| Author | Message | ||
     Bomber |
S2 . . .. . yep . . .although I am not so blessed, I've worked for/with//qround engineers all my life . . . . . . I have been, since I got my Buell (first HD engine for me) amazed at the number of urban myths bandied about (one of the reasons I come here . . . to enjoy the myths or see them debunked, depending ), snake oil, and the amount of religion associated with certain topics . . . . actually, this board, and the buellers I've met, have been darned near as much fun as my M2 . . . . | ||
| Blake |
Dan: You had mentioned them, but I thought I outlined what the problems with those test were, didn't I? Maybe not. I was having email sending troubles around that time. If not let me know and I'll resend. The four ball wear test was designed to ascertain the performance of extreme pressure lubricants. It is entirely inappropriate for characterizing the performance of engine lubricants. Amsoil is a good oil. I just wish they would abandon the shady pseudo-technical marketing approach. They don't need it. The oil stands on its own merits. Blake (still happy with my $4/qt Mobil-1) | ||
| Reepicheep |
Dan... I am with Blake on this one. Amsoil (from what I can tell) stands perfectly well in comparison to Mobil 1 VTwin, and is generally cheaper. It should compete perfectly well on it's own merits. But when I looked into it, I saw way too much emphasis on a test with way too little detail about what the test actually was and why it was important. I also saw an overly aggressive marketing attempt to discredit other oils that I know to be high quality. It smelled like snake oil, and made me question the validity of their other statements, and generally turned me off as a customer. I drove down to Auto Zone and bought Mobil 1 V-Twin for $7 a quart (or some other equally abusive price). I paid too much, but the store is only a few blocks away, they always have it in stock, and after all I only change the oil about three times a season. Bill | ||
| Reepicheep |
Now what I want to know is why the Buell specifies 15w50 oil... and why the 20w50 is different. I know the Harley oil is 20w50, and I suspected this was simply because 20w50 is harder to find, thus increasing Harley oil sales. I'm sure this is a cash cow to them. I put Mobil 1 15w50 full synthetic into the cyclone with this exact thought, expecting to do nothing but save a little money and get a little more high temp breakdown resistance. But when I did, I could SWEAR the bike sounded and felt different. Not really any worse, just... different. This was in the dead of summer. So I put in the Mobil 1 20w50 (mobil 1 VTwin) and I could once again SWEAR that it sounded and felt back to about what it sounded with the Harley oil. I am not discounting the possibility that this was completely psychological, or some other coincidence. But I could swear it sounded different, and when I put in the 15w50 I did not EXPECT to hear any difference. I expected everything to be the same but to have a little more protection against high temperature breakdown of the oil. I thought that what the lower number is supposed to be the viscosity at zero degrees, and the higher number to be the viscosity at higher temperatures... but that would mean that the oil gets "thicker" as it gets hotter, which seems counter-intuitive to me... So the story goes that the only people that should be concerned about the difference between 15w50 and 20w50 should be people driving their bikes in zero degree temps. So I guess my question is if there are other any other significant characteristics of oil that tend go along with the viscosity ratings but that are not really viscosity, and that could explain why 15w50 seems to feel different in my bike then the 20w50 does at normal temperatures. Course... it could all be in my head. Would not be the first time... Maybe I will hand a buddy three quarts of both Mobil 1 15-50 and Mobil 1 VTwin and have him put one of them in un-marked containers for me to use next time I change the oil, and see if I can guess which it is... | ||
| Aaron |
I think you're confused over what a multi-vis rating means. As I understand it, a 20W-50 means that at low temps, it's viscosity approximates that of a straight 20 weight oil that's also at that low temp. And likewise, at high temps it's viscosity approximates that of a straight 50 weight oil that's also at that high temp. So it's not that it's getting thinner at low temps and thicker at high temps, it's just not thickening as much at low temps or thinning as much at high temps as a straight weight oil does, and therefore it can cover a range of weight ratings. No? | ||
| Buelliedan |
For the sake of arguments. I no longer claim it to be the best oil, only REALLY, REALLY good!!! Geez, you engineer types are a pain in the butt!!!  http://www.lube-direct.com/ddunn | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ahhh... that makes a lot more sense. I should have been thinking curves... Now I am thinking a curve of viscosity versus temperature. 20 weight oil has one curve, 50 weight oil has a different curve. So how can 20w50 weight have two curves? There must be some sort of tolerance band (the curve is a wide stripe, not a line). The straight 20 weight has one small band, the 50 weight has another small band, the 20w50 oil has a great big fat band that covers both the straight 20 weight band and the straight 50 weight band. I believe viscosity is measured by flow rate through a small tube. You want the oil to be of low enough (thick enough) viscosity that it remains stuck to parts and pumps properly for a given engine design. You want it high enough that it is not to thick to pump through the passages designed into the engine. So. There MAY BE a difference between 15w50 and 20w50 oil at all temperatures and all operating conditions. If it is significant or not is a completely different question. Given the range of common engines, I guess it would be about 10% (50 / (20-15)). Don't know if that matters or not. Note this is pure speculation. But we are getting at the root of my question. The "weight" of an oil must be more then the measure of a particular viscosity, but rather (at a minimum) represents a particular curve of viscosity versus temperature. Wonder if it measures anything else... One of the urban legends about using the lighter or synthetic oil was "flat spotting" the main bearing, as the oil was to "slick" or "light" to allow the bearing to turn, and instead it stays stationary and wears a flat spot on the bearing. I don't buy this. If the resistance is enough to "wear a flat spot on the bearing", it's surely enough to turn the stupid bearing in the first place. If it is so slick that the bearing won't even turn, then by golly its slick enough that it won't wear a flat spot in the thing, and its doing a fine job as a bearing... But again, everything I know about things mechanical they taught me in electrical engineering school Bill | ||
| Blake |
Bill, there is no thickness (band) to the viscosity versus temperature plot of a multi-vis lubricant. Every oil will have a specific viscosity for a specific temperature. A multi-vis, as Aaron hinted, simply loses less of it's room temperature viscosity at high temperatures, and gains less at low temperatures. A multi-vis oil has a flatter viscosity versus temperature plot. | ||
| Bigfanof6 |
And to think ALL this started because of my little ole Buell with a kinked puke line... Chris | ||
| Rocketman |
How many times do we need to debate this ? Danny Pedersen said Mobil 1 is by far the best didn't he ? As for the price, you guys want to try paying £9.99 a litre, like us Brit's have to ! Rocket in England | ||
| Chuck |
Bill must have really good "hearing"  | ||
| Blake |
I don't think he said it was "by far the best" just that it was better than any conventional oil, including the HD juice. | ||
| Rocketman |
So tell us a non-conventional one that's better ? Rocket in England | ||
| Blake |
I dare not go there. I don't know. You can't make me.  | ||
| Rocketman |
Ve will, chickenshit Rocket in England | ||
| Majicmak |
Mak's Harley oil Theory. The Motor Company recomends Harley Oil for their engines. They also give a list of substitutes. It has been sugested that synthetic oil is not compatible with the roller bearings in the Harley engine. For whatever reason the rollers will skid and flat spots will form. In the Buell shop manual they show a process for fitting conecting rod big ends to the crankpin and rollers. They are Lapped in. Look at it if you have the book. If you don't it works like this. Lapping compound is worked in using an expandable cast iron lap. The mechanic slips the rod on to a rotating lap and expands it. When they are working tight, material is removed and a near perfect hole is generated. An operator in a production shop can hold a very close tolerance this way. Parts would be semi-finished on a grinding machine w/in .0003 inch of final size.The lap operator would super finish the part w/in .00005 inch using air to electronic gaging. This is an expensive process. Looking at the procedure in the service book, I think this is how Harley has done it for years. There are three kinds of lapping compound that I use in the shop. Aluminum Oxide, Silicone Carbide and Diamond. Once you work lapping compound into metal, the only way to get it completely off, is to machine it off. This leaves us with a condition called CONTINUOUS CUT. It works like this. The lapping compound in the steel remains abrasive forever. When two parts rub, the compound keeps cutting and cutting. In a roller bearing set up like this, the rolling element just rolls over it. Like a tire on the road. Everything is fine until the rolling element stops revolving. The bearing skids like a locked tire and a flat spot is formed. Millionths of an inch. To tenthousands of an inch. To thousands of an inch and the motor is wrecked. Another engine builder can have a process that does not involve lapping. Like Rockets S and S motor for example. S and S could have a Studer and they grind the pin right into size to a wide tolerance. The rods big end could be finnished on a Hone. They would then match fit the parts for assembly. CONTINUOUS CUT would not exist here and the lube requirements for this engine would be different. Why synthetic oil would cause a bearing to skid is beyond my competency to explain. I am not a chemist. I can tell you that CONTINUOUS CUT works as a matter of fact. IF it exists in a FACTORY motor it could be one explanation why Harley is comforable with the lubricants they have been using for years. Mak | ||
| Blake |
José: Though continuously touting its lightness, I didn't see any weight listed for the Blue Marlin. Kinda makes you say "hmmmmmmm." Mak: Very interesting discussion, but how does it relate to synthetic versus conventional oil use? Like I keep saying, there is no majic about the workings of motor oil, synthetic or otherwise. Oil protects mainly through its viscosity and its ability to hold together as a protective film when subjected to intense shearing forces. In this respect, now listen to this closely, there is in praticality, NO DIFFERENCE between synthetic and conventional oils; they behave alike, no distinction, no difference. Capice? The advantages of synthetically based oil are its superior resistance to thermal breakdown, its resistance to formation of corrosive byproducts, its superior performance over a wide temperature range without special additives, and its ionic affinity for metals that allows it to maintain a protective film even after engine shutdown. Synthetic oil is NO more slippery than any conventional oil with the same viscosity. The viscosity is what determines how slippery an oil is, that's it. Really! If you are really interested I can dig up the equation from my Fluid Mechanics text to calculate sliding friction forces between lubricated smooth surfaces given their relative speed, the film thickness, and the lubricant's viscosity. The only properties of the lubricant (fluid) that enter into the equation are the film thickness, and its viscosity. NOTHING else. Once an engine is running, film thickness is determined by the anular gaps between ID and OD of all the bearing surfaces. Except in the case of the piston rings. The film thickness is a result of engine speed, and the resulting equilibrium between hydrodynamic forces and the springs' preload. Now if for some unfortunate reason your engine experiences direct metal to metal contact, it's another story; it's very bad, but both synthetic and conventional oils contain the same basic additives to protect against that unwanted situation. So there is, let's be clear, absolutely NO reason that a synthetic oil would allow a cam follower to flat spot. It's ludicrous, it's illogical, it defies physics. When/if it happens, the fault was a BAD cam follower bearing. How anyone could ever imagine otherwise is an enigma to me. Does that make sense? | ||
| Majicmak |
Present | ||
| Captpete |
Two great presentations! But how come my pistons stuck in their holes? Do I need a viscosity meter/idiot light? Capt. Pete | ||
| Leveg |
Weeeell, actually synthetic oils are more slippery than mineral oils at the same viscosity - reason being that the synthetic polymers are of a uniform length, allowing them to slide over one another more easily. Also, synthetic oils are superior to mineral oils in almost all aspects - the one area where the mineral oils protect better is in heavily loaded shear conditions. Guess where these occur? In roller bearings. There are documented problems with the use of synthetics in Roller lifter/cam race engines, especially endurance engines. The roller bearings in the lifters are prone to failure. Crane Cams state that synthetic oil should not be used during cam break. Reason being that they don't protect under the high shear loads encountered here. For a discussion about the pros and cons of synthetics, with the final word by a Lubrication Specialist who quotes data that shows much higher friction and wear at high load/shear from synthetics have a look here:- www.dodgedakotas.com | ||
| Majicmak |
Blake, I think you missed my point. A Harley can be different than any other engine made. H-D's manufacturing process and formula is proprietary. They don't need to tell us why. There are a lot of trade secrets involved in bearing manufacture, and they dont need to tell the Pres. of Mobil oil about them. Thats why I go by the book when it comes to lubrication. If they told me to put whale oil in a machine I would get together with Capt Pete and get a drum full. Mak | ||
| Blake |
Leveg says... Weeeell, actually synthetic oils are more slippery than mineral oils at the same viscosity - reason being that the synthetic polymers are of a uniform length, allowing them to slide over one another more easily. Weeeell... As I stated, the ONLY factor affecting friction force between two lubricated surfaces sliding relative to one another is, now please listen again real close, viscosity. This of course assume the lubricant/lubrication system is able to maintain the proper film. If as you say, the longer chains "slide over one another more easily", weeeell, then the viscosity (a measure of how easily a fluid slides over itself) would then be... can you guess? YES... "Lower!" Give the man a prize! Furthermore, the longer, more uniform polymer chains of synthetic based motor oil actually give it HIGHER shear strength. As to your contention about roller bearings and cam break-in, weeeell... I read the oil discussion at the link you posted. I don't know a nice way to say this so I'll simply call it as it is... Your so called lubrication expert is completely full of shit. Forget my personal views and qualifications as a mechanical engineer. Really, don't take my word, but please consider real world facts for a minute... Why is it that ALL modern industrial applications involving heavy duty gearboxes, speed-reducers, and roller bearings, like those used in heavy equipment, cranes, giant earth station satellite antenna drives (up to 100m diameter satcom antennas/radio telescopes) generators, drilling rig equipment (draw-works, turntable, anchor winches) and MASSIVE diesel engines ALL use synthetic oil? Yes, they ALL use synthetic oil. Every... single... one. I guess all that multimillion dollar equipment doesn't warrant the extra protection provided by conventional oil?  Leveg, come towards the light, come away from the darkness. Mak: I thought I got your point. It was very interesting too. I can see the logic and thought behind it. I certainly had never studied that scenario. Maybe you failed to get my point... That there simply is NO majic about viscous thin film lubrication. The same is true for bearings. It simply comes down to viscosity and the ability (shear strength, thermal integrity) of a lubricant to maintain it's viscosity. Bearings are bearings. Some are better than others, but purely due to superior material and tolerances. Besides, I'd bet that HD buys off-the-shelf standardized bearings. It ain't a religion (or maybe HDism is a religion?), so lose the faith and get real amigo. Nothing wrong with HD oil. Synthetic is just better. | ||
| Hans |
The oil article in dodgedakotas.com was replied and countered. Mmmm. The style of the visitor who replied seems me very well known... However, about the Slick 50 my experiences are positive and I wonder if the lower viscosity of one quart of Slick in 4 quarts of motoroil can be responsible of the performance gain. I distrust somewhat the ferocity from different sides to deny the positive claims of Slick 50. (Ex)Slick addict. | ||
| Blake |
Hans: Yep, that was yours truly on the dodgedakotas.com site . I'll be looking for a response from Mr. Expert. As to schlock50... it is voodoo science at its worst. It's alway amazing to me how much faith we (yeah, back in '94 I too was an unwitting victim of schlock 50) will put in junk science and shady marketing schemes. We should always remember the old saying that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? Even the manufacturer (Dupont) of the base teflon compound (PTFE) that schlock 50 uses strongly denies that it's use in motor oil additives would provide any benefit. What is most telling to me is the TOTAL lack of ANY technical information on the slick50.com website. Slick 50 was forced, through truth in advertising laws, to abandon all the outrageous claims they once made concerning improved HP and efficiency. None of it could be independently verified. What WAS discovered was that combustion byproducts of the schlock 50 additive were very corrosive if left to condense and sit in exhaust systems (most damaging for vehicles repeatedly run on short trips). I personally had to replace each of my two vehicles' mufflers and tailpipes within one year of dumping that sludge into them. That is unheard of here in Texas where most cars wear their stock exhaust systems through ten years or more. One of the vehicles was only three years old. Both vehicles made their share of short trips. A friend had the exact same experience with his two vehicles. What was your experience with slick 50? | ||
| Majicmak |
Blake, Two points 1: Oil causes friction in a roller bearing. 2: Conecting rod, pin and roller are not off the shelf parts. They are unique. Since this conversatoin has been burried away in the Vault, few will read it. I think I have let on more than I should have. I hesatated to post it and would not care if it were deleted. Syn oil may be the best in the world, but let me leave you with one final thought: Eric Clapton may be the best Blues guitarist in the world. But he can't run a table saw. Mak | ||
| Hans |
Blake, Slick 50 was used by me since end 70-ties in different cars with carburettors. The immediate response was indeed always a faster stationary running engine, which was supposed to be the result of less internal resistance. I noticed a prolonged time to reach the working temperature. The mileance went up. I realize that is no proof at all because it goes up also with a "new" used car after your riding style is brought better in harmony with the possibilities of that car. My last car, mostly used as commuter, rode 220K miles before it was traded in after 14 years. Our wet climate does deteriorate many parts, reason to get rid of that car, but the engine was still running smoothly without oil cunsumption and still with a remarkable good mileage. Slick 50 was marked by me as contributor of that good engine condition. Slick 50 was under heavy attack then with arguments of clogging oil canals. Never noticed any proof of clogging anything. The argument that Teflon has to be fixed under special conditions on perfect clean surfaces is not an argument that an organic binded compound not could do that trick. I suspected the counter arguments to be false. While other additives or weird magic contraptions were countered with just a few words, Slick 50 got always more extensive and even emotionally involved responses. Made me suspicious. The explanation that the organic compound was split into his parts on places with highest temperatures, because friction, and that the teflon was settled there seemed me not illogical. (The same kind of thing we hear now about halogen bulbs.) My son, in his continuing experiments to reach higher topspeeds with his ultralight and sensible Honda SS (50 cc 4 stroke) had very positive results with Slick 50. Again no absolute proof as he did make more alterations at the same time, as usual. Just another contribution to my believe in that magic stuff. I was impressed by the advertisement movie: Two cars rode with their carters emptied. Without slick about a mile and the car with slick in its carter towed even the stranded car to the dealer. It was one long extended shot without the camera any moment moving away, leaving no room for tricks: I was very carefully attending that. And if they would have tricked that movie,it would be known sooner or later and it would be then the immediate and absolute end of Slick 50. I gave up using Slick 50 in our car only because I forgot to buy it. Further revealed an independent research about motorbike oils that oil changings with the normal available and prescribed oils at the prescribed intervals was simply the best and cheapest way to pamper your engine during street use. That the extremes were expensive (synthetic) oils or additives had to be used did not happen in engines in our climate on street use. (tested on Moto Guzzi`s). What do they know about my street use? So I will change and fill with synthetic next time. Mufflers: Indeed I needed to change mufflers more frequently than tires. Tires seem to become better, mufflers more rotten. I don`t know. Hans. | ||
| S2rider |
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/slick50.html http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9707/slick.htm The second link is the most telling. Randell | ||
| Blake |
Mak said "Oil causes friction in a roller bearing." I think I know what you are trying to say here... that the viscosity of the oil impedes the free rotation of a roller bearing. If so, I agree. Being picky, I probably wouldn't say that the oil causes friction "in" the bearing though. The friction is happening within the oil itself. That's why lower viscosity oils result in improved efficiency and power output; lower viscosity means lower friction within the oil. Unfortunately, without enough viscosity the metal to metal scenario comes into play. Without enough viscosity in the lubricant, the contact stresses become extreme, causing excessive heat buildup and eventually failure in the form of micro fractures leading to pitting and galled/abraded surfaces. One reason we should never use an air nozzle/compressed-air to spin-dry roller bearings is that the metal to metal contact and high speed rotation can easily cause abrasions that later can lead to premature failure. As another example, consider the lubricating effects of water. Ever experience hydroplaning in a car? Not much different from riding on ice is it? Water has a very low viscosity. However, given the right conditions (speed and smooth surfaces), it can form an excellent lubricating film between moving objects. Thanks for clarifying that some of the engine's bearings are specially sized just for HD/Buell. Can you say if they are of conventional design, meaning that though having nonstandard diminsions, they are of conventional geometry and only differ from standard bearings in their dimensions and not their basic design philosophy? Mak: Please don't be disappointed over the posting of your comments into this discussion. The vault topics are widely read. Plus, they are intended to be permanent records of our technical discussions. Most users, at least I hope "most", use the "New Messages" utility (see left hand frame under "Discussion" at http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/ ) and so can see the new posts each time they visit our little corner of the web. The GDB posts, while on the most widely read page on the board, do only get exposure for a day maybe two before disappearing into the archives where they soon get wiped from the board for eternity. You should have no regrets about posting your insights and theories on this board. We all enjoy a good mind stimulating debate, and I for one thank you for your thoughtful contributions. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Randell: Thank you for posting those links! Hans: Yes adding the lower viscosity base in schlock 50 will significantly improve engine efficiency. The muffler rotting snake oil should be banned from the market. If I had millions/billions of dollars in the bank, I would wage a public ad campaign to expose the many slick willy marketing schemes employed by all the BS miracle engine additives. Until then, I just rant here.  Blake | ||
| Hans |
Blake, your explanation convinced me. Randell, thanks for the links. Another faith lost. Good night Slick 50. You was the meanest trickiest one because some positive phenomena wich couldn`t be denied. Hans. | ||
| Loki |
So would Marvel Mystery Oil be considered snake oil? Loki |
