One thing is apparent from that blog. It reads kind of like a manifesto. "Everybody is out to get me."
What really makes an oil a good oil?
- Thread starter Invasivore
- Start date
- Status
When you look at the actual ASTM tests that are developed to do that (for greases and gear oils), they list a repeatability of worse than 10%, 20% between labs.
If Rat's test is capable of 6 significant figures, then he should be out there turning the world on it's head, and standardising it...it WOULD be the new ASTM standard.
But given the apparatus, his optical measurement of wear scars, it's impossible that he can claim better than ASTM.
If Rat's test is capable of 6 significant figures, then he should be out there turning the world on it's head, and standardising it...it WOULD be the new ASTM standard.
But given the apparatus, his optical measurement of wear scars, it's impossible that he can claim better than ASTM.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Ok,...[/b]
I would prefer an actual physical test on something, whether it is relevant or not, over someones words on why something is better without a physical test. Simply because words are just that, words.
But that's just it, none of his results are able to indicate a statistically valid difference between any of the oils he tested. The ranking he provides is complete fantasy. What he should have reported is that the test is unable to distinguish any differences between any of the oils he tested and as a result they cannot be ranked.
There are valid tests to show whether an oil is suitable for a particular use. But his test and (his results) is not one of them. People keep wanting and trying to ascribe some relevancy to this website and that ranking but there is absolutely none to be obtained.
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Its more realistic (important?) then comments in BITOG from people when they say "wow, that is some beefy oil" or "nice robust additive package" ... or reading the label on the side of the bottle. Its is these kinds of comments that are complete fantasy, not actual physical tests.
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
3. Once again, it brings us back to "valid".
The only valid point of my comments are simply physical tests vs all the talk in here and hearsay.
The true real "valid" physical tests that matter is the proper API rating called for by the manufacturer and that makes all oils equal that have the same rating.
But others claim to know better then actual physical testing according to API ratings and I am calling that part nothing more then hearsay and marketing.
Now with RAT, at least he has a theory and tests to back up what he says, no one else on this forum does. Yet people trash him for providing a test to back up his statements. Not only that, but people in the race circuit listen to him.
Furthermore, he clearly states these tests are more for highly modified engines which brings us back to pick the proper recommended API oil, doesnt matter if its syn or conv. and you are good to go. No one has proved other wise.
If you want to go an extra step, you can pick a higher film strength oil from RATs list.
Will it matter? no, the engine will still most likely outlast the vehicle because these are not race engines we are talking about.
or you can listen to the marketing of the bottle or someone on BITOG.. yet according to your statement of "valid tests" and everything else is just fantasy, the only valid test is the API procedure and in that case all oils in the same API rating are the same, so skip the Mobile 1 and pick up conventional Super Tech or Sams Club "Certified" or ANY low cost oil sold by anyone.
Just playing devils advocate here and having fun, though some people will most likely freak out over this post, yet its true. ..
)
Like it or not, All oils of the same rating, pass the same tests, syn or conventional and are equal unless proven otherwise.
No one in here offers any proof of "otherwise" except RAT and trust me, I wish others could.
Once again, I am NOT saying choose an oil from RATs list, I am saying, all oil are equal with the same rating and no one else provides "valid proof" otherwise.
(its amazing, all one has to do is mention RAT in these forums and it takes over the OPs thread with so much crazy bashing of someone who backs up his statements and why, which no one else in here can) it doesnt matter if you agree with him, but have respect for someone that backs up their statements.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Ok,...[/b]
I would prefer an actual physical test on something, whether it is relevant or not, over someones words on why something is better without a physical test. Simply because words are just that, words.
But that's just it, none of his results are able to indicate a statistically valid difference between any of the oils he tested. The ranking he provides is complete fantasy. What he should have reported is that the test is unable to distinguish any differences between any of the oils he tested and as a result they cannot be ranked.
There are valid tests to show whether an oil is suitable for a particular use. But his test and (his results) is not one of them. People keep wanting and trying to ascribe some relevancy to this website and that ranking but there is absolutely none to be obtained.
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Its more realistic (important?) then comments in BITOG from people when they say "wow, that is some beefy oil" or "nice robust additive package" ... or reading the label on the side of the bottle. Its is these kinds of comments that are complete fantasy, not actual physical tests.
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
3. Once again, it brings us back to "valid".
The only valid point of my comments are simply physical tests vs all the talk in here and hearsay.
The true real "valid" physical tests that matter is the proper API rating called for by the manufacturer and that makes all oils equal that have the same rating.
But others claim to know better then actual physical testing according to API ratings and I am calling that part nothing more then hearsay and marketing.
Now with RAT, at least he has a theory and tests to back up what he says, no one else on this forum does. Yet people trash him for providing a test to back up his statements. Not only that, but people in the race circuit listen to him.
Furthermore, he clearly states these tests are more for highly modified engines which brings us back to pick the proper recommended API oil, doesnt matter if its syn or conv. and you are good to go. No one has proved other wise.
If you want to go an extra step, you can pick a higher film strength oil from RATs list.
Will it matter? no, the engine will still most likely outlast the vehicle because these are not race engines we are talking about.
or you can listen to the marketing of the bottle or someone on BITOG.. yet according to your statement of "valid tests" and everything else is just fantasy, the only valid test is the API procedure and in that case all oils in the same API rating are the same, so skip the Mobile 1 and pick up conventional Super Tech or Sams Club "Certified" or ANY low cost oil sold by anyone.
Just playing devils advocate here and having fun, though some people will most likely freak out over this post, yet its true. ..
)Like it or not, All oils of the same rating, pass the same tests, syn or conventional and are equal unless proven otherwise.
No one in here offers any proof of "otherwise" except RAT and trust me, I wish others could.
Once again, I am NOT saying choose an oil from RATs list, I am saying, all oil are equal with the same rating and no one else provides "valid proof" otherwise.
(its amazing, all one has to do is mention RAT in these forums and it takes over the OPs thread with so much crazy bashing of someone who backs up his statements and why, which no one else in here can) it doesnt matter if you agree with him, but have respect for someone that backs up their statements.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
I personally, right or wrong, think film strength should be as important or more important.
Start there...it's not hand waving on my part, but what exactly IS the "film strength" that you are believing in, and that RAT is demonstrating that value of ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Rat can't even describe what the "film" is...
In actual lubrication, there's such a thing as "minimum oil film thickness", which is hydrodynamic/EHD, is calculable in the rigid definition, or in the elastic regime.
RAT discounts all regular tribology for engine oils, and then calculates is "film strength" based on an assumed applied pressure over the estimated wear scar area...i.e. the oil has failed at "keeping them separated", which makes it at best an additive test, which is why these tests are typically used for gears and roller bearings.
You can either describe what it is...or invite him to BITOG to discuss it and demonstrate it's importance.
Can you explain
a) what it is ?
b) why it's what you believe ?
I personally, right or wrong, think film strength should be as important or more important.
Start there...it's not hand waving on my part, but what exactly IS the "film strength" that you are believing in, and that RAT is demonstrating that value of ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Rat can't even describe what the "film" is...
In actual lubrication, there's such a thing as "minimum oil film thickness", which is hydrodynamic/EHD, is calculable in the rigid definition, or in the elastic regime.
RAT discounts all regular tribology for engine oils, and then calculates is "film strength" based on an assumed applied pressure over the estimated wear scar area...i.e. the oil has failed at "keeping them separated", which makes it at best an additive test, which is why these tests are typically used for gears and roller bearings.
You can either describe what it is...or invite him to BITOG to discuss it and demonstrate it's importance.
Can you explain
a) what it is ?
b) why it's what you believe ?
"1. A physical test is a physical test.
Its more realistic (important?) then comments in BITOG from people when they say "wow, that is some beefy oil" or "nice robust additive package" ... or reading the label on the side of the bottle. Its is these kinds of comments that are complete fantasy, not actual physical tests."
Did you see the hammer, finger, anvil post of mine above? Just because someone does something physical, does not mean anything thing, in and of it self.
Forget the Rat's bombastic self aggrandizing.
Having a theory means that a person went through an approved scientific method and process to arrive at the theory.
Doing a "physical" test is not necessarily the scientific method, certainly not so in the Rat's case.
Is there some validity in some of the things he states? Probably. But the best lies have 85% truth in them.
Simply speaking, the Rat guy may claim to be an engineer, but he absolutely does not follow the methods that modern science or engineering uses. This is not "trashing" him. It is simply a fact that he does not do this.
Its more realistic (important?) then comments in BITOG from people when they say "wow, that is some beefy oil" or "nice robust additive package" ... or reading the label on the side of the bottle. Its is these kinds of comments that are complete fantasy, not actual physical tests."
Did you see the hammer, finger, anvil post of mine above? Just because someone does something physical, does not mean anything thing, in and of it self.
Forget the Rat's bombastic self aggrandizing.
Having a theory means that a person went through an approved scientific method and process to arrive at the theory.
Doing a "physical" test is not necessarily the scientific method, certainly not so in the Rat's case.
Is there some validity in some of the things he states? Probably. But the best lies have 85% truth in them.
Simply speaking, the Rat guy may claim to be an engineer, but he absolutely does not follow the methods that modern science or engineering uses. This is not "trashing" him. It is simply a fact that he does not do this.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
The same ones you mention in your lengthy post that give rise to specifications that the oil meets. Those are what are relevant to users. There are no tests that someone can run at a state fair booth which will show that an oil is more or less suitable for an intended application.
But then you wander off the reservation by still clinging to the notion that rat's blog gives a valid "ranking" of the oils. It does not, that is the point. The ranking is complete nonsense. In reality the number obtained for any specific oil is the same as for any other oil.
Another physical test that would give results which are identical in relevancy would be a taste test.
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
The same ones you mention in your lengthy post that give rise to specifications that the oil meets. Those are what are relevant to users. There are no tests that someone can run at a state fair booth which will show that an oil is more or less suitable for an intended application.
But then you wander off the reservation by still clinging to the notion that rat's blog gives a valid "ranking" of the oils. It does not, that is the point. The ranking is complete nonsense. In reality the number obtained for any specific oil is the same as for any other oil.
Another physical test that would give results which are identical in relevancy would be a taste test.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
If you want to go an extra step, you can pick a higher film strength oil from RATs list.
No, you cannot.
I know you've seen this before (and conveniently ignored it) but this is is the data presented in the proper format. Which one of these oils has a higher film strength?
If you want to go an extra step, you can pick a higher film strength oil from RATs list.
No, you cannot.
I know you've seen this before (and conveniently ignored it) but this is is the data presented in the proper format. Which one of these oils has a higher film strength?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
3. Once again, it brings us back to "valid".
The only valid point of my comments are simply physical tests vs all the talk in here and hearsay.
I see we've beaten this horse before:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4344412/Re:_540__Rat_Blog_-_QSUD_bette#Post4344412
2. Please inform me of the "valid" tests you speak of vs. "his' test.
3. Once again, it brings us back to "valid".
The only valid point of my comments are simply physical tests vs all the talk in here and hearsay.
I see we've beaten this horse before:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4344412/Re:_540__Rat_Blog_-_QSUD_bette#Post4344412
I quickly glanced over all the replies, at work!
THe OP has his answer. As you can see from this discussion. The only thing that makes a good oil is using the correct oil as recommended by your owner's manual. All oil is equal if they meet the same certification. Everything else is speculation and very rarely will this speculation or marketing be based on real COMPLETE testing.
All I was saying whether one agrees or not, rat shows his way of thinking with a test.
THe OP has his answer. As you can see from this discussion. The only thing that makes a good oil is using the correct oil as recommended by your owner's manual. All oil is equal if they meet the same certification. Everything else is speculation and very rarely will this speculation or marketing be based on real COMPLETE testing.
All I was saying whether one agrees or not, rat shows his way of thinking with a test.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Never mind that it isn't repeatable or relevant to motor oil, of course. If he's showing his way of thinking, as you put it, with his test, then he's got a head full of bad wiring, honestly.
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Never mind that it isn't repeatable or relevant to motor oil, of course. If he's showing his way of thinking, as you put it, with his test, then he's got a head full of bad wiring, honestly.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Never mind that it isn't repeatable or relevant to motor oil, of course. If he's showing his way of thinking, as you put it, with his test, then he's got a head full of bad wiring, honestly.
Nothing is relevant except the API rating on the bottle/ then in that case this forum makes no sense.)
You trash others when you do not agree.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
1. A physical test is a physical test.
Never mind that it isn't repeatable or relevant to motor oil, of course. If he's showing his way of thinking, as you put it, with his test, then he's got a head full of bad wiring, honestly.
Nothing is relevant except the API rating on the bottle/ then in that case this forum makes no sense.
)You trash others when you do not agree.
There's no trashing. There's asking for scientific rigour. For various tests that go into API ratings (or ACEA rating, or OEM stuff), I can actually obtain the testing methodology, should I choose to do so. The tests pertain to motor oil in internal combustion engines, and I am given the opportunity to run the tests (assuming I have the equipment or can access it) just like the big oil companies and the little ones, too.
It's never been demonstrated here yet how an extreme pressure screening test has anything to do with motor oil. He admits it himself, then uses it to test motor oil?
It's never been demonstrated here yet how an extreme pressure screening test has anything to do with motor oil. He admits it himself, then uses it to test motor oil?
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Nothing is relevant except the API rating on the bottle/ then in that case this forum makes no sense.)
You trash others when you do not agree.
No, just looking at his methodology and claims, he's full of it...that's not trashing someone because I don't agree.
No similar test in the entire field of tribology gets better than 20% repetability, and this can only claim the last barrier that it passed...yet he's claiming 6 significant figures and ranking accordingly.
The test that he uses is very similar (by his admission) to some industry standard kits...which are only applied to greases and gear oils.
You'll hear the same criticism from me when these tests are applied by others (Amsoil, Redline) as Rat...what is proving that your engine oil makes the best (poor) gear oil doing to help Joe Public with his engine oil in engine applications.
IF, as RAT claims, his is the ultimate camshaft test, then why hasn't the API bought his methodology over the expensive engine based sequence IVA wear test ?
Or why DON'T they use the 4 ball, Timken or one armed bandit ?
Because they don't tell squat about the wear that they are interested in.
Frying pan better than NOACK ?
Again, why aren't they using the Rat Frying pan test instead of those expensive and not particularly accurate machines ?
Pulling apart Rat's blog isn't hating, or ragging on...he makes statements, presents his opinion as scientific fact, oversteps what he COULD possibly claim were his methodology valid (i.e. HTHS is irrelevant, because his (additive) test is immune to it).
And when you try to present these facts to the gullible who are dizzied by a page full of numbers, your accused of getting panties wadded.
Nothing is relevant except the API rating on the bottle/ then in that case this forum makes no sense.
)You trash others when you do not agree.
No, just looking at his methodology and claims, he's full of it...that's not trashing someone because I don't agree.
No similar test in the entire field of tribology gets better than 20% repetability, and this can only claim the last barrier that it passed...yet he's claiming 6 significant figures and ranking accordingly.
The test that he uses is very similar (by his admission) to some industry standard kits...which are only applied to greases and gear oils.
You'll hear the same criticism from me when these tests are applied by others (Amsoil, Redline) as Rat...what is proving that your engine oil makes the best (poor) gear oil doing to help Joe Public with his engine oil in engine applications.
IF, as RAT claims, his is the ultimate camshaft test, then why hasn't the API bought his methodology over the expensive engine based sequence IVA wear test ?
Or why DON'T they use the 4 ball, Timken or one armed bandit ?
Because they don't tell squat about the wear that they are interested in.
Frying pan better than NOACK ?
Again, why aren't they using the Rat Frying pan test instead of those expensive and not particularly accurate machines ?
Pulling apart Rat's blog isn't hating, or ragging on...he makes statements, presents his opinion as scientific fact, oversteps what he COULD possibly claim were his methodology valid (i.e. HTHS is irrelevant, because his (additive) test is immune to it).
And when you try to present these facts to the gullible who are dizzied by a page full of numbers, your accused of getting panties wadded.
I think y'all are giving RAT too much credit - that he even has a machine and actually tested all of these oils (on a regular basis, no less). For all we know, he just pulled those numbers out of his wherever.
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
See? Even I can do it.
His test results, his claimed credentials....they're all unverifiable. Just words on a Web page. And words are just words, no?
But best of all is that his 'results' show that adding Prolong Engine Treatment increases film strength by 40,000 psi. So if you have a lower-ranked oil (at least for this month LOL) you can make it much better by adding Prolong! It's just that easy.
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
See? Even I can do it.
His test results, his claimed credentials....they're all unverifiable. Just words on a Web page. And words are just words, no?
But best of all is that his 'results' show that adding Prolong Engine Treatment increases film strength by 40,000 psi. So if you have a lower-ranked oil (at least for this month LOL) you can make it much better by adding Prolong! It's just that easy.
Bingo, and you can tell me your methods are proprietary, too, so I can't even test them.
Originally Posted By: jeff78
I think y'all are giving RAT too much credit - that he even has a machine and actually tested all of these oils (on a regular basis, no less). For all we know, he just pulled those numbers out of his wherever.
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
See? Even I can do it.
His test results, his claimed credentials....they're all unverifiable. Just words on a Web page. And words are just words, no?
But best of all is that his 'results' show that adding Prolong Engine Treatment increases film strength by 40,000 psi. So if you have a lower-ranked oil (at least for this month LOL) you can make it much better by adding Prolong! It's just that easy.
I have been thinking the same, also.
I think y'all are giving RAT too much credit - that he even has a machine and actually tested all of these oils (on a regular basis, no less). For all we know, he just pulled those numbers out of his wherever.
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
See? Even I can do it.
His test results, his claimed credentials....they're all unverifiable. Just words on a Web page. And words are just words, no?
But best of all is that his 'results' show that adding Prolong Engine Treatment increases film strength by 40,000 psi. So if you have a lower-ranked oil (at least for this month LOL) you can make it much better by adding Prolong! It's just that easy.
I have been thinking the same, also.
Originally Posted By: jeff78
I think y'all are giving RAT too much credit ......
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
The majority of engine wear is corrosion wear , with abrasion wear and adhesion wear being a minority.
How is this sole 'parameter' demonstrating metal-to-metal contact phenomenon correlates engine oil 'quality' ?
I think y'all are giving RAT too much credit ......
149,234 psi
130,457 psi
89,327 psi
The majority of engine wear is corrosion wear , with abrasion wear and adhesion wear being a minority.
How is this sole 'parameter' demonstrating metal-to-metal contact phenomenon correlates engine oil 'quality' ?
Originally Posted By: zeng
How is this sole 'parameter' demonstrating metal-to-metal contact phenomenon correlates engine oil 'quality' ?
Because he said it does...and everyone else is wrong.
But by definition, a "wear scar" tells you that parts have "worn"...
How is this sole 'parameter' demonstrating metal-to-metal contact phenomenon correlates engine oil 'quality' ?
Because he said it does...and everyone else is wrong.
But by definition, a "wear scar" tells you that parts have "worn"...
- Status
Similar threads
