Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: ON Magazine's article on oil?

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Leamington , Ontario
    Posts
    27

    FYI oil bargain

    Hit my local O`reilly`s auto parts in Michigan today to pick up some DOT3 brake fluid. They had Valvoline racing 20-50 in
    Dino and synthetic on sale . $3.99 and $4.99 .as well as several other brands and viscosities. These were very highly rated
    in Kurts article.
    Before anyone jumps me : I am in no way affiliated with , or own stock in O`reillys...... I just love a bargain.

  2. #32
    Still Wondering mika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    10,531
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    What I am wondering, Mika, is who appointed you to become the critic of the various commentors and criticizing them for expressing their reaction to the article.

    Perhaps you should have read the article first, THEN read the comments/questions, before you got so critical of THEIR comments!
    I did with the same authority and self appointment that everyone of you responds on the forum.

    I have read the article since my last post and leave my comments where they are. I saw many of the comments as attacking the author rather than the subject matter and or how it was presented. The article can be legitimately analyzed and criticized in a number of ways. I just choose not to consider attacking the author rather than the product not to be one of the ways. If I offended any of you in the process I apologize. At the same time I must admit I will probably offend again. I tend to be willing to defend people even if I don't like or agree with their ideas, or writings.
    Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION!

    St. Paul Pioneer Press , Minneapolis Star Tribune

  3. #33
    Registered User lbarbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Garner, NC
    Posts
    268

    ON Magazine's article on oil?

    Can you give me an example of someone attacking the author and not the product?
    I don't see it.
    Lynn
    2008 BMW R1200RT (most fun you can legally have)
    2002 BMW R1150RT
    2008 Kawasaki Versys

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    boise, idaho
    Posts
    110
    Many thanks for the time and effort put into the oil research and subsequent writing of the article, Kurt.

  5. #35
    Registered User chewbacca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by lbarbee View Post
    Can you give me an example of someone attacking the author and not the product?
    I don't see it.
    Me either.
    Old But Not Dead
    Semper Fi

  6. #36
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    12,820
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    What I was questioning was the explanation of all of that overwhelming data. Still, having read the article carefully 2x through, I am still at a loss on how to "evaluate and come to my own conclusion."
    From the article, I stated the following:

    "Matt recommended that the minimum level of ZDDP should be 1000 parts per million (ppm) each of zinc and phosphorus and that 1500 ppm is ideal. Anything over 2000 ppm can be excessive and even lead to formation of deposits in the engine. Additional online research found at www.LNengineering.com suggests that optimal levels of zinc and phosphorus should be in the 1200ÔÇô1500 ppm range."

    "When blending oil, the engineers have a range to meet in order to qualify for a 50-weight oil. Between oil change cycles, the viscosity improversdegrade and the rating of the oil can change with it. Thus, if an oil is blended to be in the upper part of the 50-weight viscosity range, despite degradation over time, it will still remain a 50-weight oil."

    "TBN provides some information about the reserve levels of additives that are present to deal with the acids that are produced during the combustion process."


    For me that says, you want a zinc and phosphorus levels to be at least 1000 ppm each and 1500 each would be the best. The higher the viscosity rating in the 50w range, the better. The more base components you have (a higher TBN), the better. I didn't state that in black and white, but I think it's a natural conclusion from the statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    Probably one of the things that I personally wish is to evaluate differing oils (but not so many as the article did) of the slipperiness of the oils under varying conditions.
    I've mentioned many, many ASTM tests are avaialble, some of them are very interesting and would have been nice to conduct...but it's all about money. If you want to see another comprehensive oil test, find the June 2009 test by AMSOIL...it can be found on-line. As you would imagine, AMSOIL does well in all categories. I don't know whether that is due to the superiority of the oil, or is a function of who's paying for the analysis. I can tell that the AMSOIL numbers I got are not quite as good as what AMSOIL reported. That could also just be the scatter of the data from testing and the individual laboratories.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmylee View Post
    Finally, after all this, I would like to have seen the article say "under these conditions" such and such oil appears to be better, but "under these other conditions" this oil would be better.
    But that's a recommendation and I can't make a recommendation and have someone try it or make some mistakes while trying and then have a problem with their bike. I'm not an oil engineer and I don't know the myriad of conditions and variables in the conditions. It's not my place to suggest to do one thing or another. I tried to provide the general guidelines for oil, present the numbers, and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

  7. #37
    Still Wondering mika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    10,531
    Quote Originally Posted by lbarbee View Post
    Can you give me an example of someone attacking the author and not the product?
    I don't see it.
    In the case of this thread my reaction is to a what I see as a subjective personal attack, intended or not, rather than an overt one that would yield the ÔÇÿsmoking gunÔÇÖ you ask for. It begins with the OP.

    The choice of starting a thread in the forum in manner done, to my eye, is a form of attack. No effort was made to contact the author for any clarification, nor did it seem phrased in any way that would constructively engage the author in conversation or discussion of the article. To me the criticisms, valid or not, came across with a very mocking tone. Much of what followed struck me as piling on.

    I donÔÇÖt mean to be Pollyannaish. The forum has had some very good and heated debates about articles in ON. The curious thing is by and large those discussions focused on content, editorial policy or general appropriateness for ON rather than doing much of anything that could be misconstrued as a personal attack on the author.

    There are frequent calls from readers and the editorial staff for technical articles. There are some very bright and talented people out there. When asked they demure politely saying they are uncertain of their abilities and when pressed harder will tell you they have no desire to chance subjecting themselves to the memberships tendency to eat their amateur authors alive.

    I frequently tilt at windmills. I will freely admit I am often wrong in that process. If I am and offended I apologize. I continue in my belief while accepting YMMV and does.
    Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION!

    St. Paul Pioneer Press , Minneapolis Star Tribune

  8. #38
    No longer a member here
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    It is my opinion and my personal experience that there are a few people on this forum here who tend to cry "personal attack!" rather quickly and frequently for reasons that I suspect I know, but will not cite for concerns of being accused of a personal attack.
    The OP was made about something that appeared not here, but elsewhere. It is a coincidence that the author of the ON article is also a member of this forum. The OP in no way belittled the effort and work that was put in, it just pointed out that the reader had difficulty getting out of the article what he personally expected. That, as far as I am concerned, is legitimate. Kudos to Kurt, who stepped up and participated in the discussion and tried to explain his motives rather than sulking and calling the forum administrators because he felt he was "attacked".
    And while very very few of us want another "oil thread", I think it was still good to hear the one or other detail about it again. It may even help those who just started riding or re-entered riding after several years of absence in making their own personal decision about what oil to use.

  9. #39
    Registered User chewbacca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    144
    To disagree is not to attack. It is very difficult to say things on the web in the context of the emotions that generated the comment. To debate a technical issue should be about facts not the pedigree of the person stating them. I believe the article presented useful facts and was done in a very professional manner. I don't agree with some of the conclusions being drawn from it. Debating those conclusions is in my opinion, the subject of another thread. NO NO NO, forget I even mentioned that! OIL THREADS NEVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING
    Old But Not Dead
    Semper Fi

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    269
    I thought it was an interesting article. As someone else mentioned, a nice break from the travelogues. Thanks to Kurt for putting it together.

    But were there some printing/proofreading errors? Or did I mis-read some things? The text said that in Fig. 1 it showed the API rating at the bottom of each column but it wasn' t there. And Fig. 2 and 3 both had a Zinc/Phosphorus legend in the lower left corners but it wasn't relevant. And I didn't understand the red curve in Fig.2...there weren't any units on the right vertical axis, just 0 to 90. These didn't particularly detract from the article but made it a little confusing. I know...picky, picky, picky...
    1983 R100RS (Sold)
    2004 R1150RT
    BMW MOA 181289
    ABC 13558

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    64

    What?

    Aaaarrrrgh! I'm going to bed now. Yawn . . .

  12. #42
    rsbeemer 22600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Braunfels,Texas/Taichung, Taiwan
    Posts
    337

    Why use a motorcycle oil?

    And I say, thank you Kurt for you time and effort; you're a brave man. Your article created some informative debate.

    All this probably has been said before but I found this article interesting anyway. Not my words below, just clicked and paste.

    Motorcycle oils have higher levels of phosphorus/zinc for enhanced wear protection and the same high-temperature detergent technology for superior wear protection and engine cleanliness, even at elevated oil temperatures. Specifically motorcycle oils for aircooled engines are designed for very high localized oil temperatures and high overall oil temperatures, and typically have high flash points coupled with higher HTHS viscosities and lower noack% losses. As a whole, it would appear that all most motorcycle oils we tested have excellent anti-wear additive levels and most are not SM or SN rated oils, but rather earlier SG, SH, or SJ rated. In a pinch, it should be fairly easy to find a motorcycle oil with any of these SG, SH, or SJ rati, ngs at your local auto parts store when it may be more difficult to get Brad Penn or Swepco, without having it shipped to you. Please do remember that motorcycle oils typically have levels of Zn and P that will kill catalytic converters, so if you have one, either remove it first or use another oil, like Brad Penn or Swepco. Also, motorcycle oils are not as detergent as the aforementioned Brad Penn or Swepco, so you must change the oil much more often, even though the perception of being able to go longer because the oil costs more is a false one.

    DW
    1978 R100rs MOA#22600 125cc Kymco
    The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.

  13. #43
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    12,820
    Quote Originally Posted by MARKAZ View Post
    But were there some printing/proofreading errors? Or did I mis-read some things? The text said that in Fig. 1 it showed the API rating at the bottom of each column but it wasn' t there. And Fig. 2 and 3 both had a Zinc/Phosphorus legend in the lower left corners but it wasn't relevant. And I didn't understand the red curve in Fig.2...there weren't any units on the right vertical axis, just 0 to 90. These didn't particularly detract from the article but made it a little confusing. I know...picky, picky, picky...
    That was because I was not sent the article before going to press, so I had no chance to edit or make changes. All of the things you mention were a result of taking my Word document and porting it over to their software for publication. I have already sent in my updates to Vince...not sure how he's going to deal with the changes.

    I also goofed in the paragraph about TBN. Initially, I was using a naming scheme for each oil - MOA01, MOA02, etc. Then I decided to convert the tables and graphs to the actual oil names. I missed two text entries. The MOA16 should have been the 16th oil or AMSOIL and MOA10 should have been the Harley sample.

    As for the red curve in Figure 2. The axis label was supposed to say "% of Grade". The red curve, actually it's just the red dots (I added the curve to help visualize where the dots were) is plotted against the right axis. I was trying to show where the given oil fell within the range of 50w units (centistokes per 100 deg C). The viscosity for a 50w oil can be anywhere from 21.89 to 16.3. An oil viscosity can be 21.8 or 16.4 and still be called a 50w oil. The higher up in that range, I considered that to be "better". Seems to me starting out near the top of the range would allow for some degradation during use and still rank as a 50w.

    So, for example, take the Castrol RS V-Twin oil. It's viscosity measurement was 20.61. Do the math and you find out that 20.61 falls at about the 77% level within the range of 50w. So a quick read of the red curve and dots shows rankings all of the map. I was shocked to see BMWs petro oil coming in around 35% of grade. The essentially "equivalent" oil by Spectro ranked much higher at closer to 60% of grade. The Spectro engineer at several of the last MOA Nationals has repeated that Spectro blends high in the grade...I would have considered greater than 75% as high in the grade...60% is near the middle of the grade. So, the blend that Spectro makes for BMW is not quite as good.

    HTH...
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    917

    Note to Mika

    Mika, I suggest that since you now have read the original article, you go back and read these comments in this thread. The ONLY person on the whole thread who attacked anybody was YOU!

    I originated the original question in complete honesty. At the time I had no idea that the administrator had anything to do with the article! The author of the article (administrator) should be highly commended for his research and enormous amount of time that he put in. NO ONE is criticizing him for all of that. To share that with us shows that he had very good motivations in mind that were certainly not selfish. He want the best for all of us.

    My observation, however, was that all of that high-tech data didn't translate to where "the rubber meets the road." This situation is typical of highly technical data in any industry/service. The question for most, however, is "but what does all this me to ME"? Probably one of the confusing issues here is that MOST, if not all, of the test oils performed well within the scope of what most of us need the oil to do. Thus, we all can leave basically saying that "my particular oil is the best." I doubt that anyone was convinced by that article to change anything.

    I have total respect for the author of that article. He presented a lot of date, most of which was "over our heads." And certainly, especially on a topic like this where every joe thinks he is an "expert" will take pot shots. I have the same issues in my area of expertise. It happens.

    I just wanted to point out that too much data can be just as bad as too little data - both result in either ignorance (too little) or confusion (too much!).

    Personally, as I have stated, I would love to see testing of the actual performance of a few (not 20) of the top selling oils. Maybe there's an article out there, but I have not seen it. For example, I forget what brand of oil it was ( I think it was Amsoil) put out an advertisement that showed a little test machine that put pressure on a steel roller which had various oils applied. The "test" result was that their particular brand provided the best lube and stopped breakdown and wear better. That test was criticized highly because there were a lot of factors not taken into account, and of course, it was slanted. I want to see a real test.

    This is my last comment on this!

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eastern KY
    Posts
    3,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    I did with the same authority and self appointment that everyone of you responds on the forum.

    I have read the article since my last post and leave my comments where they are. I saw many of the comments as attacking the author rather than the subject matter and or how it was presented. The article can be legitimately analyzed and criticized in a number of ways. I just choose not to consider attacking the author rather than the product not to be one of the ways. If I offended any of you in the process I apologize. At the same time I must admit I will probably offend again. I tend to be willing to defend people even if I don't like or agree with their ideas, or writings.
    Maybe Mika's sort of the "Johnny Cochran" of MOA Forum?
    Further, I suppose this article will serve as notice that future techy articles best be well vetted/edited personally prior to letting them get into print? As an e.g., I'm betting Paul G. Has Voni proofread his before he pushes that button!
    "If I had my life to live over, I'd dare to make more mistakes next time...I'd relax,I'd limber up... I would take fewer things seriously...take more chances... take more trips...climb more mountains...swim more rivers...eat more ice cream." Jorge Luis Borges at age 85.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •