san diego tech day

[Jake Wilson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Saline wrote:

> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:16:43 -0800 Blake Sobiloff > writes: > > SNIP > > > Now, for extra credit, what are the viscosities in cSt at 100 dC

of

> > 90- > > weight gear oil and 40-weight motor oil? > > -- > > Blake Sobiloff > > http://www.sobiloff.com/> > > San Jose, CA (USA) > <><><><><><> > <><><><><><> > > Blake, > > I'm gonna guess in public for the extra credit. : ) > > I'm guessing they are the same. No idea what the number will be

but I'm

> thinking they are very close. > > Anybody else want to remove doubt? : ) > > Best, > > Jeff Saline > ABC # 4412 South Dakota Airmarshal > Airheads Beemer Club www.airheads.org > The Beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota > 75 R90/6, 03 KLR650, 79 R100RT >

~~~My understanding is 80 weight gear oil is equivelant to straight 30 weight ND motor oil. Either oil is what Piaggio has recommneded for years in their geared metal bodied scooters many scooterists here in the states* run straight 30 weight motor oil in their geared transmissions w/o pitting gear faces but it's a straight 30 weight oil and not a blend like 10/30 *~~~I run 90 weight gear oil in mine, it's easier to find (I buy it by the gallon at NAPA) and is spec'd in final drives for all scooter CVT trannies Jake Reddick Fla.

[Jake Wilson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "James Morrow Sr" wrote:

> > Has anyone done a shear test with synthetic, MOBIL 1 20W-50 > >

~~~~Yep!, read this http://www.renewaters.ca/ducati/oil.html But this report goes beyond judging whether or not the oil is worn out due to shear by measuring oil viscosity retention. Shearing is only one aspect that will break down a motor oil's viscosity retention and NOT the over riding factor Jake Reddick Fla.

> > > On 2/1/08, Mike wrote: > > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com

40yahoogroups.com>, Blake

> > Sobiloff wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Michael Martin wrote: > > > > SAE 40-wt motor oil: 12.5 to less than 16.3 cSt > > > > > > > > SAE 90-wt gear oil: 13.8 to > > > > > > > So there's an overlap in the ranges. > > > > > > > > > Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! (Jeff, you get

a gold

> > > star but no extra credit. > > > > > > The point is that gear oil, which is what most manual

transmissions

> > > use, is as thick as a thick 40-weight or a thin 50-weight motor

oil.

> > > Our KLRs, like most other motorcycles with an engine and

transmission

> > > that share the same sump, require either a 40-weight or 50-

weight oil

> > > per the owner's manual. This is to ensure that the transmission

gears

> > > have adequate viscosity to avoid pitting the gear faces. > > > > > > This is also why I don't like it when my motor oil shears down

to a

> > > thick 30-weight, or even a thin 40-weight. > > > > > > As Paul Harvey says, "...and now you know the rest of the

story."

> > > -- > > > Blake Sobiloff > > > http://www.sobiloff.com/> > > > San Jose, CA (USA) > > > > > Blake, > > > > I've recently sent a sample off for testing. I have the results of > > another test of a "premium" 20-50 motorcycle specific oil with

about

> > 2200 miles on it. It was sheared down about 25 percent in that

time.

> > The rider isn't a guy that abuses his engine. IMO the bottom line

is

> > to change sooner rather than later. > > > > all the best, > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > -- > James Morrow Sr > Union, MO > '00' RT + dual plug + Bunkhouse > '00' BUSA + 15hp > '05' KLR650 + big fun factor > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >

[Jake Wilson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote: Me? I change my ATF and gear oils every 30K. Most of the > shop folks I've talked with say they usually see cars junked because > the transmission goes, not because the engine gets tired. ~~~That's my change interval as well (cages). i've never had an auto tranny go out with this change interval Jake Reddick Fla.

[ckahleer]

> > ~~~~Yep!, read this http://www.renewaters.ca/ducati/oil.html But > this report goes beyond judging whether or not the oil is worn out > due to shear by measuring oil viscosity retention. Shearing is only > one aspect that will break down a motor oil's viscosity retention and > NOT the over riding factor > > > > > > Jake > Reddick Fla. > >

To bad there were not more test point. If you take the average of the three points tested, Viscosity decreases by 30% between 0 and 800 miles, than only another 4% from 800 - 1500 miles. While it is not possible to plot an accurate viscosity / milage graph with only the three points tested, it appears most of the viscosity loss is happening well before 800 miles, and after that viscosity does not change much. If that is the case, the person changing his oil at 1,500 mile intrevals is not benefiting much over someone changing oil at the manufactures recomended 6,000 mile intervals. Craig Kahler Fredericksburg, VA

[Ed Dobson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "ckahleer" wrote:

> > > > > ~~~~Yep!, read this http://www.renewaters.ca/ducati/oil.html But > > this report goes beyond judging whether or not the oil is worn out > > due to shear by measuring oil viscosity retention. Shearing is only > > one aspect that will break down a motor oil's viscosity retention and > > NOT the over riding factor > > > > > > > > > > > > Jake > > Reddick Fla. > > > > > To bad there were not more test point. If you take the average of the > three points tested, Viscosity decreases by 30% between 0 and 800 > miles, than only another 4% from 800 - 1500 miles. While it is not > possible to plot an accurate viscosity / milage graph with only the > three points tested, it appears most of the viscosity loss is happening > well before 800 miles, and after that viscosity does not change much. > If that is the case, the person changing his oil at 1,500 mile > intrevals is not benefiting much over someone changing oil at the > manufactures recomended 6,000 mile intervals. > > Craig Kahler > Fredericksburg, VA >

More data points are needed. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6K. Are the conclusions regarding viscosity from the '96 SAE report being misconstrued/misapplied? ED(still perplexed)

[Blake Sobiloff]

On Feb 2, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Ed Dobson wrote:

> Are the conclusions regarding viscosity from the '96 SAE report being > misconstrued/misapplied?

Umm, no. While viscosity loss (and wear trace metal levels) do have a non- linear pattern to them, the conclusions are still valid: Your transmission wants a thick 40-weight (or thicker) oil. Different oils in different applications will have different rates, but the information from Jeff, Rev., myself and others on the KLR are as apples-to-apples as you're going to get without doing your own tests. Yes, there are other factors beyond just viscosity (like the KLR's poor oil filtration system failing to effectively deal with clutch debris, and the air filter's frequently poor filtration), but the viscosity issue is the first critical one. If there were no viscosity loss we could easily double the OCI (to 3,000 miles) before hitting serious levels of debris in the oil. -- Blake Sobiloff http://www.sobiloff.com/> San Jose, CA (USA)

[Jeff Saline]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:47:10 -0800 Blake Sobiloff writes: SNIP SNIP SNIP If there were no viscosity loss we could easily double the OCI (to 3,000 miles) before hitting serious levels of debris in the oil. -- Blake Sobiloff http://www.sobiloff.com/> San Jose, CA (USA) <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><> Blake, Well said! My wild guess is we could triple it or more. Best, Jeff Saline ABC # 4412 South Dakota Airmarshal Airheads Beemer Club www.airheads.org The Beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota 75 R90/6, 03 KLR650, 79 R100RT

[Ed Dobson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote:

> > On Feb 2, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Ed Dobson wrote: > > Are the conclusions regarding viscosity from the '96 SAE report being > > misconstrued/misapplied? > > > Umm, no. > > While viscosity loss (and wear trace metal levels) do have a non- > linear pattern to them, the conclusions are still valid: Your > transmission wants a thick 40-weight (or thicker) oil. Different oils > in different applications will have different rates, but the > information from Jeff, Rev., myself and others on the KLR are as > apples-to-apples as you're going to get without doing your own tests. > > Yes, there are other factors beyond just viscosity (like the KLR's > poor oil filtration system failing to effectively deal with clutch > debris, and the air filter's frequently poor filtration), but the > viscosity issue is the first critical one. If there were no viscosity > loss we could easily double the OCI (to 3,000 miles) before hitting > serious levels of debris in the oil. > -- > Blake Sobiloff > http://www.sobiloff.com/> > San Jose, CA (USA) >

Respectfully, I think they are. I think you need to do further research of *technical publications*. Telling owners they "need" to change their oil at 1.5K when they may not is not a trivial thing. Besides, I'm sure there are many thrifty and non-obsessive KLR650 owners out there who would like to change their oil less often. Thats my position and I'm waiting to be *proven* wrong. ED

[Blake Sobiloff]

On Feb 3, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Ed Dobson wrote:

> Respectfully, I think they are. I think you need to do further > research of *technical publications*. Telling owners they "need" to > change their oil at 1.5K when they may not is not a trivial thing.

Why would I want to rely on generic results when I've done the actual science on my actual vehicle, using my actual oils, in my actual use pattern? It doesn't get more specific or relevant than that. I pay $60 a pop to have an independent tribologist analyze my UOAs, so I'm not relying on my layman's understanding of the science, either. This fellow (Terry Dyson) makes his living providing guidance to the oil and additive manufacturers on how they can improve the performance of their products, so he has an incredibly deep understanding of the factors in play--much more so than will ever appear in technical publications, since much of it is proprietary and confidential.

> Besides, I'm sure there are many thrifty and non-obsessive KLR650 > owners out there who would like to change their oil less often. Thats > my position and I'm waiting to be *proven* wrong.

Ed, you and everyone else are free to come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I'm just sharing the science and results that I personally find interesting. All my raw data is posted either here or over at bobistheoilguy.com, so folks are free to look at my data and come to their own conclusions. (Or, even better, do your own testing on your own KLR.) I'd like to change my oil less frequently as well--I'd much rather be riding than wrenching--and that's how my entire interest in oil got started. I wanted to see how far I could push the oil before it really needed changing, instead of relying on generic advice from the manufacturer. Imagine my surprise when I (and others) found out how hard the KLR is on its oil. So, if I'm not persuasive then please feel free to pick your own OCIs-- I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, but merely offering my advice when solicited. -- Blake Sobiloff http://www.sobiloff.com/> San Jose, CA (USA)

[Ed Dobson]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote:

> > On Feb 3, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Ed Dobson wrote: > > Respectfully, I think they are. I think you need to do further > > research of *technical publications*. Telling owners they "need" to > > change their oil at 1.5K when they may not is not a trivial thing. > > Why would I want to rely on generic results when I've done the actual > science on my actual vehicle, using my actual oils, in my actual use > pattern? It doesn't get more specific or relevant than that. I pay > $60 a pop to have an independent tribologist analyze my UOAs, so I'm > not relying on my layman's understanding of the science, either. This > fellow (Terry Dyson) makes his living providing guidance to the oil > and additive manufacturers on how they can improve the performance of > their products, so he has an incredibly deep understanding of the > factors in play--much more so than will ever appear in technical > publications, since much of it is proprietary and confidential. > > > Besides, I'm sure there are many thrifty and non-obsessive KLR650 > > owners out there who would like to change their oil less often. Thats > > my position and I'm waiting to be *proven* wrong. > > > Ed, you and everyone else are free to come to your own conclusions. > I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, I'm just sharing the science and > results that I personally find interesting. All my raw data is posted > either here or over at bobistheoilguy.com, so folks are free to look > at my data and come to their own conclusions. (Or, even better, do > your own testing on your own KLR.) > > I'd like to change my oil less frequently as well--I'd much rather be > riding than wrenching--and that's how my entire interest in oil got > started. I wanted to see how far I could push the oil before it > really needed changing, instead of relying on generic advice from the > manufacturer. Imagine my surprise when I (and others) found out how > hard the KLR is on its oil. > > So, if I'm not persuasive then please feel free to pick your own OCIs-- > I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything, but merely offering my > advice when solicited. > -- > Blake Sobiloff > http://www.sobiloff.com/> > San Jose, CA (USA) >

I think you're incorrectly using 10W-30 viscosity as your failure criterion based on a misinterpretation the '96 SAE report. Run your oil out to 6K with tests every 1K and I'm guessing you'll be surprised at the results. ED