visc oil on the valvetrain specific wear ... it may be an improvement for the rest of the motor and gear box, but what does it do to the valvetrain?