Changed oil, better results.

[tomp]

Inevitable, isn't it?  ALL roads lead to oil or tires.  Rode this afternoon and never thought of either; just how great it was  at 82 degrees, when it has been in the mid 90's.  Great bike on a great day.  Hope every one had as good of a time as I....tp

At least we don't have to worry over the "doohicky", like all KLR650 owners do.  Man, now that gets really old, oh, oil and tires are always in the forefront too...

[B.D.F.]

Yes, fascinating. Especially the out of the ordinary places that need contact movement such as any replacement joint put in the human body and anything in space (outside of an artificial atmosphere, not the stuff inside, say, the space station). While a natural joint (easy boys!) will often last a lifetime, a man- made joint has a relatively short lifespan due to the horrible environment the joint is inside (our bodies). Alloyed titanium, all sorts of ceramic coatings, even DLC (diamond like coatings- approaching the hardness and toughness of pure diamond) will fail in as little as five years. And moving objects, especially rotary joints, will often seize as soon as they are used in a full vacuum at low temperatures.... like in space.

But while some of these foolish people spend a lifetime of learning and application improving tribology, there is always the guy with Uncle Ed who used XXX brand oil for YYY years and never had trouble, thereby proving the goodness of XXX brand of course. Of course it is always a lot easier to guess at the answer than find the truth through scientific study.... unfortunately.

Brian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology

Ah, interesting

[katata1100]

Ah yes, I understand- the tests were flawed because they did not show the advantages of synthetic oil. Great. Care to point me toward the test(s) that show this 'advantage of synthetics'?

I always find it amusing when those who do not like a test's results claim the test itself is invalid. That would even be OK provided there were any other test results showing anything else but in this case, there ARE no other tests. So given a very limited amount of data, those who do not like it call it flawed and reject it. Really, it is kinda' funny. 

Brian

Not funny at all. Driving conditions should be mimic real life driving conditions- the CU test didn't do that. Synthetics outperform conventional oil in cold temps and high rpms, something that test eliminated. It is like taking the finest synthetic oil and the crappiest dino oil, running them in the lawnmower and concluding that dino is just as good.
Oil performance can be evaluated using oil analysis.

[tomp]

Looks like we do have an oil thread here, so I have a couple of wonderings.  I've read that synthetics have superior properties for at least two reasons. 

1) Being man made, the molecules can all be made the same size and shape, unlike dino products, whose molecules can be radically different in shape and size. The uniformity of synthetic molecules reduces the shearing of them, as opposed to the dino's, which molecules can be sheared and broken down more quickly.

2) Man made lubricants can be designed to resit heat breakdown and emission contamination, allowing for a longer lasting product.  Been told that dino lubricants are more negatively affected by heat and emission contamination. 

Someone who knows, please help me to understand if what I have been lead to believe is accurate.  I do know that BMW auto engineers believe it, as they recommend only synthetics and oil changes at 15K miles in  all of their cars, now. 

[B.D.F.]

OK, so you are saying mineral oil is just as good in lawn mowers, larger, slower turning engines and warmer weather? Got it. Jotting it down now so this valuable information won't be lost. One quick question if I may- what is your source(s) for this information?

Brian

Not funny at all. Driving conditions should be mimic real life driving conditions- the CU test didn't do that. Synthetics outperform conventional oil in cold temps and high rpms, something that test eliminated. It is like taking the finest synthetic oil and the crappiest dino oil, running them in the lawnmower and concluding that dino is just as good.
Oil performance can be evaluated using oil analysis.

[B.D.F.]

Well before I comment on this I have to ask you something: do you really want to know or is this just another facet of the last argument? Further, are you willing to put any of your own effort into this or do you just want someone to spoon feed you an answer or answers until you find one you like and will accept? Should we take a poll to find the most popular..... whoa! I mean the 'best' oil?

I like rational discussions. Unfortunately, public forums are a week bit lax in that area. I like to learn things and better understand what is going on, how things work and so forth but I find it takes time and effort on my part to gain any useful knowledge.

Brian

Looks like we do have an oil thread here, so I have a couple of wonderings.  I've read that synthetics have superior properties for at least two reasons. 

1) Being man made, the molecules can all be made the same size and shape, unlike dino products, whose molecules can be radically different in shape and size. The uniformity of synthetic molecules reduces the shearing of them, as opposed to the dino's, which molecules can be sheared and broken down more quickly.

2) Man made lubricants can be designed to resit heat breakdown and emission contamination, allowing for a longer lasting product.  Been told that dino lubricants are more negatively affected by heat and emission contamination. 

Someone who knows, please help me to understand if what I have been lead to believe is accurate.  I do know that BMW auto engineers believe it, as they recommend only synthetics and oil changes at 15K miles in  all of their cars, now.

[tomp]

BDF, being new to this forum, I don't know the other members, so I will go ahead and ask.  Do you actually understand the lawn mower example, but love to stir the pot and troll occasionally, or do you not actually understand the testing flaws mentioned by the OP?  Just trying to keep the scoreboard straight.  No offence, just don't know the players, yet, and often anonymous replies can create hard feelings when not intentional...

As to asking me if I really want to know the answer to my questions, if you knew how terribly bad a typist I am, and how long it took me to compose my questions to the page, you would know I am serious.  I have read many oil reports, analyses, and other info on the web, but  knowing no one who is actually involved in tribology, I must rely on what I read and and advice from those more learned than I on the subject.  Now if you care to discuss what has been my area of expertise for over 30 years, I might have you asking me questions, should you desire to know.   It's all good......tp

FWIW, The last time I was spoon feed anything, I was a pre-toddler in a highchair. 

[B.D.F.]

I understand the lawn mower reference, I do not consider it an example.

Oh I do stir the pot occasionally but only when there is nothing else to be gained. This thread is not in that situation.... yet. We have some citing scientifically gathered data, some dismissing that data with no cause or reason other than they are claiming it is not a good test (but without a shred of evidence or data to back it up) and the usual emotional or anecdotal responses.

I would like to be a renaissance man although to be honest, I doubt I will live long enough to achieve that now. But I do have a reasonably good grasp of the rules (physics, chemistry, the natural sciences) to please me and allow me to gain further ground, and I am still able to learn so who knows?

So that is the question I have for you: do you want to know, do you want to guess, or do you want to simply pick up the easiest / fastest thing that addresses the questions regardless of accuracy?

Here is one of my favorites: We all know a Wankel is a wholly superior engine design. Other than the fact that it is a terrible engine design. There are two reasons for this; I will give you some hints: the fist problem involves geometry. The second problem involves tribology. Neither problem can be overcome by current engine technology. Take a few minutes if you are interested and find out why these magnificent, almost magical engines can never make it into the mainstream of prime movers, either in vehicles where the engine is carried in the vehicle nor in stationary power applications.

Brian

BDF, being new to this forum, I don't know the other members, so I will go ahead and ask.  Do you actually understand the lawn mower example, but love to stir the pot and troll occasionally, or do you not actually understand the testing flaws mentioned by the OP?  Just trying to keep the scoreboard straight.  No offence, just don't know the players, yet, and often anonymous replies can create hard feelings when not intentional...

As to asking me if I really want to know the answer to my questions, if you knew how terribly bad a typist I am, and how long it took me to compose my questions to the page, you would know I am serious.  I have read many oil reports, analyses, and other info on the web, but  knowing no one who is actually involved in tribology, I must rely on what I read and and advice from those more learned than I on the subject.  Now if you care to discuss what has been my area of expertise for over 30 years, I might have you asking me questions, should you desire to know.   It's all good......tp

FWIW, The last time I was spoon feed anything, I was a pre-toddler in a highchair.

[Cuda]

Good old Rotella looks like the best bang for the buck

[tomp]

Brian, thanks for the honesty.  As far as the rotary question goes, I may have an unfair advantage.  I was a service adviser for several years for a Mazda dealership and had to learn about RX's rotor tip deterioration and sealed case problems, etc.  The ability to derive 300HP from what is equivalent to a 1200cc engine is amazing, but they have too many inherent flaws to be a commonly used engine.  They consume almost as much oil as my old two strokes.  The fact that a rotary actually functions as well as it does, has fascinated and confounded me as much as this crazy computer that I am currently using.  "Blinding speed and amazing accuracy" , I was told, when I asked a multi computer science degreed friend once to explain how computers actually work.  Then he just laugh and we had a beer...

I've used Rotella T in several of my son's and my motorcycles with no problems.  Kawi singles and twins love the stuff...

[VirginiaJim]

Well, someone has to say this so I will...'This thread delivers!  '

[Rhino]

Wankel engine thread! I'm no mechanical engineer but I'll take a stab at Brian's tribology question. A conventional piston engine uses piston rings to create the seal. A piston ring applies an even outward pressure all the way around the ring thus making a good seal as well as consistent predictable wear characteristics. A Wankel has to have liner seals on the sides as well as the tips of the rotor. Much more difficult to get an even, matched surface. Also, I've always wondered how to get a good seal at the corners of the tips.

But also have read that the main advantage of synthetic oils is larger, more even molecules less susceptible to shearing. Is there anyone that disputes this?

[jimmymac]

Wankel engine thread! I'm no mechanical engineer but I'll take a stab at Brian's tribology question. A conventional piston engine uses piston rings to create the seal. A piston ring applies an even outward pressure all the way around the ring thus making a good seal as well as consistent predictable wear characteristics. A Wankel has to have liner seals on the sides as well as the tips of the rotor. Much more difficult to get an even, matched surface. Also, I've always wondered how to get a good seal at the corners of the tips.

But also have read that the main advantage of synthetic oils is larger, more even molecules less susceptible to shearing. Is there anyone that disputes this?

Sure, as long as it keeps this thread moving.

[tomp]

This looks to be currently, the most active thread going on the C14 side.  Not bad for an "easier shifting thread, with a little oil and Wankel" thrown in.  Rhino, I had heard smaller molecules, but they could be larger.  My 14 seems to like the Mobil 1, currently being used in it.

[Buzzard63]

As to the actual testing of synthetic oil vs dino, here's this. When Mobil was first marketing Mobil 1, they had a "Just ask Mobil 1" promotion. I asked for the answer, and received in the mail a large manila envelope with lots of data. Much of the data was from GM in relation to testing for the Corvette. Concerns were that they could not fit an oil cooler on the new Vette, and wondered if Mobil 1 would cover the lubrication needs under any perceived stress. Four new motors were set up on computer controlled dynos. Two motors had in them Mobil's best dino oil, two had Mobil 1. Of each oil type, one dyno simulated stop and go driving, one simulated constant high speed driving. Oil was changed every 5k mi. They planned to run 200k mi. At about 180k, the constant high speed dino motor blew a rod. All the bearings were showing extreme wear. At 200k, the other three were torn down. The dino motor that survived was about to blow, everything that could wear was at the extreme worn out side of wear. The two motors on Mobil 1 were in most ways showing little to no wear. Cylinder cone, rings, bearings, every moving part was measured. Most parts were within new specs. Hence, GM performance cars (The Vette, SS454, that turbo V-6 cartoon looking pickup HR-1) of that era came with oil fill caps that stated "Warranty requires Mobil 1 10W-40". That was the early 1980's as I recall.

[B.D.F.]

Hey, I am doing what I can.... After all, nobody else is helping. On the other site there are small groups actively trying to stir the po..... I mean interject precise and useful information. :-)   Just hold on though, someone just mentioned the magic words "Mobil 1" and "synthetic" in the same sentence- that is always good for a couple of pages of posts.

Brian

Sure, as long as it keeps this thread moving.

[B.D.F.]

Now the really great part of Mobil 1 being better because it is synthetic is that it is not even synthetic, outside a court ruling that they could in fact use that word.

Synthetic means it is man- made. Mobil 1 is a petroleum product. Honest. The very fact that a petroleum oil is better than.... well, a petroleum oil is a bit off- putting right there.

So I guess the question is: is Mobil 1 really better or does it just seem better?

Talk among yourselves and maybe we can figure this out together.

And yep, I think this is an oil thread now.

By the way, I was involved in a minor accident yesterday (no one injured but the bike is significantly damaged) and I found that Delo fleet oil did not hold up as well as I think Rotella fleet oil would have. I can say with absolute certainty that in 6 years of using Rotella, I never was never involved in a collision and the one time I tried Delo.... BANG! That is proof enough for me and I will NOT be using Delo in the future! Maybe I will go over to Devlac and a Honda Viffer....

Brian

As to the actual testing of synthetic oil vs dino, here's this.

<snip>

Hence, GM performance cars (The Vette, SS454, that turbo V-6 cartoon looking pickup HR-1) of that era came with oil fill caps that stated "Warranty requires Mobil 1 10W-40". That was the early 1980's as I recall.

[tomp]

Brian, sorry to hear of you accident.  Glad you are ok.
You said I should do my own research, so here is what Valvoline has to say about motor oils, synth vs conventional.  They do agree that synths originate from crude, too.

http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/

[B.D.F.]

Thanks!

It is a little more complicated than that. And "synthetics" made from petroleum are only synthetic in the US, and only because our judicial system said so. Remember, in one of the mid-western states, Pi is defined by law as 22/3.

From this source: http://www.synthetic-oil-technology.info/
<begin quote>
Grades of oil.
Motor oils are derived from base stocks. That is, a generic oil base is modified with additives to produce a lubricant with the desired properties. A base stock oil with no additives would not perform very well at all. Base stocks are classified by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and fall into one of five categories.

Group I and II - these are mineral oils derived from crude oil
Group III - this is a highly refined mineral oil made through a process called hydrocracking. In North America this group is considered a synthetic oil, for marketing purposes.
Group IV - these are true synthetic oils, known as Polyalphaolefin (PAO).
Group V - these are synthetic stocks other than PAO's and include esters and other compounds.
<end quote>

Please note that Mobil 1 is a group III oil, synthetic in the US and a mineral oil in the rest of the world (absolutely serious here).

Brian

Brian, sorry to hear of you accident.  Glad you are ok.
You said I should do my own research, so here is what Valvoline has to say about motor oils, synth vs conventional.  They do agree that synths originate from crude, too.

http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/

[tomp]

Interesting info.  This has really turned into an OIL THREAD, and both info and opinions have been expressed.  So far, it has remained civil, something seldomly seen over on ADV Rider site.  Guess Connie owners are a more civilized lot, who enjoy lively banter and very fast touring motorcycles...

Brian, is the bike damage cosmetic or structural?  Hopefully only cosmetic...