Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
the files will be made available to all once finalised so folk are free to juggle the data however they wish too. No need for debate.
I guess the same reason Jim doesnt want to give recommendations unless its based on experience running that oil in a commando.

agreed with the RPM rate and ive added the data from the threads i found here and within this one that has values related to force at different RPM's. Though the test gear forces wont reflect real world max values to a t. More about trends than absolutes. Thus going to use 150 as the comparison rather than the figures in the 300 mark for 7000 rpm.
 
"No need for debate.
I guess the same reason Jim doesnt want to give recommendations unless its based on experience running that oil in a commando."

I agree again.. Experience with a particular oil giving appropriate service/protection is, IMO, the best recommendation for which oil to use. Along those lines, I have to say that I can't see any reason to change FROM an oil that has proven to do the job to a different oil that hasn't. ;)
 
Jungle_re said:
Follower scar oil tests (2018)
Click to expand...
This makes no sense to me.
Many of the oils to the left were the worst performers and would not be usable in a Norton.
 
comnoz said:
This makes no sense to me.
Many of the oils to the left were the worst performers and would not be usable in a Norton.
Click to expand...
then im reading the data wrong, i emailed through the excel to you. the vlaues were taken originally from the sticky page
 
Jungle_re said:
then im reading the data wrong, i emailed through the excel to you. the vlaues were taken originally from the sticky page
Click to expand...


I am generally scoring the oils from the data like this.


The two most important.

Higher load numbers are better. I would generally say load numbers over 150 are usable in a standard Norton.
Load numbers over 400 would be the best protection in a highly stressed Norton.
Most people are somewhere between these two.

Lower Heat from friction numbers are better.
I would prefer to stay under about 4 for this number in an air cooled engine.

But lower heat from friction will reduce the need for high load numbers -to an extent.

The engine will run cooler with lower "heat from friction" oils. Reducing the engine temperature will always increase the load carrying capacity of the oil.

Now- how would you weigh these -??
I'm not much of a spreadsheet guy. I find it hard to classify it that simply.

___________________________________________________

Less important from a numbers prospective.

Lower friction numbers are better but friction is pretty well accounted for in the heat from friction number.
I include it on the graph so I can see the general trend in friction -and where the oil film fails, but I pretty much classify it as low medium or high after seeing the slope and where it peaks.

I am not sure how to put a number on this for a spread sheet.

Maybe from the comments
Very low friction as a 1
Low as a 2
Medium as a 3
Medium high as a 4
High as a 5

Again, I would find it hard to weigh these. Different engines, uses and climates have different requirements.

Me, I am in the high desert. High temperatures and low cooling air density and long hard pulls are normal so I need high load -low heat.

Guys who live in cooler low altitudes might do better with a higher heat from friction oil and if the engine is stock then high load capacity is not as important.

The comes the money part. High temperature/high load additives cost the oil suppliers money and the oil price is going to be higher.

Short trip guys are often better off to use a low priced conventional oil and change it often. You just want to make the sure load capacity is up to the job.

I am trying to add more comments as I go, to help people make a good choice.
 
Has anyone used ZDDP additives to increase zinc level.... any results??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
comnoz said:
I am generally scoring the oils from the data like this.


The two most important.

Higher load numbers are better. I would generally say load numbers over 150 are usable in a standard Norton.
Load numbers over 400 would be the best protection in a highly stressed Norton.
Most people are somewhere between these two.

Lower Heat from friction numbers are better.
I would prefer to stay under about 4 for this number in an air cooled engine.

But lower heat from friction will reduce the need for high load numbers -to an extent.

The engine will run cooler with lower "heat from friction" oils. Reducing the engine temperature will always increase the load carrying capacity of the oil.

Now- how would you weigh these -??
I'm not much of a spreadsheet guy. I find it hard to classify it that simply.

___________________________________________________

Less important from a numbers prospective.

Lower friction numbers are better but friction is pretty well accounted for in the heat from friction number.
I include it on the graph so I can see the general trend in friction -and where the oil film fails, but I pretty much classify it as low medium or high after seeing the slope and where it peaks.

I am not sure how to put a number on this for a spread sheet.

Maybe from the comments
Very low friction as a 1
Low as a 2
Medium as a 3
Medium high as a 4
High as a 5

Again, I would find it hard to weigh these. Different engines, uses and climates have different requirements.

Me, I am in the high desert. High temperatures and low cooling air density and long hard pulls are normal so I need high load -low heat.

Guys who live in cooler low altitudes might do better with a higher heat from friction oil and if the engine is stock then high load capacity is not as important.

The comes the money part. High temperature/high load additives cost the oil suppliers money and the oil price is going to be higher.

Short trip guys are often better off to use a low priced conventional oil and change it often. You just want to make the sure load capacity is up to the job.

I am trying to add more comments as I go, to help people make a good choice.
Click to expand...

Thats basically what ive done in the charts, the max load divided by friction heat allows what you say above to be judged across the board. If the max load is lower but the oil also creates very little heat from friction then the divisible number will be high putting it towards the top of that table same as if a max load is high but the friction heat is also high the number will be less. The chart may need refreshing to weight friction number less possibly then, but i see the chart slightly of less use that the table. Using the tables you can check across and pick an oil that scores in the tables with the attributes you require. The individual ranking tables are the more useful metrics the overall chart as originally stated can be a little misleading due to the progression of some of the test lengths. I also need to double check some of the inputs as the fictions that weren't able to be measured(ie mega low friction) need an artificial figure like 0.00000001 put in to make the divisable figure high where as 0 wont give a good result for that chart.

Did you look at the sheet i sent through? I also got lost with the heat from friction where i couldn't get it from the sticky thread, how was this calculated as the figures for the other measurements i cant seem to replicate the values?
 
Hi Jim,
I see you now have 30 different oils tested. Out of curiosity, how many more do you have in the pipeline (no pun intended)? I see that the Driven BR oil I sent reached you today.

Ed
 
APRRSV said:
Hi Jim,
I see you now have 30 different oils tested. Out of curiosity, how many more do you have in the pipeline (no pun intended)? I see that the Driven BR oil I sent reached you today.

Ed
Click to expand...

I haven't actually counted but I am probably half way through.
I only have 3 more arbor races left until my next order gets here.
 
Here is the best oil so far. Low friction and tough.
An unusual combination.
__________________________________________________________
Bel_Ray_10W50_V-Twin_Synthetic
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

500 lbs + load -with no follower damage
3.72 heat from high pressure shear
.013 heat from friction

Good choice for a Norton
 
Last edited:
Over here in the UK ,most of those oil products are unknown to us. Many of the Dommies and singles run without filters and use std mechanical components, just as god (Mr Norton) intended. Lots of Morris or Silcolene 40 low detergent oil is used.Some use 20/50 , cost is the main factor about £30 for 4 liters . I use it in every thing from Norton twins,high revving singles and pre-war sports 500. Never had any mechanical failures over the last 50 years if put together properly. Going way back I used cheap Commer HD 30 Diesel oil without problems.Green Duckhams(The inventors of Multigrade) 40 has returned , May try that. Other relevent factors are a temperate climate, sensible classic useage, Intact camshaft oil troughs.
 
Last edited:
Availability, cost, fit for purpose. Does a top rated oil used under normal UK road bike conditions give longer engine life v. keep a heavily
stressed engine alive? Are these simply two different applications?
Even in the UK there are some of us who live in areas that dont even have a motorway much less high temperatures and long periods of
full throttle.
 
norton bob said:
Over here in the UK ,most of those oil products are unknown to us. Many of the Dommies and singles run without filters and use std mechanical components, just as god (Mr Norton) intended. Lots of Morris or Silcolene 40 low detergent oil is used.Some use 20/50 , cost is the main factor about £30 for 4 liters . I use it in every thing from Norton twins,high revving singles and pre-war sports 500. Never had any mechanical failures over the last 50 years if put together properly. Going way back I used cheap Commer HD 30 Diesel oil without problems.Green Duckhams(The inventors of Multigrade) 40 has returned , May try that. Other relevent factors are a temperate climate, sensible classic useage, Intact camshaft oil troughs.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Bel Ray, the current leader in Jim’s tests, is easily available In the U.K.

Furthermore, in general, remember that Jim is researching to find the BEST Norton oil here, not one that’s cheap and OK. He’s primarily driven by his own desires for his own bike.

I’m following closely cos I also want the BEST.

Yes we all know that bikes in the old days ran fine with the oil available etc. But some of us ain’t running bikes like that. Jim’s is over 900cc as is my new motor, along with a highly stressed cam and high CR, and it gets run hard. Jim’s tests have clearly showed that many oils which would be fine in normal use degrade MASSIVELY under such circumstances.

It’s horses for courses.

But, you might also be interesed to hear that Jim has been sent a large batch of more ‘normal’ U.K. oil samples to test.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Firstly, Bel Ray, the current leader in Jim’s tests, is easily available In the U.K.

Furthermore, in general, remember that Jim is researching to find the BEST Norton oil here, not one that’s cheap and OK. He’s primarily driven by his own desires for his own bike.

I’m following closely cos I also want the BEST.

Yes we all know that bikes in the old days ran fine with the oil available etc. But some of us ain’t running bikes like that. Jim’s is over 900cc as is my new motor, along with a highly stressed cam and high CR, and it gets run hard. Jim’s tests have clearly showed that many oils which would be fine in normal use degrade MASSIVELY under such circumstances.

It’s horses for courses.

But, you might also be interesed to hear that Jim has been sent a large batch of more ‘normal’ U.K. oil samples to test.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to the result of the activ8 additive. According to the test I witnessed just taking the cap off the bottle renders all other lubricants useless in comparison (Ok, I might be exaggerating slightly).
 
Fast Eddie said:
I believe that with the improved formula you no longer need to take the cap off...
Click to expand...

With some products that is true.
The Everglide I tested served it's purpose the moment I pushed the "buy it now" button.

Actually it did reduce the friction, but it also killed the film strength when I added it to Klotz or Bel Ray ESP.

The Activ8 is in the pot now with Klotz 25W60
 
Last edited:
norton bob said:
Over here in the UK ,most of those oil products are unknown to us. Many of the Dommies and singles run without filters and use std mechanical components, just as god (Mr Norton) intended. Lots of Morris or Silcolene 40 low detergent oil is used.Some use 20/50 , cost is the main factor about £30 for 4 liters . I use it in every thing from Norton twins,high revving singles and pre-war sports 500. Never had any mechanical failures over the last 50 years if put together properly. Going way back I used cheap Commer HD 30 Diesel oil without problems.Green Duckhams(The inventors of Multigrade) 40 has returned , May try that. Other relevent factors are a temperate climate, sensible classic useage, Intact camshaft oil troughs.
Click to expand...

I guess you must be luckier than I am. I have experienced lubrication failure more than once. And judging by the number of wiped out Norton cams I have received for cores -I am not alone. Jim
 
Such a difference between UK green- laning and touring thru North American Mountain ranges on steep, high-speed roads.
I loved touring in the UK but it really is a different usage of the bike than in Western North America.
Then there's the mileage covered.
Some UK users might only see a few hundred miles on the clock each year.
That's a one day ride over here.
So I'm in the camp that wants to know which brand of oil is going to hang in there when things get very warm and the steep climb goes on forever.

Glen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top