How to test oil properly.

[Meehan Race Engines]

I'm sure this will bring out everyone's opinions and everyone is entitled to them.
Driven Racing Oil have just brought out their latest tech bulletin titled "Don't Fall For Shady Oil Testing"
Here is the link to this article ;-

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro ... l-testing/

[n5ifi]

I've seen it before.
That why the oil expert that used to be here never impressed me much.

[lada ok]

It's all smoke & mirrors

[Kevin Johnson]

I'm sure this will bring out everyone's opinions and everyone is entitled to them.
Driven Racing Oil have just brought out their latest tech bulletin titled "Don't Fall For Shady Oil Testing"
Here is the link to this article ;-

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro ... l-testing/

Yes, but in fact there are standard tests performed by this type of machine.

http://www.falex.com/pdf/FalexTimken.pdf
http://www.ins-tribo.com/PDF/12_Timken.pdf

If a company or person is intent on deceiving you there is little you can do besides attempting to replicate the data using controls and judging the veracity accordingly. Notice that the interpretation of raw data is a completely separate issue. Good researchers need to be able to filter opinions out effectively.

Many people criticized Rick's opinions of what the meaning of the data was with respect to engine wear or protection. That's wonderful and science depends on that.

However, not one person attempted to replicate the data -- ANY of the data -- using a standard certified machine. Not one.

It is not like the data was hidden, rather people were upset that somehow they were forced to read it.

It is a hell of a lot of work to do on your own dime, correct?

The data is still out there. Prove him wrong.

[BlackoutSteve]

"How to test oil properly."

Well?
All I found what how to not test oil properly..

[Cubic_Cleveland]

However, not one person attempted to replicate the data -- ANY of the data -- using a standard certified machine. Not one.

It is not like the data was hidden, rather people were upset that somehow they were forced to read it.

Pretty hard to replicate the data when he wont tell us the test procedure, or show us the test apparatus...

[Kevin Johnson]

Choose a set of parameters: temp; loading rate; load. Rank the scar data. Reject or confirm his ranking hypothesis, i.e. his relative pressure ratings. Pretty straight forward.

[Lenni AMC]

This subject always makes me laugh, when it comes up on speedtalk
I don´t claim to be an oil expert, but what I find funny is when some people test oils and get ridiculed for it, but okay lets say that´s not the proper way to test motor oils, Fine

Then at least one of you guys should be able to show us a study or test that we can take seriously.
If not. Then these film strength tests are the only test we can use to make an educated guess on what oils we should use,

Also another thing, remember not trying to be an expert but. Are you guys saying that film strength has nothing to do with how good an oil is ?
I find that hard to believe.
The film strength of the oil being used has to play a role in there somewhere, a big part perhaps.

Of course Gear Oils beat Motor oils on film strength, That´s what they are designed to do but that does not proof anything to me. Although a gear oil has better load capacity that does not mean that it has nothing to do with motor oils.

Please show us the proper way of testing motor oils, don´t just be nay sayers,
We are sending people to Mars, we should be able to make a test that can test how good our MOTOR oils are.

This guy is not good at his job ( My opinion )

A PhD chemist that headed Research & Development for ExxonMobil Chemical once said that, “the only test for an engine oil is an engine.”

Give me a break !

Then the article goes on by saying Motor-oils mixes with water when being used in a engine, that´s true then we can mix the oil we are testing with some water, acid what ever you like and see what effect it has on the load carrying ability

Or maybe I´m just a dumb ass,

Also there is 5 things Motor oils are designed to do ( not very complicated but somehow people seem to talk like they are one of the wonders of the universe that no human can understand )
1. Lubricate
2. Clean
3. Cool
4. Keep the rubber and seals soft so they can keep on sealing
5. Work against acid that the engine produces when the fuel burns, and keep the PH-level on a acceptable level so it doesen´t corrodes the internal parts in the engine

That´s it. These are the goals that we are looking for. How on earth can´t we test for these things ?

Remember not claiming to be an expert, just trying to think for my self and logically

[Warp Speed]

Also there is 5 things Motor oils are designed to do ( not very complicated but somehow people seem to talk like they are one of the wonders of the universe that no human can understand )
1. Lubricate
2. Clean
3. Cool
4. Keep the rubber and seals soft so they can keep on sealing
5. Work against acid that the engine produces when the fuel burns, and keep the PH-level on a acceptable level so it doesen´t corrodes the internal parts in the engine

That´s it. These are the goals that we are looking for. How on earth can´t we test for these things ?

Remember not claiming to be an expert, just trying to think for my self and logically

We can, and people do, all day every day. But in running engines, not the wear testing rigs in question!
Buy what you want, and believe what you want. But the quote you took from the article is correct, as is the rest!

[Pappy]

Kevin's link to the Falex test apparatus is the type of thing we need to see. Is this what Rat used and what were the details as to his procedures? We have some but not all. Then someone else can attempt to duplicate his results. I've seen versions of this apparatus used where the weights were plopped down on top of each other instead of the steady progressive load this machine does. I've also seen the angle of the lever arm changed to decrease the leverage, while setting the weights down very gently, when the test sponsor's oil was being tested. I don't think Rat had an agenda and even admitted his favorite oil didn't perform well on his test, so he appears to have been as objective as he could be. But we cannot know enough about his methods to duplicate his test. I also think a lot of the criticism is because his conclusions are based on this one single criteria of film strength and one single test to evaluate it. The falex test is one of many to evaluate motor oils. In a running engine resistance to foaming, corrosion, acids, etc. must be considered as they all may affect film strength as well.
I really do commend his efforts and I believe he truly thought he had covered all aspects necessary to make his test scientifically valid. Unfortunately, this could be analogous to testing antibiotics in petri dishes, leaving out some important details of your methods and procedures, then ranking the antibiotics as the answer to health problems based on the assumption that germs are the only significant cause of disease.

[stokerboats]

I'm sure this will bring out everyone's opinions and everyone is entitled to them.
Driven Racing Oil have just brought out their latest tech bulletin titled "Don't Fall For Shady Oil Testing"
Here is the link to this article ;-

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro ... l-testing/

Yes, but in fact there are standard tests performed by this type of machine.

http://www.falex.com/pdf/FalexTimken.pdf
http://www.ins-tribo.com/PDF/12_Timken.pdf

If a company or person is intent on deceiving you there is little you can do besides attempting to replicate the data using controls and judging the veracity accordingly. Notice that the interpretation of raw data is a completely separate issue. Good researchers need to be able to filter opinions out effectively.

Many people criticized Rick's opinions of what the meaning of the data was with respect to engine wear or protection. That's wonderful and science depends on that.

However, not one person attempted to replicate the data -- ANY of the data -- using a standard certified machine. Not one.

It is not like the data was hidden, rather people were upset that somehow they were forced to read it.

It is a hell of a lot of work to do on your own dime, correct?

The data is still out there. Prove him wrong.

Nobody is really that interested, they would rather just shoot the messenger than prove him wrong.

[stokerboats]

He has no desire to prove one oil over another and the results of his testing fall where they may. He does his best to mimic a real world engine which I'm unsure is possible on a test rig, I just don't know because of the gasses that enter the system but that said, his testing is done on clean oil where all is equal and his test procedure is repeated with great effort so as to be objective and as accurate as possible. Easy to jump on the wagon and bash but as said earlier "prove him wrong".

[sanfordandson]

He does his best to mimic a real world engine which I'm unsure is possible on a test rig

You nailed it right here. It is not possible!

His tests are a waste of his time.

[plovett]

I'm sure this will bring out everyone's opinions and everyone is entitled to them.

It is not like the data was hidden, rather people were upset that somehow they were forced to read it.

It is a hell of a lot of work to do on your own dime, correct?

The data is still out there. Prove him wrong.

Baloney. We don't even have enough information to evaluate the data. The test procedure has never been fully disclosed. A person can understand and state that, even if they haven't done their own testing. No doubt it was a hell of a lot of work. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. That's not the issue and has no bearing.

JMO,

paulie

[groberts101]

I've been privileged to know more than a few really bright minds throughout my lifetime and generally speaking, all have been broad minded/holistically smart enough to weigh.. ALL.. the available factors and variable involved in such a task as this one. They keep building and refining their knowledge base without just tossing everything they don't fully understand out into the proverbial trash dump.. to never be recovered if there ever come's a time when they might want to cross reference or take another look to see if they missed anything. I've talked to only a few about these testing procedures and most probably keep all this type of this "oil testing" stuff in their scrap piles for later use. Simply because they realize how often they have already needed, and will continue to require access to that pile to keep the learning process moving forward.

So, without actual firsthand testing knowledge and results?.. we rightly analyze ANY test data available, and in Kevin's case.. ever even produced, from wherever/whoever that info may come from, however fruitless it may prove to be on final analysis. To me, a closed mind and stagnated learning curve is far worse than maybe adding too much credibility to any one particular test result. I highly doubt any motors would become severely damaged from using either end of that lists oil spectrum.

Can I partially evaluate and use this data to better weigh variable, formulate an overview, and update my current opinion at this particular juncture?.. sure I can. Because wearing blinders isn't very scientific, now is it. Can I rely on it to the the extent that I would choose a "1st place oil" in that list to run in my $20,000 race engine?..