Bashers against snake oil additives

Status
Not open for further replies.
OVERKILL
Calling people idiots has nothing to do with making a point, it’s just deeply satisfying. My points are being interpreted incorrectly, or paraphrased incorrectly. Another way of saying “words put in that were not mine to begin with”. Shannow incorrectly paraphrased “universal” for oil when I actually said “perfect”. Garak said “How does a mass produced additive solve the problem of mass produced oil, though” when in my post I never stated or implied any such issue.
I am not sure everyone joins the forum to LEARN, or at least it seems that people once did, then decided what they were going to think about products, and decided to stop LEARNING and just make sure people only learn what they consider to be good FACTS. “Listening to these anecdotes also doesn't result in one gaining knowledge, as knowledge is based on fact.” You are wrong about anecdotes, people learn many things from other people’s experiences, and in many cases people use new products sometimes based solely on what their friends have said about it. People also use anecdotes and recommendations in regards to established oil company products as the many types can be confusing. Knowledge is NOT based on facts alone, this is very narrow minded thinking, and in all seriousness, I cannot imagine a single post in this sub-forum, that you would not have a beef with. It is almost like you just come in here to tell people they are wrong.
I do not see how new members would feel confident bringing up any query in this sub-forum, as the slightest whiff of the mention “additive” brings out the flat earth society, all guns blazing! Even when you think you are being even handed, you use language like “pandering”, “wizard in a can” and countless other derogatory remarks. Not to mention yourself describing new members need to hear from members who are “more analytical and [offer a] less cheerleading-oriented perspective”. So does this mean people who use additives are not analytical and over enthusiastic for a product? I am not sure, but I think you can get more patronising than this, maybe we still wear nappies?

SHANNOW
Finding a company’s PDS, lifting a line out of it, and posting it to prove a point rings a bit hollow unless you faithfully quote the whole thing. I went to the same link and discovered a whole page of product information, below is the whole reference:

Features:
• Stabilizes engine, gear, & hydraulic oils
• Eliminates dry starts
• Improves cylinder compression
• Cushions and seals moving parts
• Reduces internal friction wear
• Excellent oxidation inhibition properties
• Minimises rust & corrosion
• Tenacious
• Improves oil viscosity index
• Increases oil viscosity by one to two grades

I can appreciate a good discussion, and I love a good argument, and forums are the sort of places where you cannot expect not to be offended. But, lets actually discuss, and not read a post and just bash it without a decent reason. And thinking it is your duty to protect users from bad products whether they like it not is not a good reason. Alot of the basher's posts just expose a narrow minded bigot, and there seem to be a few in here.
maybe a new sub-forum could be created for you guys: "anti-additives", this way people who want to actually LEARN can do so in this forum without being insulted, brow beaten, buried under countless phrases that offer nothing new to the discussion, and basically made to feel stupid and out of their depth. Is this really a good place to LEARN about additives?
No.
 
Last edited:
One mans snake oil is another mans miracle - zddp is snake oil to the Honda fit driver with a standard engine, but it's golden for the gu with a built big block.

0w16 is snake oil to the guy who tracks his Ferrari, but is the Creme de la creme for someone who wants more mpg and less emissions from their hybrid.

It's much too application specific to have and rigid definition.
 
And how is it that so many people who try additives become users? If all the additives offered nothing, not a single improvement, how is it that so many people would swear they experience a difference? O.K, a small percentage "imagine" it, ie through suggestion, but there are a great many vehicle users who are sceptical, try a product and become convinced of it affecting their car.

I did a test on my own bike, the difference was so big I drained the additive out, returning to unadulterated oil, and realised I had not imagined the previous improvement at all, and then returned to using oil with additive.

i will freely admit, some claims by some company's are outlandish, but so too are some claims by "reputable" companys. After all, they all need to sell their product.

But can anyone explain how millions of people use additives and are happy with the results? Are they all imagining things? Are they all suseptable to advertising and promises? maybe.

So, why does my bike run without noticeable vibration using the additive? before the additive my hands would be numb after 30 minutes. What has changed here?
 
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock

SHANNOW
Finding a company’s PDS, lifting a line out of it, and posting it to prove a point rings a bit hollow unless you faithfully quote the whole thing. I went to the same link and discovered a whole page of product information, below is the whole reference:

Features:
• Stabilizes engine, gear, & hydraulic oils
• Eliminates dry starts
• Improves cylinder compression
• Cushions and seals moving parts
• Reduces internal friction wear
• Excellent oxidation inhibition properties
• Minimises rust & corrosion
• Tenacious
• Improves oil viscosity index
• Increases oil viscosity by one to two grades

I can appreciate a good discussion, and I love a good argument, and forums are the sort of places where you cannot expect not to be offended. But, lets actually discuss, and not read a post and just bash it without a decent reason. And thinking it is your duty to protect users from bad products whether they like it not is not a good reason. Alot of the basher's posts just expose a narrow minded bigot, and there seem to be a few in here.
maybe a new sub-forum could be created for you guys: "anti-additives", this way people who want to actually LEARN can do so in this forum without being insulted, brow beaten, buried under countless phrases that offer nothing new to the discussion, and basically made to feel stupid and out of their depth. Is this really a good place to LEARN about additives?
No.


There is something called "advertising puff", and lubricant and additive manufacturers (amongst others) use it all the time.

As we need definitions....

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Puffing

The only claims that ring true in any sort of engineering sense are those that result from it's primary activity ...thickening.

I can't find any of their test results online, maybe you have details of the actual results that they have to make these claims.

Otherwise, I guess that you have verified them all yourself ?

For example...

How do you know that
a) your starts were dry; and
b) they aren't anymore.

Because an Ad told you it did ?

Do you drink Red Bull ?

Did it give you wings ?
 
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
And how is it that so many people who try additives become users? If all the additives offered nothing, not a single improvement, how is it that so many people would swear they experience a difference? O.K, a small percentage "imagine" it, ie through suggestion, but there are a great many vehicle users who are sceptical, try a product and become convinced of it affecting their car.

I did a test on my own bike, the difference was so big I drained the additive out, returning to unadulterated oil, and realised I had not imagined the previous improvement at all, and then returned to using oil with additive.

i will freely admit, some claims by some company's are outlandish, but so too are some claims by "reputable" companys. After all, they all need to sell their product.

But can anyone explain how millions of people use additives and are happy with the results? Are they all imagining things? Are they all suseptable to advertising and promises? maybe.

So, why does my bike run without noticeable vibration using the additive? before the additive my hands would be numb after 30 minutes. What has changed here?


I would assume your giddiness for using the additive makes the bike vibration pale in comparison to your own shaking
grin.gif


On to my real point though; I do think you are underestimating the power of suggestion.

Strong Placebo Response Thwarts Painkiller Trials

If it can change physical biological responses don't you think it could easily make someone "feel" a subjective property differently? The only differences here are that people are prone to suggestion whereas machines are very stubborn and don't give in to their subconscious as easily as we do.

The trouble with these products is it is almost impossible to really prove their worth, whereas it is very easy for people to believe a difference has been made. If an engine never fails, you can attribute it to the additive. If an engine does fail, you can say the original oil was bad or the engine was on its way out already and the additive made it last longer than it would have if it hadn't been used, but neither one may necessarily be true.

It is slightly easier to prove the worthlessness of some of them though, so that is why you have so many doubters and skeptics. If you are uninterested in hearing both sides of an argument, then don't offer the topic up for discussion.
31.gif


Oh and yes definite
thumbsup2.gif
to the "reputable" company claims. Some of them do make me laugh.
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Originally Posted By: Pontual
There is good safety margings to add additives. OTC oils are pretty slim in additives. Ive seen oils with 1,700ppm of ZDDP pretty stable, also oils with 1,000 ppm of Moly, even UOAs with 6,000 ppm of lead from avgas. 600ppm of sodium in new oils. 1,100 ppm of Mg... None had special issues, like falling in dispersancy or deposits prone.

So the dead horse story of messing with the balance of add pack is a little overwhelmed. Take more than a can of commercial additive to ruin the oil.


If it were a dead horse then people wouldn't need constant reminders about it. Because it is fact, not opinion.

Adding additives, especially dispersants, detergent and surface active chemicals like ZDDP will affect how an oil performs. Could it slightly improve performance? Possibly. Could it ruin the original performance? Absolutely.

Let's say someone decides the ZDDP level is too low, so they put and additive in. The original additive in the oil that was used to replace the ZDDP is now being displaced on the surfaces. If that additive was a synergist with another additive (which is extremely common) that synergy is now lost as well. So you've now paid extra money to lose two performance characteristics to add ZDDP to an oil that didn't need it in the first place.

Any decent oil will have a well balanced formula, and top treating additives is a gamble in a best case scenario.


Could, would, mwld. But most of times don't. Most of the times when a little Zddp additive is put in modern oils doesn't ruin it for imbalance. Old oils has had 2 or 3 times more and ran fine. Could make a little less performance for a new competitive add (in theory), but zddp is pretty capable to perform in antiwearing scenario. I prefer to add zddp in my wetcluches witout catalist, if I'm using pcmo, than molydtc, for example. That's the case when it do helps to sleep better, do it. But someone trying to use, has to do a little homework first. It's not for the jon conosceur.
 
"for example...

How do you know that
a) your starts were dry; and
b) they aren't anymore."
Fair point you make, but are we really here to discuss truths in advertising? That would be like finding an honest politician... every company uses "puff", and just because I use the product does not mean I believe what they say. Just as I have used Castrol for years and never read the "puff" on the back of the container. One word in the quote I find funny, one of it's properties is "tenacious" what the [censored] is that?!

The reason I use the additive is because a bike mechanic I knew a long time ago tried some, and he suggested I try it, I did and I liked what it offered me.

But aside from this, tell me why it has improved the vibration in my bike? If I had access to a seismograph I could prove the difference in vibration is not in my mind...

Mototribologist offers: "I do think you are underestimating the power of suggestion" perhaps, but if you are saying that a million plus users of various additives are falling victim to "suggestion" or adding things together in hindsight to arrive at the wrong answer, I think your argument is weak and assumes that many people who, while not trained engineers, may be incapable of noticing if their motor runs better or worse.

The additive I use, I have never seen on t.v, nor in any advertisement in any media. In the auto store it is never in a flash display, never offered with give aways. Again, why does it reduce vibration in my bike?

Maybe in the States additves are advertised by the likes of the "shamwow" guy, with the usual utter rot testimonials of terrible actors, I have seen some ads for things that I actually thought were jokes or spoofs, but they were serious!? Perhaps this is why many are very wary of additives over there.

"If you are uninterested in hearing both sides of an argument, then don't offer the topic up for discussion" I am happy to hear the anti side of the argument, but for a long time most posts offered bugger all in actual discussion. If a person has a dig at something, then offer more than just some useless platitude, over worn phrase, or some other insult.

But, here is a challenge!
Lets say that I am not imagining my bike has less vibration with the additive, now before people start throwing in reasons why it should not work, explain to me why it appears to work. And it is not the added viscosity, I tried higher viscosity oils in the past to no affect. Also, after a few hundred kms the viscosity of the oil seems unaffected by the additive.

So can the anti additive guys, who have alot more oil knowledge than me, offer a reason as to why the additive seems to work? The one I use, not some others, or liquid molys or god knows what others there are, just the one I use. And for the sake of the challenge, please stop suggesting I am imagining things...

So I ask, why is the additive appearing to work in one particular way? What is in the additive that is possibly reducing vibration? And if it is, how is it a bad thing? One of the guys mentioned antimony awhile ago, another zddp or the like.

I am not being sarcastic, but I think instead of trying to prove the worthlessness of a product, try to explain why some parts of it seem to work.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, though, that the additive manufacturers rely only on the puff pieces. Yes, all the oil companies say some goofy stuff. But, outside of Castrol saying Magnatec has magic molecules or magnetic molecules or intelligent molecules or whatever it is, I know it's still an SN/GF-5 oil and meets those specifications (or whatever other specifications the chosen variety meets). I have a certain level of guaranteed performance that has nothing to do with whatever wondrous phrasing they do.

I can look at data sheets and specifications and choose an oil solely based upon that, ignoring the brand name and any marketing. I know, well within reason, what I'm getting. If GM tells me I need a 5w-30 dexos1 oil, you can tape off everything on every bottle at the store, except the viscosity and dexos1 logo, and I know I'll be purchasing an approved lubricant, which will satisfy everything GM asks for. It won't matter if it's Pennzoil Platinum or AC Delco or Mobil 1, and I won't have any idea which it is, but I have a solid guarantee that it will work.

As for the power of suggestion, millions of people are duped all the time. The people who came up with these supposed miracle bracelets made millions, even after they were told they couldn't (at least in the States and Canada) make any claims whatsoever about them. They still had ads on TV and sold a whack of "wellness bracelets" or whatever they called them.
 
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
"for example...
Mototribologist offers: "I do think you are underestimating the power of suggestion" perhaps, but if you are saying that a million plus users of various additives are falling victim to "suggestion" or adding things together in hindsight to arrive at the wrong answer, I think your argument is weak and assumes that many people who, while not trained engineers, may be incapable of noticing if their motor runs better or worse.


I have zero doubt in my mind that millions of users fall victim to suggestion and are incapable of noticing how their motor is running.

You don't think millions of people put things together to arrive at the wrong answer to fit their preconceived notions?
lol.gif


I put things together to fit my own preconceived notions all the time. Sometimes I am wrong, but most of these aftermarket additive marketers tend to make it very easy by giving all the pieces necessary to prove they aren't what they say. On the flip side, there are very few pieces to put together an argument for them aside from "feelings".
 
Hang on a minute here guys, you are really saying that millions are being hood winked and using products that have no purpose whatsoever?! Guys that is a pretty big statement.

Instead of trying to prove what additives don't do, which no one has offered up yet, try to prove to me why they cannot work?

Instead of quoting formulas, poking holes in company claims, using examples of other great cons, prove to me how a "tackifier" or antimony will not work in an engine.

The challenge still stands, tell me why the additive I use works in reducing vibration....

waiting.
 
Last edited:
See, you are providing user testimony and challenging us to explain why it works, when we have no actual evidence that it DOES work ?

What's the frequency and amplitude before and after use of the additive ?

What's the resonant frequency of the structure that's being excited, and the mechanism for the engine /operating range to excite that frequency.

We can't "prove" squat without actual testing...

And Actual testing is the main point for not defending (not bashing) additives...they tend to have ZERO testing, or limited to one armed bandit and the like tests that dupe the gullible.
 
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Hang on a minute here guys, you are really saying that millions are being hood winked and using products that have no purpose whatsoever?! Guys that is a pretty big statement.

Instead of trying to prove what additives don't do, which no one has offered up yet, try to prove to me why they cannot work?

Instead of quoting formulas, poking holes in company claims, using examples of other great cons, prove to me how a "tackifier" or antimony will not work in an engine.

The challenge still stands, tell me why the additive I use works in reducing vibration....

waiting.



Commercial additives such as antimony DTC will work in an engine oil, ZDDP will work in an engine oil, MoDTC will work in an engine oil, detergents will work in an engine oil, dispersants will work in an engine oii, metal inhibitors will work in an engine oii, rust preventers will work in an engine oii, friction modifiers will work in an engine oii,

but only in a balanced formulation, not one where one additive causes antagonism because someone decided they thought they were smarter than the chemists.

A tackifier is an ooey-gooey special OCP used to provide cling, as in chains such as chainsaw chains and bars.

A tackifier is a very low quality thickener that leaves a lot of deposits when burnt.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Hang on a minute here guys, you are really saying that millions are being hood winked and using products that have no purpose whatsoever?! Guys that is a pretty big statement.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The dietary supplement market is built upon it almost exclusively, not to mention the market on these other health items. There's a reason we call oil additives snake oils. The marketing (and lack of testable benefits) is almost identical to the "snake oil" health supplements of old.

Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
The challenge still stands, tell me why the additive I use works in reducing vibration....

Demonstrate that it does, first off, and not that it seems to. Also, demonstrate that it does so reliably and reproducibly. Shannow already pointed out the quantifiable components.
 
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
Instead of quoting formulas, poking holes in company claims, using examples of other great cons, prove to me how a "tackifier" or antimony will not work in an engine.


I am confused now. So pointing out exactly why certain additives will not perform the way these companies claim is not what you need to be convinced that they don't do as claimed? Is anecdotal evidence the only thing that will convince you? If that's the case, then I guess I am done.

Tackifier Shearing

Functional Brochure Oh look, one of the major tackifier manufacturer's brochure. Lets look for the motor oil application....wait, you say there is none? Gosh what a surprise! Oh wait, it does mention motor oil, check the incompatibilities section on page 7.

Antimony on the other hand I'm not aware of anyone saying it did not work in engine oils. I know I didn't at least. However, I know for a fact that only a narrow range of concentrations of Sb chemistries will work and overtreating or undertreating makes it basically useless.
 
You reckon your're getting confused.... I feel as though I am having three conversations at once.

Shannow: How the devil am I supposed to test for frequency?! I already told you guys that you were likely to have more knowledge than me, asking me such a question, in full knowledge that it is beyond my means, is a cheap shot to win an argument, surely.
I said from the beginning all I have is my experience with a product, I never stated anything more than that. I have asked you guys to prove to me why it cannot work, a task I thought you would relish.

Molacule: As an aside, I do not know if Moreys uses tackifier or anything else, I am unsure what they use to make it "sticky". These are terms I think I picked up in an earlier discussion in BITOG. But are you stating that the companies that create additives do not employ chemists? I would think this is a big generalisation and possibly inaccurate. Sure, if a company gets the "balance" of additives wrong, damage or lack of improvement may ensue. Do you have evidence they do not employ chemists?

Mototribologist: I think you misunderstood what I said, I was asking that instead of telling me how additives should not work, and using cons for examples, or making fun of outlandish claims, I was asking for you to tell me why an additive would not work in an engine. There are worthy additive components out there, I will use these curtesy of Molakule: "antimony DTC...ZDDP...MoDTC". Can you tell me why these additives will not work? or have no benefit to an engine? This is what I am asking.

I have been around engines since the age of 15, I am not a professional mechanic, but as I have worked almost exclusively with bike engines, I know that one can tell alot by vibration, listening to the engine, using a screwdriver to localise vibration, and how to tell what certain noises and vibrations mean. So when I say "there is less vibration", I know it. I do not need equipment for something simple like that.

so again, why does this additive reduce the vibration in my bike? If it has absolutely no value, and is useless and just another snake oil, why does it seem to work?
 
I think part of the point Shannow is trying to make is that we see no testing done on this additive - just claims. They're not willing to back up their claims with tests. Obviously, only so much can be tested by you. So, we have a product that is bereft of testing but backed with promises.

They won't test it. You can't test it. That leaves us in quite a position.
 
I hear what you are saying, but it seems that you guys are of the opinion that I am totally incapable of discerning an improvement myself.
I am the first to admit that without testing, a product cannot claim much, but to be fair, there are so many hardened anti opinions out there that if an additive company did offer up test results, the anti-additive group would just poke more holes in those.
There would virtually be no way of proving to the anti group any benefit. Now I know there have been many "studies" of additives, and very few have proved any advantage... but seriously, is someone connected with the oil industry going to say additives are good?! That would conversely mean that the oil companies were leaving out the good stuff. Ain't ever gonna happen.

Still, why does my bike motor vibrate less? If the additive I used was useless, how is it that the vibration is less?

I know you guys hate anecdotal experiences, but how many people would it take saying they see an improvement to convince you that we are not imagining things, victims of a global conspiracy, unable to discern obvious changes, and so gullible as to be no better than children? because it feels as though this is what you guys are implying.

You do believe in global warming right...?
 
When one such as yourself makes statements such as you have, you may have to carry on multiple conversations with people that disagree with your premises.


Quote:
Molacule: As an aside, I do not know if Moreys uses tackifier or anything else, I am unsure what they use to make it "sticky". These are terms I think I picked up in an earlier discussion in BITOG. But are you stating that the companies that create additives do not employ chemists? I would think this is a big generalisation and possibly inaccurate. Sure, if a company gets the "balance" of additives wrong, damage or lack of improvement may ensue. Do you have evidence they do not employ chemists?


Do you have any evidence they DO employ chemists?

These OTC additive companies usually take overstocks of materials or stocks of materials no longer used by the commercial additive companies and blend them to increase their cash flow.

Yes, they have blenders employed but no real chemists or mechanical engineers, or they would have bonafide, reproducible ASTM tests to display.

Quote:
That would conversely mean that the oil companies were leaving out the good stuff.


And what would the "good" stuff be they are leaving out?

I have yet found anyone who can tell me that.
cool.gif


Quote:
You do believe in global warming right...?


I would urge you to stick to the topic.
smile.gif



Quote:
Molakule: "antimony DTC...ZDDP...MoDTC". Can you tell me why these additives will not work? or have no benefit to an engine? This is what I am asking.


1) I never said these will not work in an engine and neither has anyone else,

2) I thought I made it clear in post #4068834 that,


Quote:
Commercial additives such as antimony DTC will work in an engine oil, ZDDP will work in an engine oil, MoDTC will work in an engine oil, detergents will work in an engine oil, dispersants will work in an engine oii, metal inhibitors will work in an engine oii, rust preventers will work in an engine oii, friction modifiers will work in an engine oii,

but only in a balanced formulation, not one where one additive causes antagonism because someone decided they thought they were smarter than the chemists.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Bestline oil additive
Replies
5
Views
976
wlk
G
Does catalytic cleaner fuel additive actually work?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Sequoiasoon
FTTSHO
Blue Devil Rear Main Sealer additive
Replies
9
Views
8K
BMWTurboDzl
NormanBuntz
Using MMO in older Honda/Acura V-6 engines
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
NormanBuntz
FTTSHO
  • Locked
Marvel Mystery Oil fixed my compression and misfire issue
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
12K
MolaKule
Back
Top