dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.
Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:
1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.
2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.
3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.
Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.
I don't necessarily disagree; I would counter with a few details ...
1) They are not ISO certified that I know of. It would bolster their credibility, but they choose not to. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. They just don't audit (self-audit or outside confirmation) or have detailed written quality control plans that I'm aware of. But we cannot say because the certs are absent, means they don't operate at a decent level. It's an important distinction. Not unlike Amsoil choosing not to get API certs on some of it's engine lubes, or the fact that Amsoil does not seek out Allison certification on it's ATD fluid, although they advertise it as applicable to TES-295 applications. Schaeffers does not seek out the license for their TES-295 clone either, but they offer their 204S-AT for the same application. And yet most folks accept these products despite a lack of credentials! My point? Having a credential assures a set minimum level of performance, but a lack of such credential does NOT assure a lack of performance. Products and services can still be good without the accreditation.
2) The FP method they use is HIGHLY dependent upon the test personnel being at the right place at the EXACT right time, to visually notice the flame flash at it's first establishment. With the way they do it (at least when I was there) there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously).
3) Blackstone does not do soot or oxidation. I describe what they do in my article. In a nutshell, the dilute a sample, spin in a centrifuge, and then compare/contrast the result of "insolubles" visually to a staged set of incremental samples. There is some amount of variation due to a visual cue (versus quantifiable objective details), and variation from person to person. Essentially, the gage R&R on this is probably not stellar due to so much human interaction.
I'm not totally defending Blackstone in terms of what they do or do not do. I have a friendly relationship with Ryan, and appreciate their family business. I have worked with them in collaboration of my two articles, but never FOR them (never been paid by them). But, I'm not above calling out opportunities for improvement; I would like to see them improve some of their ops and develop credentials. But just because they are not "perfect" or exactly the same as other services, does not mean they are totally worthless or that all information they have is bad. And it's not like we've not seen mistakes from other labs in UOAs as well ... Nothing in the world is perfect. The better one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools they use, the more you'll be able to understand the results in terms of applicability. Could they improve their credibility by improving some processes? Yes! But are they worthless or unbelievable on every level? No way! In particular, the info I crave most (elemental analysis via ICP) is very well controlled at their facility, despite a lack of certificate on the front door. I just realize that the FP and insols are not going to be hyper-accurate. But because those are lube inputs, and not wear outputs, I don't pay as much attention to them. (Most of you know I profess outputs as a FAR more important thing to track, then lube inputs).
More importantly, I was challenging ToptierPAO to give a reason(s) as to why he made that undefined comment. If one is going to make such a statement, by gosh back it up with a rational list of credible complaints based on facts, not a drive-by assault. Here's what he said:
"I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things ...
I wanted to hear about what numbers were "all over the place" and what "equipment is out of date".
Most of their processes are very well controlled, but I do admit that FP and insols have a human element that can be affected by subjective inputs.
Much of their equipment is older, but old equipment does not = bad equipment. If it's well maintained, it does just fine. And their ICP machine was fairly new when I saw it, and they were able to produce calibration statemnents from an outside ISO company regarding that piece of equipment. Whereas their lab may not be ISO accredited, much of what they use is, or the calibration services they employ from 3rd party entities are.
He's big on vague accusations, and broad comments about why syns are so much better than dinos. I'm challenging him to be more critical of his position and PROVE things with detailed information and rational debate, not conjecture and mythology. IMO he's either drunk with PAO Koolaide, or an Amsoil dealer. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it. We have way too much information available to us to believe what he's professing; that PAOs (and Amsoil in particular, even over Mobil 1) are always better for all applications and that no dino will ever do a job as well as a PAO. I call bovine manure on that.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/ Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.
Dave - I have three comments about Blackstone but will preface my comments with UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED:
1. Blackstone is not ISO certified and posts none of its certifications (if it has any) on its website. While that in and of itself is not a problem it can mean that standardized and repeatable processes are not in use nor are those processes audited by an independent third party. Other labs are quite happy to post all of the certifications they hold as well as all of the ASTM methodologies used and not just a few.
2. Blackstone has issues with fuel dilution in the methodology they use to measure it. Do they use gas chromatography? I seem to recall is a "low tech" method.
3. Blackstone has issues with soot in the methodology they use to measure it. Unless I am misreading it, the ASTM method they use (assuming they are using the same test for soot as they do for insolubles since they do not differentiate) has been deprecated so either they are using an outdated standard or they have not updated their testing methods on their website. Either of these conditions lends creedence to the first point.
Now, again I will say that if any or all of these issues have been sorted, I retract my statements and will be quite happy to be updated with new information.
I don't necessarily disagree; I would counter with a few details ...
1) They are not ISO certified that I know of. It would bolster their credibility, but they choose not to. That does not mean they are not good at what they do. They just don't audit (self-audit or outside confirmation) or have detailed written quality control plans that I'm aware of. But we cannot say because the certs are absent, means they don't operate at a decent level. It's an important distinction. Not unlike Amsoil choosing not to get API certs on some of it's engine lubes, or the fact that Amsoil does not seek out Allison certification on it's ATD fluid, although they advertise it as applicable to TES-295 applications. Schaeffers does not seek out the license for their TES-295 clone either, but they offer their 204S-AT for the same application. And yet most folks accept these products despite a lack of credentials! My point? Having a credential assures a set minimum level of performance, but a lack of such credential does NOT assure a lack of performance. Products and services can still be good without the accreditation.
2) The FP method they use is HIGHLY dependent upon the test personnel being at the right place at the EXACT right time, to visually notice the flame flash at it's first establishment. With the way they do it (at least when I was there) there exists a chance for them to miss that first flash (as they are multi-taking with other tests simultaneously).
3) Blackstone does not do soot or oxidation. I describe what they do in my article. In a nutshell, the dilute a sample, spin in a centrifuge, and then compare/contrast the result of "insolubles" visually to a staged set of incremental samples. There is some amount of variation due to a visual cue (versus quantifiable objective details), and variation from person to person. Essentially, the gage R&R on this is probably not stellar due to so much human interaction.
I'm not totally defending Blackstone in terms of what they do or do not do. I have a friendly relationship with Ryan, and appreciate their family business. I have worked with them in collaboration of my two articles, but never FOR them (never been paid by them). But, I'm not above calling out opportunities for improvement; I would like to see them improve some of their ops and develop credentials. But just because they are not "perfect" or exactly the same as other services, does not mean they are totally worthless or that all information they have is bad. And it's not like we've not seen mistakes from other labs in UOAs as well ... Nothing in the world is perfect. The better one understands the benefits and limitations of the tools they use, the more you'll be able to understand the results in terms of applicability. Could they improve their credibility by improving some processes? Yes! But are they worthless or unbelievable on every level? No way! In particular, the info I crave most (elemental analysis via ICP) is very well controlled at their facility, despite a lack of certificate on the front door. I just realize that the FP and insols are not going to be hyper-accurate. But because those are lube inputs, and not wear outputs, I don't pay as much attention to them. (Most of you know I profess outputs as a FAR more important thing to track, then lube inputs).
More importantly, I was challenging ToptierPAO to give a reason(s) as to why he made that undefined comment. If one is going to make such a statement, by gosh back it up with a rational list of credible complaints based on facts, not a drive-by assault. Here's what he said:
"I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things ...
I wanted to hear about what numbers were "all over the place" and what "equipment is out of date".
Most of their processes are very well controlled, but I do admit that FP and insols have a human element that can be affected by subjective inputs.
Much of their equipment is older, but old equipment does not = bad equipment. If it's well maintained, it does just fine. And their ICP machine was fairly new when I saw it, and they were able to produce calibration statemnents from an outside ISO company regarding that piece of equipment. Whereas their lab may not be ISO accredited, much of what they use is, or the calibration services they employ from 3rd party entities are.
He's big on vague accusations, and broad comments about why syns are so much better than dinos. I'm challenging him to be more critical of his position and PROVE things with detailed information and rational debate, not conjecture and mythology. IMO he's either drunk with PAO Koolaide, or an Amsoil dealer. Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it. We have way too much information available to us to believe what he's professing; that PAOs (and Amsoil in particular, even over Mobil 1) are always better for all applications and that no dino will ever do a job as well as a PAO. I call bovine manure on that.
Last edited: