Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
NortonMKIIA850 said:
+1 – as a fellow chemistry-Neanderthal, I've been focusing on that 'approved' vs 'not recommended' aspect. Misguidedly, perhaps, but it's the kind of thing I want to see. Although, I think Bruno's second and third categories overlap. On fast roads, I like to ride fast (legally, but often with a smidgen extra), but to get to the fast roads I have to spend a fair bit of time pottering slowly. Commandos were considered fast road bikes in their day, so I'd include 'fast road' with 'regular road use'. Track days belong with racing, IMHO. So I'd merge the middle two categories and tweak accordingly. YMMV, of course …
Click to expand...

Well, The only oils I am going to give a recommendation for, is going to be oils that I have had direct experience with. That will be in the comments section.

Beyond that I will add some comments that might help you choose, but without using the oil in an engine long enough to see the results, there are just too many variables to consider.
Variables, both in the oils, and in the engines and the type of usage they see.

That makes it hard to simply give a yes or no answer. Jim
 
comnoz said:
Well, The only oils I am going to give a recommendation for, is going to be oils that I have had direct experience with. That will be in the comments section.

Beyond that I will add some comments that might help you choose, but without using the oil in an engine long enough to see the results, there are just too many variables to consider.
Variables, both in the oils, and in the engines and the type of usage they see.

That makes it hard to simply give a yes or no answer. Jim
Click to expand...
Yes, I get that – you're doing quite enough as it is, and I thank you.
 
Donation sent Jim. Thanks for all the effort you're putting in. I could post some Morris V Twin 20/50 over to you if you would like to test it. I've been using it for quite a few years now with no apparent problems.
Martyn.
 
Matchless said:
Donation sent Jim. Thanks for all the effort you're putting in. I could post some Morris V Twin 20/50 over to you if you would like to test it. I've been using it for quite a few years now with no apparent problems.
Martyn.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I would guess the Morris oil is pretty good but I have never even seen any. If you would like to see the results, I will be glad to test it. jim
 
Two more oils

___________________________________________________________
Penrite_HPR30_20W50
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

140 lbs load
No data for heat from high pressure shear
4.04 heat from friction

Probably OK but I would like to see a little higher load and a little less heat in a Norton

_________________________________________________________
Ravenol_RHV_20W60
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

137 lbs load
No data for heat from high pressure shear
.001 heat from friction
Very low friction and heat.

Really lost it's load capacity as the temp went up.
Best used in a water cooled engine.
Not compatible with a wet clutch.
 
Last edited:
NortonMKIIA850 said:
.............. Track days belong with racing, IMHO. So I'd merge the middle two categories and tweak accordingly. YMMV, of course …
Click to expand...

I would agree with this. My track day/test day riding is noticeably easier on the brakes than racing, but nothing else!
 
Home mixed oils, could work well....I like the economics too, 4/5ths of the moderately expensive stuff to 1/5th of the really expensive stuff! and two race meetings!
 
Here are the results of Frank's Mystery Oil
__________________________________________________________________
Micron_Moly®_Racing_Oil_20W50
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

193 lbs Load
2.21 heat from high pressure shear
3.126 heat from friction

Not good for wet clutch
This will work in a Norton
 
Last edited:
comnoz said:
The testing machine is now thoroughly tested and all steps are PLC controlled so everything is accurate and repeatable.
hes

__________________________________________________________
Royal_Purple_XPR_20W50
View attachment 6785 137 lbs load
322 degree follower temp
.036 heat from friction
Very low friction
Not OK for wet clutches

_________________________________________________________
Amzoil_20W50_Motorcycle
View attachment 6779
132 lbs load
339.6 degree follower temp
1.08 heat from friction
low friction
Medium/low heat from friction
OK for wet clutch

__________________________________________________________
Castrol_GTX_20W50_API-SN
View attachment 6780
257 lbs load
395.1 degree follower temp
7.87 heat from friction
Medium/high friction
High heat from friction


More coming up soon.[/QUOTE

Jim, was the Amsoil their vtwin formulation?
Click to expand...
 
comnoz said:
Here are the results of Frank's Mystery Oil

???????????????????????????????????????????????????
___________________________________________________________


So I will make a guess.
The bottle tells me it's Shaeffer's.
The viscosity meter tells me it's straight 50 wt.
The friction meter indicates it's likely synthetic, probably 7000 series?
How did I do?
Click to expand...


It's obviously schaeffer from the container, but it's the
Micron Moly® Racing Oil 20W-50

Here's the spec sheet link for it.

http://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/70-191-td.pdf

The reasons I chose that oil for you to test where;
1)it wasn't a straight weight oil. I felt 20-50 would flow better for cold start ups and give more engine protection sooner. (do you think that's a myth??)
2) It's designation as a racing oil, and the associated text about their proprietary additives.
3) it's high zinc and Phosphorus content
Zinc Content. ppm 1800-2100
Phosphorous Content, ppm 1700-1850

So far, I haven't seen an oil with that much zinc/phos added to it, so I thought it would be an interesting test to see if those high numbers alone made it test better.

As far as my bike goes, I ordered the Schaeffers oil and swapped out the VR1 which was 20-50 in the blue label container (The VR1 didn't seem to be synthetic oil) in my bike. My bike with the Schaeffer's seemed noticably quieter to me than the bike with VR1 in it. I naturally assumed that less noise is probably less impact. I have a case of it @ $11. per quart so it's not cheap oil. I will definately use it up. I could also use it in my turtle (69 ford) which has no catalytic converter on it too, but what a waste of expensive oil that would be....

Thanks Jim, I appreciate your work.

*One of the interesting things about the micron moly is that it's specified for alcohol based fuels because it's resistant to mixing with those fuels.
 
Last edited:
o0norton0o said:
It's obviously schaeffer from the container, but it's the
Micron Moly® Racing Oil 20W-50

Here's the spec sheet link for it.

http://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/70-191-td.pdf

The reasons I chose that oil for you to test where;
1)it wasn't a straight weight oil. I felt 20-50 would flow better for cold start ups and give more engine protection sooner. (do you think that's a myth??)
2) It's designation as a racing oil, and the associated text about their proprietary additives.
3) it's high zinc and Phosphorus content
Zinc Content. ppm 1800-2100
Phosphorous Content, ppm 1700-1850

So far, I haven't seen an oil with that much zinc/phos added to it, so I thought it would be an interesting test to see if those high numbers alone made it test better.

As far as my bike goes, I ordered the Schaeffers oil and swapped out the VR1 which was 20-50 in the blue label container (The VR1 didn't seem to be synthetic oil) in my bike. My bike with the Schaeffer's seemed noticably quieter to me than the bike with VR1 in it. I naturally assumed that less noise is probably less impact. I have a case of it @ $11. per quart so it's not cheap oil. I will definately use it up. I could also use it in my turtle (69 ford) which has no catalytic converter on it too, but what a waste of expensive oil that would be....

Thanks Jim, I appreciate your work.

*One of the interesting things about the micron moly is that it's specified for alcohol based fuels because it's resistant to mixing with those fuels.
Click to expand...

I think the Shaeffer's will make a good oil in your Norton.
Your oil definitely tests higher than other Shaeffer's oils I have tested and is a good step up from VR1.

I am a bit surprised to find it is a multi-weight. My tester shows it is considerably thicker than most 20W50's both at high and low temps.
 
Last edited:
mdt-son said:
Jim, I tried to do some reverse calculatioan. 150 lbf at the follower would resemble the load of a racing inlet spring and the lift of a full-race cam, right?
My calculation shows that static pressure on the lobe assuming a standard inlet spring and std. camshaft amounts to 105 lbf. That's static load only.

I am curious to see the results of your hot oil test. Maybe you should heat to 220 'F.

-Knut
Click to expand...

comnoz said:
I don't think there is much comparison between the load of my tester and the follower load in an engine. The follower load in an engine is going to be considerably higher than 150lb at peak lift and is going to have inertia load added that may be several times the spring pressure.
The advantage seen in an engine is the load point moves and is spread across the face of the follower so it can handle more pressure.
Click to expand...
Throughout this oil/scar topic the subject of force has cropped up several times with respect to the force used in the test protocol and how this might compare to reality. I believe I can add a bit of information in this regard from some old cam-related calculations done several years ago.

To begin I want to comment on the current test. I believe the test being conducted presently is an exemplary piece of work that was arrived at through iterative experimentation where shortcomings were duly noted, design corrections made, test conditions modified appropriately, software and data acquisition improvements occurred continuously, resulting in a consistent means of critically evaluating oil performance. Hats off to the crazy guy that did all that.

The single bit of information offered here relates to lifter/cam force from a stock Commando cam and valve train, and since that is the most commonly found valve train in a Commando (that seems to do a pretty good job of chewing up quite a variety of cam/lifter related parts), thought this was a reasonable starting point. The highest force encountered at the lifter/cam interface occurs early in the valve lift cycle as the contact transitions from the constant velocity ramp to the flank of the cam, where the spring force is relatively low (just off the seat) and the inertial force is at a maximum and adds to the spring force. The inertial force of course changes with engine speed (spring force is ideally independent of engine speed), becoming larger with increasing rpm. In this example the following forces would be present.

Engine speed – 7000 rpm
Spring force ~ 100 lb
Inertial force maximum ~ 200 lb
Rocker ratio – 1.13
Force at lifter/cam interface – 339 lb [(100+200)*1.13]

The above information suggests that the test forces presently used are not somewhere out in left field, but rather in the correct ballpark. Recent reports here have shown oils dying at very low forces and some surviving beyond 500 lb force, so we’re certainly seeing oil performance across a broad spectrum of force.

As noted at the outset, this is a single data point to provide a feel for the lay of the land and is the gentlest we’ll be treating a cam in our Commandos. With more aggressive cam grinds and more engine rpm things get progressively harsher on the cam/lifter interface. However, this does not mean that any cam with longer duration is harsher, in fact all other things being equal, adding only more duration moderates the valve action resulting in gentler valve motion and in turn lower forces at the lifter/cam interface.

One more thing I’d hope would happen here is that Snotzo might look in and either bless the above numbers (then we’d know they’re real) or blow them out of the water as fake news. I’m quite certain that blindfolded with half his brain tied behind his back he could quickly make a determination regarding the correctness or otherwise of the subject forces.
 
Last edited:
oOnortonOo said "So far, I haven't seen an oil with that much zinc/phos added to it, so I thought it would be an interesting test to see if those high numbers alone made it test better."

I believe the Redline has even higher zddp at around 2200 ppm. It tested near the bottom or at bottom so far for film strength, 119lbs.
So much for high concentrations of ZDDP making for tough oil!
I guess it's not that simple.
 
Jim said "Your oil definitely tests higher than other Shaeffer's oils I have tested and is a good step up from VR1."

Looks like VR1 is in 5th place ( not including blends) for film strength at 205lbs, behind MPT, Driven,Castrol GTX and Belray.

So the Shaeffers is a little lower friction but also has a little lower film strength than VR1.
Yes, I do have a fair bit of VR1 to use up!:)
For film strength alone, it is ahead of some pretty high falutin oils.
Will have some oil analysis done with the VR1 before switching to the Belray or whatever comes out as a good choice.
It will be interesting to compare oil analysis later with the better oil vs VR1.

Glen
 
Last edited:
worntorn said:
oOnortonOo said "So far, I haven't seen an oil with that much zinc/phos added to it, so I thought it would be an interesting test to see if those high numbers alone made it test better."

I believe the Redline has even higher zddp at around 2200 ppm. It tested near the bottom or at bottom so far for film strength, 119lbs.
So much for high concentrations of ZDDP making for tough oil!
I guess it's not that simple.
Click to expand...

As noted previously, ZDDP refers to myriad compounds, and it is more likely the specific ZDDP molecule(s) employed, rather than how much ZDDP is employed that is important. MPT Motorcycle oils have a boat load of ZDDP in them and some had tested well in the earlier rounds of Comnoz’ testing. Haven’t seen them show up yet in the present round of testing.


Follower scar oil tests (2018)
 
The MPT on Jerry's list shows 216 lbs and low friction.
One other consideration, Valvoline says that very high levels of zinc in oil are corrosive to the engine.
I am reminded of an old babbet bearing car engine I encountered. It had sat for many years in detergent oil and the babbet was nearly dissolved. Babbet bearings are best run in mineral oil, someone ignored that.

If a very high zinc level is corrosive, is it a good choice for engines that generally sit unused for six months of the year? Seems this could be setting up an ideal state for a little electrolytic action.
The VR1 managed almost the same film strength with about 1300 zddp as the MPT did with about 2500ppm.

Glen
 
Last edited:
worntorn said:
Jim said "Your oil definitely tests higher than other Shaeffer's oils I have tested and is a good step up from VR1."

Looks like VR1 is in 4th place ( not including blends) for film strength at 205lbs, behind MPT, Castrol GTX and Belray.

So the Shaeffers is a little lower friction but also has a little lower film strength than VR1.
Yes, I do have a fair bit of VR1 to use up!:)
For film strength alone, it is ahead of some pretty high falutin oils.
Will have some oil analysis done with the VR1 before switching to the Belray or whatever comes out as a good choice.
It will be interesting to compare oil analysis later with the better oil vs VR1.

Glen
Click to expand...

I guess I should have clarified it. Frank was using VR1 in the blue jug. That would be VR1 synthetic.
It had decent friction but pathetic load capacity as I recall. Obviously made for a newer engine.

One more thing to keep in mind. The higher friction oils create more heat, particularly right at the point of pressure. This extra heat will reduce the viscosity and the load capacity.

So any oil that has higher friction will need more load capacity to stay even with a lower friction oil. Some of that is going to be compensated for in my test rig but not all of it.

There are a lot of variations in ZDDP's and the base stocks they are used with.
I would not be concerned with the talk of corrosion or wear problems with high advertised ZDDP numbers.

Advertisers are going to talk them up, regulations and bean counters are going to hold them down, but in the end the engineers are likely to put together a package that will at least satisfy the minimum requirements of it's intended purpose.

Unfortunately the intended purpose of most mainstream lubricants today is not going to satisfy the needs a an old aircooled, pushrod motor. [zddp or not]

That leaves us with oils designed meet the Harley specs. [notice how most of the v-twin specific oils have similar test results]

Or some of the racing/high performance oils.
Unfortunately many of these seem to have been "upgraded" to low friction formulas without concern for the high temperature load capacities needed by a Norton that is being used hard.
 
Last edited:
DevonNorton said:
Hello All
Just for info samples of these UK/Euro oils will be winging their way to Jim over the next couple of weeks for testing:
  1. Total/elf Moto 4 Race 10w-60 API SN fully synthetic.
  2. Millers Classic Sport High Performance 20w-50 (described as full ZDDP) API SL/CF fully synthetic.
  3. Comma Classic 20w-50 (800 ppm ZDDP), oil requested by sponsor API SE CC Mineral based.
  4. Fuchs Silkolene Comp 4 20w-50, API SL synthetic ester based (semi-synthetic).
  5. Castrol Power 1 4T 20w-50 - API SJ Refers to ZDDP but no level available (probably semi synthetic). <<-differs from V-Twin
  6. Duckhams Q 20w-50 (has 1200 ppm ZDDP) API SJ/C Mineral based classic with good ZDDP.
  7. Fuchs Titan Pro S 10w-60. API SL, SJ & SH fully synthetic.
  8. Rock Oil Synthesis Motorcycle 10w-50. API SN fully synthetic.
If any UK/Europe based owners are interested or would like further details or to contribute please open a conversation with me.
Andy
Click to expand...

Andy,

Contribution sent. The 10W- oils could be interesting, I would be looking to use these in the winter at or around 0'C, if the sun shines and the roads are salted but dry, then I will ride.

Regards,
 
The Rotella T6 test results will be interesting to see.
A lot of sportbikers are running that one, for better or worse.

Glen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top