Why is "7.5" scoffed at, but 16, 8, and 4 are OK?

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
The overwhelmingly accepted premise is that oils HAVE TO be classified by a multiple of 5, 100% of the time, NO EXCEPTIONS!. Any thoughts outside of that constraint, like someone trying to imagine a "7.5" weight, is immediately met with much challenge.

With that in mind, why has no one even QUESTIONED a 4, 8 or 16 weight? Did the rigidly accepted constraints of a 5 system magically disappear without so much as mention? Why did no one challenge the 4-8-16 system. at all?

I don’t know any other way to put this other than just to say you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re still confusing the two numbers, the one before the W and the one after. You need to learn the difference.

And taking it personally like you are doing is just plain silly.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Well it goes to show that those that backed 5 and 10's only, were dead-wrong.
I've been mixing-up 7.5s and 2.5s for years..... actually multiple decades on the 7.5


Really? You contacted the SAE and had new Winter designations created with CCS and MRV limits established and then ran those products through those tests? Or are you also completely missing the boat on how the Winter designations are assigned?

I'm not sure how it is possible to explain it any more clearly

Claiming to create designations that don't formally exist doesn't magically make them so, and the indignation and arrogance with which some are railing against the SAE standards like it should not only be commended but celebrated as accomplishment is truly mind boggling. It's one thing to dream up some intermediate SAE grade between the present ones using calculated viscosity, it's again quite another to fabricate a Winter rating with absolutely no testing apparatus and thus no way to actual determine CCS and MRV, which literally define these designations.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Why not SAE 4.666666667W? Why not SAE 7 and 13/16thsW????

 

[gfh77665]

You are dead wrong on both accounts:

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I don’t know any other way to put this other than just to say you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re still confusing the two numbers, the one before the W and the one after. You need to learn the difference.


I absolutely positively know what I am talking about. I am WELL familiar with the viscosity grading system. 30+ years in the industry will do that to ya.

There is ZERO confusion about the first number "winter" weight and the second number 100C designation means. Period.

Originally Posted By: kschachn
And taking it personally like you are doing is just plain silly.


Dead wrong again. This is a "discussion" forum of oil and lubrication matters. How can you possible attempt to spin a discussion of viscosity numbers into something "personal". This issue rates about a 7.5 to me (on a 1 to 1,000,000 scale).

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Everything less than 30 is scoffed at on BITOG

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
You are dead wrong on both accounts:

I absolutely positively know what I am talking about. I am WELL familiar with the viscosity grading system. 30+ years in the industry will do that to ya.

There is ZERO confusion about the first number "winter" weight and the second number 100C designation means. Period.

Okay well that's good to hear then, I stand corrected. Guess I just misunderstood your point.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
The overwhelmingly accepted premise is that oils HAVE TO be classified by a multiple of 5, 100% of the time, NO EXCEPTIONS!. Any thoughts outside of that constraint, like someone trying to imagine a "7.5" weight, is immediately met with much challenge.

With that in mind, why has no one even QUESTIONED a 4, 8 or 16 weight? Did the rigidly accepted constraints of a 5 system magically disappear without so much as mention? Why did no one challenge the 4-8-16 system. at all?


There are BANDS...they could be ABCDE, but have 0W, 5W, 10W etc. To have a viscosity places them into A BAND...the one that they fall into. There's no halfway between the bands, there's not even a "line" between them as they are different viscosities, at different temperatures...do you split the viscosity, or the temperature at the midpoint of the "7.5W".

As to the no one challenging the 4, 8, 12, 16, as a long time professional in the industry, you know full well why they didn't call the grade below 20 a "15", like they were going to...it's in all the papers that you would have been reading at the time.

 

[Silk]

 

[bluesubie]

What are the specs of Motul Fork Oil? Motul doesn’t have a data sheet on their web site for it.

 

[kschachn]

These guys win the prize for the most goofy however:

http://bndautomotive.com/quantumblue-products-2/

Quote:
Available in 1 Gallon bottles only: 5w20, 5w25, 7.5w23, 8w35, 10w35, 12.5w32,12.5w35, 12.5w37, 12.5w40, 15w45, 16.3w37.5, 17.5w45, 20w35


Perhaps some posters in this thread should apply there for a job.

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie
What are the specs of Motul Fork Oil? Motul doesn’t have a data sheet on their web site for it.


Fork oil "weights" are made up by the manufacturers. There are zero, none, absolutely no standards adhered to when labeling suspension fluid viscosity.

 

[farrarfan1]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
These guys win the prize for the most goofy however:

http://bndautomotive.com/quantumblue-products-2/

Quote:
Available in 1 Gallon bottles only: 5w20, 5w25, 7.5w23, 8w35, 10w35, 12.5w32,12.5w35, 12.5w37, 12.5w40, 15w45, 16.3w37.5, 17.5w45, 20w35


Perhaps some posters in this thread should apply there for a job.


Looks like a good line of oils for the people here who base their oil changes on the season, you can have the proper weight for fall, winter, spring and summer.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
These guys win the prize for the most goofy however:

http://bndautomotive.com/quantumblue-products-2/

Quote:
Available in 1 Gallon bottles only: 5w20, 5w25, 7.5w23, 8w35, 10w35, 12.5w32,12.5w35, 12.5w37, 12.5w40, 15w45, 16.3w37.5, 17.5w45, 20w35


Perhaps some posters in this thread should apply there for a job.


I just can't decide between 12.5W37 and 16.3W37.5...I'll buy both and make a Frankenblend!

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist

Fork oil "weights" are made up by the manufacturers. There are zero, none, absolutely no standards adhered to when labeling suspension fluid viscosity.


Hence the dark art of the suspension guru. They are just guide to go up or down...in that brand. That's why I use ATF or hydraulic oils, they have a sort of standard.