From OP: Re Previous Oil Question

On 09/09/2013 03:38 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote:
>> Forgot to mention - I did an oil change in a friend's motorcycle a
>> while back and I researched online to make sure I used the right
>> products, because while I know a bit about cars, motorcycles really
>> aren't my forte. Bike was a Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl,
>> "standard" bike) and the online consensus was that Rotella synthetic
>> was the right stuff to use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or
>> right, but a test ride afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode
>> exactly like it did before messing with it.
>
> Sure it was 600cc? I would expect most V-2 standard Zooks to be 650cc
> (SV650, Wee-Strom, Gladius, SFV650) while a 600cc would usually be a I-4
> sport-bike (GSX-R, Katana).
>
> While it is not guaranteed that a wet clutch will slip with a
> non-specified oil with "friction reducers", it makes it more likely,
> particularly at large throttle openings in the higher gears.
>

there are some super high-load automatic and semi-automatic
transmissions out there with wet clutches dude. and their lubricants
have some scary good friction modifiers. they don't slip unless their
clutches are worn.

bottom line, statements about wet clutch slippage could be on some
mighty thin ice.


--
fact check required

On 9/9/2013 8:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 03:38 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote:
>>> Forgot to mention - I did an oil change in a friend's motorcycle a
>>> while back and I researched online to make sure I used the right
>>> products, because while I know a bit about cars, motorcycles really
>>> aren't my forte. Bike was a Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl,
>>> "standard" bike) and the online consensus was that Rotella synthetic
>>> was the right stuff to use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or
>>> right, but a test ride afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode
>>> exactly like it did before messing with it.
>>
>> Sure it was 600cc? I would expect most V-2 standard Zooks to be 650cc
>> (SV650, Wee-Strom, Gladius, SFV650) while a 600cc would usually be a I-4
>> sport-bike (GSX-R, Katana).
>>
>> While it is not guaranteed that a wet clutch will slip with a
>> non-specified oil with "friction reducers", it makes it more likely,
>> particularly at large throttle openings in the higher gears.
>>
>
> there are some super high-load automatic and semi-automatic
> transmissions out there with wet clutches dude. and their lubricants
> have some scary good friction modifiers. they don't slip unless their
> clutches are worn.
>
Do they share oil with the engine like most motorcycles built in the
last 4 decades do?

> bottom line, statements about wet clutch slippage could be on some
> mighty thin ice.

Well, I am certainly not going to try it on any of my bikes, especially
those still under warranty. Automotive DCT does not equal motorcycle
wet clutch.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 09/09/2013 08:04 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/9/2013 8:46 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 03:38 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote:
>>>> Forgot to mention - I did an oil change in a friend's motorcycle a
>>>> while back and I researched online to make sure I used the right
>>>> products, because while I know a bit about cars, motorcycles really
>>>> aren't my forte. Bike was a Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl,
>>>> "standard" bike) and the online consensus was that Rotella synthetic
>>>> was the right stuff to use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or
>>>> right, but a test ride afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode
>>>> exactly like it did before messing with it.
>>>
>>> Sure it was 600cc? I would expect most V-2 standard Zooks to be 650cc
>>> (SV650, Wee-Strom, Gladius, SFV650) while a 600cc would usually be a I-4
>>> sport-bike (GSX-R, Katana).
>>>
>>> While it is not guaranteed that a wet clutch will slip with a
>>> non-specified oil with "friction reducers", it makes it more likely,
>>> particularly at large throttle openings in the higher gears.
>>>
>>
>> there are some super high-load automatic and semi-automatic
>> transmissions out there with wet clutches dude. and their lubricants
>> have some scary good friction modifiers. they don't slip unless their
>> clutches are worn.
>>
> Do they share oil with the engine like most motorcycles built in the
> last 4 decades do?

motor oils would make a clutch's job easier, not harder - they typically
don't contain the e.p. additives that transmissions need.


>
>> bottom line, statements about wet clutch slippage could be on some
>> mighty thin ice.
>
> Well, I am certainly not going to try it on any of my bikes, especially
> those still under warranty. Automotive DCT does not equal motorcycle
> wet clutch.
>


--
fact check required

>On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote:
> Forgot to mention - I did an oil change in a friend's motorcycle a while back and I researched online to make sure I used the right products, because while I know a bit about cars, motorcycles really aren't my forte. Bike was a Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl, "standard" bike) and the online consensus was that Rotella synthetic was the right stuff to use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or right, but a test ride afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode exactly like it did before messing with it.

Oil isn't supposed to make your engine run better. It's supposed to keep it
from running worse, years down the road.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

T0m $herman > wrote:
>>
>You can have your used oil analyzed for wear products to see how
>effectively it is working.

Sort of. One analysis really doesn't tell you anything. If you do an
analysis with every oil change starting with a new engine, you can mark
out a baseline and see how things are going very effectively.

About all one analysis will tell you is whether there is a catastrophic
problem with the oil, like the VIs are breaking down or the base oil is
breaking down or it's becoming clogged with particulates. You can probably
get that information elsewhere.

But running constant and regular analyses will tell you all kinds of things,
to the point where you can get some notion of changes in bearing wear and
you can tell when you're getting through the carburized layer on cams, etc.

The problem is that running constant and regular analyses is more
expensive than just replacing your engine every 100,000 miles, unless
you're running an aircraft or big marine engine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 09/10/2013 09:23 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote: Forgot to mention - I did an oil
>> change in a friend's motorcycle a while back and I researched
>> online to make sure I used the right products, because while I know
>> a bit about cars, motorcycles really aren't my forte. Bike was a
>> Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl, "standard" bike) and the
>> online consensus was that Rotella synthetic was the right stuff to
>> use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or right, but a test ride
>> afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode exactly like it did
>> before messing with it.
>
> Oil isn't supposed to make your engine run better. It's supposed to
> keep it from running worse, years down the road. --scott
>

Understood, that was in response to Tom's comment about Rotella T Synth
possibly not being suitable for common sump/wet clutch applications. I
actually initially assumed the same, but when I went online to research,
it was consistently in the top 2-3 recommendations and the clutch seemed
to work fine both before and after the oil change.

Oh, and Tom, you were right, the bike was actually a SV650. Couldn't
remember off the top of my head when I was posting before. Actually
liked the little thing, I could see myself riding one. My only
complaint is that the seat seemed awful high, I'm not a short guy and
yet I found I was on my tip-toes when trying to "walk" it back out of a
parking space, for example. Easier to just stand beside it and move it
that way, although it looks less cool. Well, that, and the styling
isn't my thing, but that's just personal preference.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 09/10/2013 06:23 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> On 9/9/2013 6:25 AM, N8N wrote:
>> Forgot to mention - I did an oil change in a friend's motorcycle a while back and I researched online to make sure I used the right products, because while I know a bit about cars, motorcycles really aren't my forte. Bike was a Suzuki something or other (600cc 2-cyl, "standard" bike) and the online consensus was that Rotella synthetic was the right stuff to use, so I did. Dunno if that was wrong or right, but a test ride afterwards was entirely underwhelming - it rode exactly like it did before messing with it.
>
> Oil isn't supposed to make your engine run better. It's supposed to keep it
> from running worse, years down the road.
> --scott
>

well, it couldn't run without it. and better oils do make for lower
friction.


--
fact check required

On 09/10/2013 06:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> T0m $herman > wrote:
>>>
>> You can have your used oil analyzed for wear products to see how
>> effectively it is working.
>
> Sort of. One analysis really doesn't tell you anything. If you do an
> analysis with every oil change starting with a new engine, you can mark
> out a baseline and see how things are going very effectively.
>
> About all one analysis will tell you is whether there is a catastrophic
> problem with the oil, like the VIs are breaking down or the base oil is
> breaking down or it's becoming clogged with particulates. You can probably
> get that information elsewhere.
>
> But running constant and regular analyses will tell you all kinds of things,
> to the point where you can get some notion of changes in bearing wear and
> you can tell when you're getting through the carburized layer on cams, etc.
>
> The problem is that running constant and regular analyses is more
> expensive than just replacing your engine every 100,000 miles, unless
> you're running an aircraft or big marine engine.
> --scott
>

depends on your objective. if you use analysis to determine your
optimum service interval, and that interval can be extended, analysis
can pay for itself. that's completely irrelevant for the recreational
oil changer crowd that haven't moved on since the 50's. but they're
much more into superstition than science.


--
fact check required

In article >, jim beam > wrote:
>
>depends on your objective. if you use analysis to determine your
>optimum service interval, and that interval can be extended, analysis
>can pay for itself. that's completely irrelevant for the recreational
>oil changer crowd that haven't moved on since the 50's. but they're
>much more into superstition than science.

On a car where you're paying, what, $25 and fifteen minutes for an oil change,
you need to be extending the interval a whole lot to save enough for oil
analyses.

On a tractor-trailer or a DC-3 it's a very different matter.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:


>
> On a car where you're paying, what, $25 and fifteen minutes for an oil
> change, you need to be extending the interval a whole lot to save
> enough for oil analyses.



Or you enjoy playing at tribologist, and find it thrilling throwing around
various obscure acronyms, like many denizens of BobIsTheOilGuy.com.


--
Tegger