Recent content by Impatient

Well, All things being equal, bigger wheels, fewer front rings, and perhaps some other so-called improvements are indeed better. However, all things are rarely equal…especially when price is included. Sure, a $10k 29er is probably a fine machine. But let’s say you’re comparing a $1000 29er...

They claim lower friction, which is a good thing, and at XTR level, durability probably still good. Shimano has totally revamped their numbering scheme, but I still think this is a “Deore” level product. There are definitely worse. That said, 501 is below 800/801, which is older than 8000...

This was the later version with the smaller balls 😩. Again, perhaps it has better seals, or the balls themselves even harder than the sm-bb92. Heck, maybe with smaller balls, they fit more balls in. I would have looked for sm-bb72. That said. I made some assumptions regarding the 501’s.

I can’t help with pulling the crank, I have similar vintage Shimano cranks, which attach differently. BUT, I will say, I have an opinion about the BB itself. The XTR version (BB92?) is awesome. The XT (BB72), not too bad. I believe the difference is the hardness/finishing on the balls...

I think there was supposed to be a VPBR Gen 2…but I’ve never seen it in the wild. I’m not sure what the Restore and Protect has in common, other than the R-word.

I used VPBR full-strength for 4 summers, while I could get my hands on it. I ran it for “extended” drains. It did much better than the run-of-mill Walmart synthetics I used during the low-mileage “off-seasons,” according to UOA’s. But the guy who turned me on to it, who claimed he was part...

Oil Analysers will try to cheap out on you, if they don’t think there’s enough visc drop to warrant the GC test…their report says it is GC if they do it, otherwise they will say “est <1%.” They will need a proper Virgin reading for the brand/model/grade, or they can’t make this determination...

No one talks about VPBR anymore. Did you buy it recently?

Well, my post #31 shows which standard the reading was supposedly obtained under (not implying any credit due to me, I just copied/pasted). just stating, at least for that reading, Oil Analysers (aka Polaris?) showed d4739 for their Base reading of 9.7. I don’t know the source of the voa...

actually, the TBN reading is disappointing. Maybe this is a D4739 vs D2896 thing, or maybe a BS inaccuracy, or maybe Amsoil lightened the Base more recently. 12.46 vs 9.7 vs 8.8???

Gee, and I thought BITOG was a force. I wasn’t aware BS had a podcast, will have to find…just like I wasn’t aware Amsoil had a YouTube vid tour. Which I haven’t viewed yet either.

Won’t know until you try.

I found an older VOA of this oil, though supposedly current spec (??). In another thread I was bi*ching that there a lack of VOA on Amsoil showing Virgin oxidation. Well, I guess I hadn’t looked hard enough. @Pablo: mea culpa. (Hope these aren’t “older formulas” I’ve resurrected.)

Hmmm. Let’s turn the temp down on this. But, in my defense: My comment that Amsoil EOT had high Virgin oxidation was meant as a positive. I wasn’t bashing their oils, certainly not this one…on the contrary. I’m recently seeing more comment of the high oxidation relating to ester content...