Wear test is Bu**shit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 жов 2018
- In this video I talk about the ASTM G77 test thta you've probably seen loads on UA-cam. Is it a good test? Well the title kinds gives it away - and the shit on the thumbnail. UA-cam censorship team to the rescue!
VIDEO SEARCH - the-workshop.net/
STICKERS here - www.redbubble.com/people/the-...
T-SHIRTS/MUGS/HOODIES -teespring.com/stores/the-work...
Thanks to all my patreon subscribers. If you wanna help out go here -
/ workshop
Paypal link -
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Join me on facebook if you wanna ask question, all bike/engine related questions are welcome -
/ pony.power.395 - Авто та транспорт
I've been watching Project Farm's videos with the his lubricity tester. He is an honest man with no sponsors and means the best for his viewers but you're right about this Matt. I'll ask him to watch this video and see if he would be interested in trying to make a lubricity tester that has an oil feed system. If you have any clever ideas on how to make one I'm sure he'd love to hear them! Great video as always Matt.
"I've been watching Project Farm's videos with the his lubricity tester. He is an honest man with no sponsors and means the best for his viewers but you're right about this Matt."
- I'm not slagging the dude off, I like some of his videos as well. There's just more to it than that.
@@dirtygarageguy I completely agree with you! I just commented on one of his videos asking him to check this video out and ask you for any tips or ideas on making an oil feed lubricity tester.
@@dirtygarageguy I did give Project Farm a heads up that you swear a lot too haha 😂😂😂 I have yet to hear him swear 😁
The oil cup underneath the wheel is a continuous oil feeding system, and this lubricity test is not meant to 100% replicate the actual engine cycle but is an accelerated simulation to test the anti-wear capabilities of different types of lubricants
I believe the test from Project Farm is valid
Snake oil is the slickest type
This is interesting...I'm a quality control chemist for one of the nation's largest manufacturers of lubricating grease - our customers include Shell, Castrol/BP, Valvoline, Amsoil, Lucas Oil, WD-40, and Chevron among others...I run 4 Ball Wear (ASTM D2266), Weld (ASTM D2783), LWI (ASTM D2783 also), Timken OK Load (ASTM D2509) frequently...they're not BS...they're reproducible tests that are well-accepted by the lubricant industry...in my career here, I've never heard of this ASTM G77...maybe there's a reason why I never heard of it LOL. Looks like it's more-so used for fluids however the ASTM tests I've mentioned above can all be used with fluids under the same ASTM Identifier (except Timken OK Load - for fluids it's ASTM D2782). Thanks for sharing!
"maybe there's a reason why I never heard of it LOL"
- Exactly
This takes me back 30 years or more to when I worked in the oil industry. There was a snake oil salesman was going around our commercial vehicle customers telling them that the lubricating oil we were supplying them was rubbish. To prove it he had a small machine which had three (I think it was three) ball-bearings in oil which were put under compressive force and then rotated very quickly using a handle. After about a minute the ball-bearings began to seize up as the oil began to turn to tar due to heat and pressure. He would then do it again using his snake oil. The set up would then go on till his arm ached. His catch phrase was 'what more can I say'. The Sales Director from the company I worked for had a standard approach to this. He would go out with an unlabeled container of oil and say to our customer that he had oil that would do the same job. The customer would normally say something like 'why don't you supply me' to which he would reply 'we do!' you buy EP90. He would then go through the explanation you have given and explain that EP gear oils are made to do a different job to engine oils. The Sales Director would then finish with his catch phrase ' how do you fancy putting gear oil in your engine?
Good video and explanation. Cough is not getting any better!
"when your oil pressure dies you've got all sorts of problems" I can confirm this is true. When the sump plug fell out as I was doing 70mph (honestly officer!) on a dual carriageway with a slight bend there were many problems! The main one being a well lubricated back tyre. Somehow I stayed upright and slithered onto the hard shoulder. Some thoughtless twat couldn't manage the most basic job, didn't own up or fix it and I could have died. Don't worry, the engine was unharmed.
The test is relative to cam lobes, piston/bores and many other areas of the engine. It is an intense test to show the boundary layer protection of the additives in the oil, eg zinc/boron. You could think of it as metal test strips for tensile testing and fatigue. Those strips are very small and the result can be multiplied for larger pieces.
Right...he conveniently forgets this..
What about The Super super super slippy mixture? Water will cool everything so even without oil pressure (hence there's water) there will be no heat!
szymon kaminski Then you change the water to evans, and your engine will run for ever
If I want to replicate the G77 test do I use physical weights or visual weights?
Richard Channing Neither, verbal weight is the only method.
Use a torque wrench...
Cam to valve buckets , cam to lifter, rocker to valve, timing chain to sprocket teeth, rings to cylinder, piston pin to piston and bearings on initial startup all have no oil pressure, and will wear significantly less with better film strength which is what is shown with this test.
Assuming equal viscosity and test weight between oils this is a great test for determining wear prevention.
Cool vid and I totally agree with you, but wouldn`t it beeing beneficial to use it as a friction reducer between lifters ,cam lobes and rocker arms on a small block chevy for example ?
Is that con.rod one that is drilled to feed oil to the small end? If so you could feed the oil through the con.rod so that you don't need to worry about a slip fitting to feed the oil into the rotating pin. You can also change the oil pressure to to see how pressure effects the amount of load that can be applied. If there is anything I can help with, let me know.
Confidence is silence they say. I use the tried and tested brands, went with Motul for the previous bike and running Castrol on my Triumph. Never had problems. Always been suspicious of loud marketing guys testing several "name brands" vs some obscure product on the telly.
sorry I'm late 3 years😅 but I want to say: the situation you mention "run out of oil" is not the only. Every cold start is the actual issue, and the most critical. it's proved that an oil preserving the engine in those 10 minutes is a life extender (especially in bad temperature or severe use case). regards
Agree but there is an additive called Omstar DX1 that is molecularly ‘adsorbed by chemisorption’ to solve that problem of morning dry-starts. 😊
Right ....this guys not thinking this thru at all. I couldn't care less about these advertisements but these G77 tests have validity.
Well said, let oil presure drop engine speed when oil reaches full preasure
About 10 second more if cold. This will save your engine from wear for years. Slow down and save.
Hmm how does the G77 test differ from a flat tappet on a cam? Or a non roller rocker tip on a valve stem? Given there is less load lbs. Probably harder steels. But the plow function you mention would still reduce the amount of oil available to a coating. Would a friction modifier coating not be beneficial here if not for wear but heat and parasitic friction?
Speaking of wear, im curious about fogging oil. It's supposed to be used for engines that have been sitting for awhile to provide the combustion chamber with a but of oil to prevent dry starts. How long does an engine have to sit for fogging oil to be useful at all? A few months? years? weeks?
That is not at all the function of a fogging oil.
seeing the old workshop is so nostalgic lol
I've always wondered about that test. It seemed too good to be true. Great video Matt, looking forward to your explanation with your tester
really interesting. Looking forward to your tester.
I've never used an oil additive in any vehicle I've ever owned, just changed oil regularly and gaskets immediately if they were leaking. I've also never owned a car that has not exceeded 300k miles or a bike over 150k miles. Additives needed? I think not.
Get it Matt, this is some great workshop content! 😎
Did u design a good way to test bearings...I been looking fir ideas ..for my oil and advertising it but I hate the wear test that people have like u first showed....hit me up plzzzz I am desperate for good ideas
They should make a test with a drill instead, if their oil can prevent a drill from cutting then I'm impressed. LOL!
I was wondering why the test was like it is it seems very out of normal scenario and also have you since made your new testing design and carried out test at all I couldn't see in your videos if an update of this .
How long will your tester produce results? The “BS” tester starts out with a very small contact area then as material wears out the contact area increases along with film strength of oil. It produces relative results quickly.
Sooooooo using the test for clp is actually kinda accurate ? Since we don’t have positive pressure oil feed in guns ?
Would this test be suited to the camshaft ? Asking as when it rotates, the lobes rub on top of the valve to push it down. Which kind of looks like this test, where there is metal on metal contact.
Also would this test be suited for 2 strokes ? Asking as there is no oil pressure to speak of, lubrication is as you say, fuckall on 2 strokes so there is generally more wear on a 2 stroke engine than on a 4 stroke, petrol washes off the oil on 2 strokes so there are instances of metal on metal contact
For that test you'd have to have aluminium bearings, pressure oil feeds and forces that are comparible
@@dirtygarageguy Right, thanks!
Oil pressure between two specifically gapped bearings has hydraulic lift, the surfaces technically never contact
apart from start-up
Yeah when oil pressure bleeds down but I don't believe that is what those test were meant to signify correct? If not then yes your absolutely correct 😀
Patent this matt. , ur a fricken genius cant wate to see it working away and getting results 👍👍
Stop being a twat.
I was taking the ASTM G77 tests into consideration for offroad motorcycles, which sometimes come to stop bottom side up.
But your arguments are right - this test does't really reflect the situation in a motor. Even in case the lubrication fails completely in a motor, the test doesn't show a realistic situation.
Thanks for the video!
what about 2stroke and water mix?
I searched your videos to see if you have developed the test you described here and I didn't find any such thing. I thought I would ask in case I missed it. Have you developed this test, or found a different one which can demonstrate an engine oil's effectiveness?
Not yet, but I'm working on it
@@dirtygarageguy you have a point about your statement with the test using the lubricity machine. Thank you for your effort!
Matt, in your proposed future setup, after you've applied a significant enough force to the con rod, how will you know once it makes contact with the spinning internal crank? (and therefore failed) I may have missed that part where you explained it. I was thinking that a subtle enough touch might not be perceivable visually.
Good luck with your creation! Looking forward to seeing it in action!
This doesn't have to be to failure. All we really have to do is show that there's no difference between oil with slick 50 and just oil.
Does this apply to gun lube??? Guns might act similarly to the ATSM test?
One thing I wonder, in a splash lubrication system such as my lawn mower how does the oil get between big end barring and the crank?
Not very well LOL this is why they have oilite bushing etc.
The Workshop Thanks, just googled Oilite Bushings, have learned something today.
Looking forward to seeing your test rig. Agree the G77 test is not representative of pressure fed engine bearings but possibly is helpful for comparing splash transmission lubricants? Anyway back to your proposed rig: I anticipate that unless you can think of a way of reducing the wear area (whilst still keeping it representative) your will need to apply some very large (non representative) forces or run the test for a ridiculouly long period of time before there is any wear to measure. Also once the applied load is sufficient to overcome the oil pressure then I guess you will have come full circle and turned it to little more than a very complicated G77. Tricky. Love the channel. Keep it up.
Love this channel,so informative 👍😎👍
Project Farm has done the test, the motor with the super duper treatment did last a good bit longer than the engine without (the motors were ran with zero oil). As you said, it’s the way it’s marketed. Great explanation of how oil is used within the shells, I’ve always wondered why engines fail so quickly without oil pressure. I like some of Farms vids, it’s time he reconsidered his testing methods though! Great vid 👍🏼
It looks to me that the purpose of ASTM G77 is a cold start test and the residual coating strength test until oil pressure is up. The number of seconds alot of testers are using represent 10's of years of cold start testing without allowing a re-coat between engine stop / start cycles.
In this case then the test is still wrong and main bearings are soft not hardened steel
I have a machine dynamics exam but this is also important
LOVE your vids!! would love to grab a pint one day ;)
I totally agree with you Sir! There is no better test, in my opinion that is, than “real world use”. This can only be seen a) in normal use of something b)after a sustained period of time. Keep up the good work. P. S “DON’T USE THE RED” lol
Will be good to see a representative test of engine oils. But the bullshit test does seem to simulate a cam lobe on a lifter, I guess the other oils "fail" the test due to the low levels of ZDDP that is common in oils nowadays. Would this test also simulate the type of sliding wear on gear teeth?
"But the bullshit test does seem to simulate a cam lobe on a lifter,"
and do you lifter show that much wear after 5 seconds?
Gear teeth don't slide. AFAIK
No of course not, although flat tappet cam lobes can be flattened pretty quickly if an oil with the wrong additive package is used. But it does seem that the G77 tests the boundary lubrication properties and shear strength of the oil, similar to how a cam would apply its force to the oil. If you don't think the test is representative can you explain why?
His engine has no tapes or rings. Lol
@@dirtygarageguy The steel used in the test is purposely softer than engine steel so you can see a wear scar after short tests rather than running it for hours or days to see the wear
HAHAHAHA! The video of the guy on the crotch rocket was absolutely hilarious!
How is the weather? Sounds a bit windy
Even unfed roller bearings are not represented by this test since they roll as the name suggest. The whole point of the little balls is to get no sliding friction.. And the rolling balls sorta self feed oil instead of pushing it out
I think it's also worth noting that the crank in the conrod bearing doesn't have a constant contact patch because the forces roll around.
Yeah - but good luck demonstrating that
You're right, the magic additive on this test is on most gearing oils and was used for years, motors have different tolerances this is why doesn't have on motor oils.
So good to see an old "The Workshop" video where we can learn something. Debunking stupid products. Good old times where other videos than just Del videos were made.
so if you would use something like WD40(or another penetrating oil) it would pass this test better than the Purble bs oil?
We'll see soon
But its much funnier than that
Water would probably work well in that scenario. Lol
Just to leave my shitty comment here, Thanks Matt. Just yesterday i sold my 2014 Street Triple to get an SV1000s (pretty beaten up fairing, but with only 25000km (not faked)) the same day. Now got spare money to waste in repairs for my SV, it surely will need sooner or later.(and for new riding-gear + probably a superbike handlebar kit) And with the help of your videos, there is not alot to fear. (besides the cablesalad under the seat from the previous owner.)
Now I hope even more to see new videos from your SV!
All this, just get more into "wrenching" myself, without worrying about the shiny new bike, paint, warranty or whatever.
edits for grammar. (well, its still shit i guess)
I have a conrod which is bent into an S shape . Where it rubbed on the metal of the crank directly it has gone blue. Once the engine stopped it siezed on the crank. The big end shells show only normal wear. So the metal on metal rub was a fail, while the proper bearing had no trouble..
It is from a VW 1600 aircooled engine. Which dropped a valve and mashed a piston into 2 cm chunks.
And it that test, the materials used (rubbing one to each other) can be different for each oil, being tougher to rubbing the one you want to have with the best results.
In the engine the lubrication is not only of the oil dynamic type ...
if that were the case, motor oil manufacturers would not put ZDDP in their formulations.
there are components that work in the absence of hydraulic pressure such as gears and camshafts, in which it is only the shear resistance and EP chemistry to avoid metal-to-metal contact.
Glad you covered this shite!I use Shell Rimula in everything and its been years with no failures.Each to their own
What hapened to those markers with buckets you had on the left bottom corner. I believe they were a prezzie from a viewer.
They're too thin.... I still use them.
Great explanation , the point is how good will the oil film last at an genuine engine force on bearing !! Thats all this is ! Nd then we can see if these oils will Actually do store film for protection to last in long run of engine life!!
Yer man hangin off the wrong side. Feckin love it!
What about considering this test being useful for looking at bottom end gear meshes? Is the test not close enough?
No - and I'll expalin why soon
Sweet. Thank you!
Seriously from bottom off my heart... Matt your an inspiration, I will like to meet you face to face and maybe not chat about since but but have couple off pints and have a Lough 😀
Matt should have a sweepstakes, winner gets to meet and hear Matt rant about how much of a fuckwad Del is and have a few beers! 😂😂😂
DGG, Nice explanation on the engineering for attached film lubrication systems, I'm not familiar with the product in the demonstration, but I am a user of Militec-1 since 1980.
Originally, I used Militec-1 for firearms, but also in all my machinery except wet clutches and automatic transmissions as a specific level of friction is necessary for both those systems to work.
But my comparison of diesel & gas engine lube, differentials, manual transmissions, lawn mowers (with no filters), and refrigeration compressors, with lab oil testing at oil change intervals for copper & steel particulate results, show that the Militec-1 had significant improvement in nearly eliminating the residual particulate test results.
You said, "Compare the big end of your rod"!! 🥳
Ha I remember seeing that "test rig" used by royal purple at one of the many car shows I used to go to years ago. Even back then I thought it was a crap test.
what about ball or roller bearings? maybe it is just the wrong test for the application.
How do they doctor the G77 test for their own products?
What do you mean doctor?
In the infomercials you showed the "super-duper" products gave good results compared to the "leading competitors". Surely they should have worn just as much?
That test is good for basically everything outside of the pressurized oil bearing environment...
Cams, piston rings, distributor worm gear, lifter buckets, the entire gear train, and a 100 other things have direct metal on metal contact... and that is just a modern engine. Project farm is testing briggs motors, which dont have oil pressure systems. Moving into the wider field of things that need lube... almost all scenarios are going to be metal on whatever.
"100 other things have direct metal on metal contact... "
- if you think that "Cams, piston rings, distributor worm gear, lifter buckets, the entire gear train" are metal on metal then you need to think again.
Cams, piston rings, distributor worm gear, lifter buckets, the entire gear train all have oil supplies - granted not pressurized at the contact patch but oil feed all the same.
Look at the bearing test, now look at some gears or say camshafts and buckets. Is this the amount of wear you'd see in 5 seconds?
Its an accelerated wear test for film strength. Do you expect him to do a 1000 hour test for a youtube channel? He is performing an industry standard test(granted on DIY equipment), and he is extremely particular about keeping the conditions the same across all the testing runs. Also the results line up well with the other tests he does and the professional tests others have done. What you see in the tests is clearly indicative of a longer term non accelerated wear test.
For metal on metal contact. You seem to be more bothered about Project farm than the actual issue with the test. They don't sell this shit for lawnmowers....... that's not their key focus. How and why you don't understand this I'll never know.
"He is performing an industry standard test"
- This is something that is interesting. ASTM also have anti-freeze testing. Take the ASTM D1177 - this test is as follows -
"The freezing point of an engine coolant indicates the coolant freeze protection and can be used to determine the glycol content of a coolant if the glycol type is known."
- Just becasue someone has assigned something a test number doesn't mean its proof of anything or that its relevent to each application.
another example is BS 876. Guess what this specification is for........
Will your oil testing apparatus be stored on the garage roof for Matt authenticity? 😉
So if it's used for guns where a slide rubs on the frame, then is it a good test.
Absolutely! Arguably this is the BEST visual test out there when it comes to firearms. You want a lubricant with a very strong surface tension BUT you also want it to be thin enough to form a molecular bond at a microscopic level to fill all the hills and valleys being made. The lubricant that can do both of those things will keep those high wear areas cooler for longer which adds to the firearms complete life cycle. It's proven that heat due to friction is what kills firearms the quickest. You also want a lubricant that has just the right consistency aka lubricity that will take any and all foreign contaminants, "think carbon, copper fragments, brass fragments and any outside matters" and remove said contaminants from the friction points INSTEAD of holding on to these materials and including them into all friction points which will rapidly increase heat and wear...
This is why 99% of all "CLP" type products are pure snake oil. CLP is marketed to those that know very little when it comes to firearms as a quick and easy solution. CLP carries all the negatives I listed above and does a mediocre at best job at actually cleaning, lubricating and protecting the firearm. A high performing, trusted and dedicated lubricant will protect your firearm from both corrosion and wear better than any clp on the market just simply by its chemical makeup. Even when it comes to cleaning, a GOOD dedicated lubricant will protect the metal surface of the firearm so well that when it comes time to clean the gun a simple shop rag will remove 90% of all carbon and outside contaminants since it's actually suspended in the top layers of the lubricant, rather than being impregnated to the firearms actual metal surface. When using a competent lubricant your then able to use less harsh and abrasive solvents to get out the rest of whatever needs cleaned.
I've personally tested dozens upon dozens of firearms lubricants over a 30+ year period and have found three separate lubricants "so far" that have protected and lengthen the lifespan of my firearms. I go to the range weekly and compete any chance I get so my firearms see hundreds of thousands of rounds yearly. These 3 lubricants are Sons of Liberty Gun Works spec 76, Lucas heavy duty gun oil and Wilson Combat Ultima Lube. I've ran my own tests on tons of different products and nothing has come close to servicing my firearms. When it comes to grease then literally the ONLY grease I've found worth it's weight is mil-comm. I don't know what kind of dark magic they're using to give such an amazing product that's also completely safe physically and organically, has almost zero odor and won't harm your skin. It can be used and applied thick but also has the ability to be polished into the metal to the point where it's as thin, if not thinner than the previously mentioned lubricants..... Only problem with mil-comm is that it's very exspensive but just one tube of the stuff will last almost forever....
When it comes to solvents you can go with safer, less harsh offerings like mpro7, breakthrough or wilson combat carbon cleaner and keep hoppes on the side for when it's time for a deeper clean!
Great video. I have been watching these tests and looking at the results some things do not make much sense, for example 0w20 oils often produce almost no wear, and some of the oils I know to be good eg Castrol Edge 0w30 (the proper synthetic one) show high wear. I like the cushion of oil explaination, reminds me of the hover craft gliding over anything in its way :) Anyway this has been very helpful as I hopefully I can stop watching the constant stream of oil tests people do in this way and get on with something more useful!
There is no good Castrol oil
Very good video sir!
In 1991 Daytona Bike Week I saw this test in person.... I still have the metal slug that was tested.... I never looked into buying what they were selling... I either forgot or didn't trust the test.... but yes, you have proven a point
Project Farm has made this test and then after that he puts an oil additive into an engine for an hour he takes it out and the film resulting from the mix it's enough to keep the engine working without failure even when he put water into the crankcase... I trust that test
Did the test rig happen?
If you were right, then the wear scar on a dry bearing would be the same size as the wear scar with lubricant. This test shows the protection the lubricant affords under boundary lubrication times, like in bearings when the oil is foamy or on cam shafts in classic cars. Project Farm recently tested bar and chain oils on the wear tester and the oil brands that had anti wear additives did remarkably better than the ones that didn’t. In automotive oil tests, all of them have anti wear additives, so it comes down more to how much and to the formulation. If you test a full strength anti wear additive out of the bottle and not diluted, of course it’s going to do better than the motor oil, but no one uses just an additive in their engine. The need for boundary protection only occurs occasionally, so as you are saying, the seller of the product is using that as a sales tactic, when it doesn’t apply that much.
Well,you have startup... when there is very little pressure for the bearings (momentarily)...and that seems to be where most of the wear occurs.If you could alleviate that..seems likea good thing... I dont know....On another subject I have several older motors that folks saywill suffer from the lack of zinc that has been taken out....(to save the catalytic converter).Another high-load area (flat tappets).Thoughts?.....great vid.
"and that seems to be where most of the wear occurs.If you could alleviate that..seems likea good thing... I dont know..."
- easy. You just have a charge motor - a circuit where oil is pumped around the engine then the starter motor kicks in. I'll do a video about this.
My 75 cb-550f w/50k has a kickstart and i wait till the pressurelight goes off before hitting the electric start.....I thought you mightbring up an auxillary pump.Who does that..? By the way you still havea tick on the rear cylinder of the sv ? Rod knock on those is notuncommon...Hope its not!
Yes and all this will come clear soon
You can also add an accumulator to your oil system, if you're concerned about startup wear.
Proper way of thinking. Just add tiny bit of EP into crankcase and engine starts working smoother. Add tiny bit of extreme pressure (EP) additives to oil in timken test. Nothing changes. Bullshit.
The type of coating or system where the oil is not continuously pumped happens all the time when you cold start an engine. Lucas oil additive which has a tackifier in it specifically states it reduces cold start wear down to negligible levels. So these tests aren't completely bogus, matter of fact the majority of engine wear occurs at start up due to no oil film left on the parts. So would these products protect your engine better than if they weren't in the engine to begin with? Of course they would .
I take it from what you are saying is that these lubricants/additives would not be good in an engine with a wet clutch? haha
This is why the oil industry standard test used is the 4 ball bearing wear test where the wear mark is measured optically. this is the benchmark test done by petroleum industry itself. BTW Amsoil is the winner in this industry standard test among all the oils.
Well you are right about engine oil and engines - but wear test also addresses other machines like firearms where there is no oil feed or oil pressure.
Flat tapped camshaft and lifter combined with some serious spring load when a good additive is used it will reduce wear.
That loco bearing is cool.
Man forgot about the valve springs, retainers, Valvestems, cam lobes, piston rings, cylinder walls, wrist pins, cam driven vacuum pump designs, cam drive high pressure fuel pumps, timing chain, oil pump, oil chain, chain guides.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
“I don’t like this very simple test because it isn’t over explained inside of a 70 page dissertation with unnecessarily big words”
I always thought that oil pressure is there just to suply oil to the bearing and the oil film streinght would keep the crank pin and bearing shell from touching since oil pressure is the same all around the crank pin so it cancels out
BornToDrive1500E
That is 100% correct
Film thickness is a direct result of surface speed, load and oil viscosity
You need to look at the numbers of the oil clearance and the bulk modulas of the said oil.
The Workshop
not quite right
The oil film should only be about 5-10 microns thick
Oil pressure only serves in getting the lubricant to where it is needed. Tighter clearances need lighter viscosity oils so pressure does not increase too much and rob horsepower or cook your oil (gear pumps are solid displacement and the oil has to go somewhere-hopefully not through the pressure relief valve)
Lighter viscosity oils also need to have higher surface speeds and lower loads to achieve the 5-10 micron film thickness
The Workshop
I have never heard the term “bulk modulas of oil”
good point.
If you watch Project farm when he's doing his test he uses a constant consistent weight and a consistent time for both bearings and all he does is compare the wear size between the two
So? The oil is not pressure feed - FEED is the important word here.
@@dirtygarageguy in d worst case scenario where there is no pressure feed, wouldn't you want ur oil having maximum film strength which does not shear under extreme load which can actually help n lubricate d contact points? cos d main purpose is oil lubrication, regardless of the type of feed.
I don’t think crank shaft is the issue as much as the lifters. Lifter failure has much more to do with the oil you use on a daily basis. Not racing of course. Cam shaft failure and lifter failure is why we ask the question “which oil is better”?
If you mix any oil with water and a drop of washing up liquid. It forms a super slippy amalgam
I use Royal Purple oil in my car. Driving down the road watching this video, I pulled over and lit my car ablaze. I knew i shouldnt have had to change the tires at 60,000 miles, car had 200,000 miles, its royal.purples fault. Gotta go, need to call a Uber
Now that got me laughing out loud!!
I like Project Farm guy some of his projects are pretty cool esp the see through engine both on the top and the one he has on the side..
I look forward to you eating your words on this one :) the old Slick50 worked as today Activ8 works. Both on the load bearing you think is bollocks and on your fancy rig. The effects will be the same. Slick 50 no longer contains PTFE and is wank. Activ8 works. Our local scooter club has not had an engine seize since I introduced them to it. I have used it on RGV 250's that were tuned to fuck (genuine 125mph on the road) in my taxi I am just needing its 1st gearbox rebiild after 275000 miles. We are still on original turbo and engine! Etc etc etc. Project farm also had good results with similar technology to Activ8 and the reduction in wear on engines is incredible. The test you say is bollocks is just a quick indicator and proves a reduction in wear. The results will be similar on your over complex rig. :)
"Project farm also had good results with similar technology to Activ8 and the reduction in wear on engines is incredible."
- proof would be great.
"The results will be similar on your over complex rig. :)"
- and I agree. The difference between additives and just oil will show no difference. SO why spend £xxx on shit that doesn't do anything?
2 inch rod journal = 3.14 inch^2 * 80 PSI = 251 pounds?
An example where G77 approximates an engine is in flat tappet cams and non roller rocker arms. As far as a crank with mains and rods is a hydro wedge and some pretty crummy lubricants even water will keep them separated as long as there is flow from a pressured system and the clearances are withing tolerance. So I do not agree that the G77 is useless.
My saab deleted its rodbearings few months ago, so basically a rodknock. After it, it had a really expensive shiny oil in it😂😂😂
I can sum up why the test is rubbish in an even simpler way. I've seen the test performed with simple chlorine bleach, and it had almost no wear. Chlorine is an insanely slippery substance, which is why it is added in the form of chlorinated paraffin and/or olefin into engine treatments - ignoring the fact that high levels of chlorine in oil when you add heat and water you get Hydrochloric Acid which as we all know is GREAT for metal parts. Just because it works great in that test doesn't mean I am going to dump a gallon of Chlorox into my engine.
@Paolo G true, but oil manufacturers dont tend to include high levels of chlorine compounds in their oils either. Why? Because it greatly increases the level of, and strength of, said acids vs. Oil that doesnt include it.
Prime example of a snake using snake oil .the guy that does the weapon shield friction tests!
I have a 2004 Suzuki Shogun 110cc with 1.000.000+ Kms running stock internal from factory, it vibrates but still driveable
Fine Job Matt
what about cam lobe on rocker pad..
see part 2
I am really looking forward to seeing your oil testing rig :-)
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS TEST FOR SHOWING JUST HOW AN OIL WILL WORK BETWEEN TWO FLAT METAL SURFACES SLIDING AGAINST EACH OTHER?
Aka firearms
That's a brilliant idea for testing oil