Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neither would I!

But I’m sure I’ll be able to get it MUCH cheaper than that by buying direct from US.

Then maybe I’ll use the Bel Ray AND the BG MOA... depends what your testing unveils Jim...!
 
Jim,
Could you try the additive in Morris 20/50 V Twin oil, as at least this is available & affordable in UK & Europe.
Thanks,
Martyn.
 
Martyn,

Bel Ray v twin is the current leader of Jim’s testing, and that’s available over here.

Jus’ sayin’...
 
Fast Eddie said:
He doesn’t Jim!

Someone will though, but I’m gonna wait till you’ve done testing before ordering a load.
Click to expand...


....better pricing on ebay.co.uk at around £15 to £17, but shipping still quite high to France.

For race use it looks worthwhile if it does the same for Bel Ray.
 
Matchless said:
Jim,
Could you try the additive in Morris 20/50 V Twin oil, as at least this is available & affordable in UK & Europe.
Thanks,
Martyn.
Click to expand...

Bit of an assumption there. What you can get in Europe differs from what you get in the UK. And if I buy from the UK I tend to get quite a shipping hit.

For my money 50 to 60€ for 4 litres/US gallon just about works. Not cheap, but in the scheme of things for a race bike, with tyres 300€ a pair and race entry fees 200 to 300€...fuel at 50€....30 to 40€ a meeting on oil isn't the killer.
 
Fast Eddie said:
You sure Steve? I can only find the 110 on eBay UK not the 115 / EL variation that Jim tested...
Click to expand...
No, you are right. To be honest I hadn't noticed there were different versions!

65€ for an additive per change, not going there
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Valvoline_VR1_20W50_conventional_with_BG-MOA_110@8.5%
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

322 lbs load
3.098 heat from viscous friction
4.73 heat from high pressure shear
Good load increase with the BG-MOA but it didn't help the heat much
Safe for short term use in a Norton in cooler climates

_____________________________________________________________________________
Someone said I was biased against VR1
Here are a couple things I see that helps influence my recommendations.

Here are the scars produced from the last two oils I tested.

The scar on the right is from the failure of the Mobil 1 V-twin with BG MOA at 465 lbs with 89 minutes run time

The scar on the left is from failure of the VR1 with BG MOA at 322 lbs and 68 minutes run time.
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Here are the two oils

On the left is the VR1 with BG MOA after the single test above, w/ 68 minutes run time.

On the right is the Mobil 1 V-twin after one test without MOA and a second test with MOA, w/126 minutes run time.
Follower scar oil tests (2018)
The VR1 started out lighter than the Mobil 1

So yeah, I don't like VR1 for a high temp application. It works fine in a car.
 
Wow, that's quite a contrast!

Not much reason to use VR1 with or without additive now that we have the BelRay EXP info you've provided.
The BelRay EXP 20/50 is about the same cost as VR1 20/50 ( in Canada)

What do the Bel Ray oils look like after testing?

Flen
 
Most of the oils with very low heat from friction will show a small scar like the Mobil 1 with BG MOA added.

The higher the follower temperature at failure, the larger the scar will be.

High follower temp can be the result of high heat from shear friction, or high follower pressure, or usually a combination of the two.

The BelRay EXP with no additives produces a larger wear mark than the Mobil 1 but, I have not been able to create a failure scar with the Bel Ray EXP unless I have used friction reducing additives.

With no additives the EXP creates follower temps that are too close to the flash point to be safely tested beyond about 400 lbs.

I will retry EXP with MOA and see what it does then.

The VR1 conventional with MOA conventional made one of the largest scars I have seen and turned black faster than most.

The Bel Ray still looked like oil after testing.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Am I wrong or does your setup make you a coffee when you've finished your testing? In 43 pages I have seen no mention of Tribodyn oils. My local distributor makes all kinds of claims for it. I hate to ask, but could you possibly get some to test? This would be really cool to use as it is blue. Wow! Blue oil! How cool would that be?
 
Fullauto said:
Wow! Am I wrong or does your setup make you a coffee when you've finished your testing? In 43 pages I have seen no mention of Tribodyn oils. My local distributor makes all kinds of claims for it. I hate to ask, but could you possibly get some to test? This would be really cool to use as it is blue. Wow! Blue oil! How cool would that be?
Click to expand...

Blue Oil? Heck, that's worth using just for the color! Might even be a better reason than buying oil because it has a cool name! (like Castrol GTX)! :)
 
Fullauto said:
Wow! Am I wrong or does your setup make you a coffee when you've finished your testing? In 43 pages I have seen no mention of Tribodyn oils. My local distributor makes all kinds of claims for it. I hate to ask, but could you possibly get some to test? This would be really cool to use as it is blue. Wow! Blue oil! How cool would that be?
Click to expand...

I guess I had never heard of it till now.
It is certainly one of the more expensive oils. I will get a quart.

And yes, the Motul makes a fine French roast.
 
So Jim, I guess I am putting you on the spot to ask this, but do you think there is some obvious relationship between "film strength" as a desired quality in an oil, and the use of "additive packages"?

Do they have inverse qualities in such a way that maybe having less film strength promotes greater flow of oil, but yields less protection to moving metal parts, and so petro engineers use additives to enhance metal protection without just using thicker oil?

I'm trying to see the logic in why these 2 things don't "add up" when you put them together. That seems to mean they have qualities that counteract each other at some point...
 
o0norton0o said:
So Jim, I guess I am putting you on the spot to ask this, but do you think there is some obvious relationship between "film strength" as a desired quality in an oil, and the use of "additive packages"?

Do they have inverse qualities in such a way that maybe having less film strength promotes greater flow of oil, but yields less protection to moving metal parts, and so petro engineers use additives to enhance metal protection without just using thicker oil?

I'm trying to see the logic in why these 2 things don't "add up" when you put them together. That seems to mean they have qualities that counteract each other at some point...
Click to expand...

High film strength is a necessary oil quality for old engines with pushrods because they must use high valve spring pressures. Air cooled engines with sliding contact followers add to the need for a tough, high temp oil.

Modern engine designs do not need the high film strength, so oils today are concentrating on low friction to promote fuel economy and power.

>>There is certainly a trade-off. Most low friction additives and detergents tend to reduce the effects of the extreme pressure additives. <<

For a Norton motor acceptable load capacity at high temps is a must.

Low friction is a nice thing to have and it does reduce the need for high film strength somewhat because cooler oil naturally has higher load capacity than hot oil.

For best results you need to pick an oil with the right balance of additives for the operating conditions.

We are working on lists that will help decide which oils suit your use.

IE -the highest load capacity is not always the best answer if the heat from friction causes the engine and oil temperature to get too high.

So for a stock engine, an oil with moderate film strength and low friction would be best.

A tuned engine with high valve spring pressures and high rpm is going to need a higher load capacity so sometimes it will be necessary to trade off some low friction ability for high load capacity.

I have been seeing some great oils with both low friction and high load capacity. These will undoubtedly give the most protection for hard use.

Unfortunately the base oils and additive packages that give an oil this quality do not come cheap.
[but then if you plan on using your Norton hard -cams and other parts are not cheap either]
 
Last edited:
____________________________________________________________________
Spectro_Heavy_Duty_Motorcycle_20W50_Conventional
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

243 Lbs Load
4.32 total heat from friction
3.431 heat from Viscous friction
3.22 heat from high pressure shear
Safe for wet clutches

Load capacity is good for a Norton but the heat from friction is very high.
Best for cool temperatures.

If you prefer a conventional oil for break in, then this could be a suitable choice.


____________________________________________________________________
Lucas_Motorcycle_20W50_Synthetic
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

151 Lbs load
6.52 total heat from friction
4.538 heat from viscous friction
5.49 heat from high pressure shear
Safe for clutch
OK for water cooled OHC engines
Too much heat for the load capacity means
I would NOT recommend this oil in a Norton
 
Last edited:
Next I tested two aircraft oils.
The Aeroshell 80W Plus failed before the datalog could start
The Aeroshell W100 Plus did slightly better

__________________________________________________
Aeroshell_W100_Plus
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

96lbs load
No other data.
Failed 1 minute and 4 seconds into the test with 100 degree oil temp.

I now have a lifetime supply of cabinet hinge oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top