Oil recommendation for cbr900rr track bike
- Thread starter Diffinking
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Benito
I didn't know what "NSFW" meant and scrolled down.
NSF was used by biker boy, not me.
I didn't know what "NSFW" meant and scrolled down.
NSF was used by biker boy, not me.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
My eyes have been assaulted.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
We know now why the chicks that he posts pictures of are near LOLing in the photos...and presumably the reason for "little" in "Busy Little Shop".
Those "chicks" are consummate riders with sport in their blood and
you'll just have to keep guessing why we are LOLing in our blue underwear...
We know now why the chicks that he posts pictures of are near LOLing in the photos...and presumably the reason for "little" in "Busy Little Shop".
Those "chicks" are consummate riders with sport in their blood and
you'll just have to keep guessing why we are LOLing in our blue underwear...
Those chicks are probably getting some contributions to their bank accounts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Big ends, particularly if there's a known marginal design, need HTHS.
ALL plain bearings live (or die) with HTHS.
If all other things were equal, higher delivery flow rate would probably reduce temps slightly, which IS a good thing. But to trade flow for film thickness is folly.
If I were the OP, I'd be tempted to try a 15w-40 HDEO.
Start with a two-track-day OCI and see how it fares. (You could probably change it each day and still save $)
IMO, buying $10/qt magic oil makes no sense to me w/o REAL laboratory proof that it is living up to the Sales Dude's hype.
Big ends, particularly if there's a known marginal design, need HTHS.
ALL plain bearings live (or die) with HTHS.
If all other things were equal, higher delivery flow rate would probably reduce temps slightly, which IS a good thing. But to trade flow for film thickness is folly.
If I were the OP, I'd be tempted to try a 15w-40 HDEO.
Start with a two-track-day OCI and see how it fares. (You could probably change it each day and still save $)
IMO, buying $10/qt magic oil makes no sense to me w/o REAL laboratory proof that it is living up to the Sales Dude's hype.
Originally Posted By: Geonerd
If all other things were equal, higher delivery flow rate would probably reduce temps slightly, which IS a good thing. But to trade flow for film thickness is folly.
Problem is that BLS and 101 claim that it's the flow "carrying away" heat, when in fact it's a reduction in heat due to viscous shearing...5W20 to 20W60 in my Briggs was about 10C change in temperatures.
Might seem persnicketty, but the advocates of "carries more heat away" don't understand lubrication (you would think an aircraft expert would get the lift/drga concept).
But the flow that DOES carry heat away, piston squirters are reduced by chasing bearing flow and eliminating relief flow on the oil pump.
member Sunruh has some really good, real world testing that shows some of the (cheap) 15W40s to be outstanding in shared sump activities
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3876522/Re:_Delvac_MX_15W40_vs_Delo_40#Post3876522
If all other things were equal, higher delivery flow rate would probably reduce temps slightly, which IS a good thing. But to trade flow for film thickness is folly.
Problem is that BLS and 101 claim that it's the flow "carrying away" heat, when in fact it's a reduction in heat due to viscous shearing...5W20 to 20W60 in my Briggs was about 10C change in temperatures.
Might seem persnicketty, but the advocates of "carries more heat away" don't understand lubrication (you would think an aircraft expert would get the lift/drga concept).
But the flow that DOES carry heat away, piston squirters are reduced by chasing bearing flow and eliminating relief flow on the oil pump.
member Sunruh has some really good, real world testing that shows some of the (cheap) 15W40s to be outstanding in shared sump activities
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3876522/Re:_Delvac_MX_15W40_vs_Delo_40#Post3876522
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Those chicks are probably getting some contributions to their bank accounts
Guess again Pudknocker... the only act that they bank on is ripping
your ears off in a corner...
Those chicks are probably getting some contributions to their bank accounts
Guess again Pudknocker... the only act that they bank on is ripping
your ears off in a corner...
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Those chicks are probably getting some contributions to their bank accounts
Guess again Pudknocker... the only act that they bank on is ripping
your ears off in a corner...
The BLS doth protest too much, methinks
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Those chicks are probably getting some contributions to their bank accounts
Guess again Pudknocker... the only act that they bank on is ripping
your ears off in a corner...
The BLS doth protest too much, methinks
OP
In summary we all gave you our best learned opinions... key word in
your topic was and still is "TRACK BIKE" and true to its racing intent I
believe you want to safely extract the most HP from the 900RR...
typically owners spend a lot in aftermarket parts to improve
performance and thus improve their joy... leaving HP on the table is
not what a savoy track racer wants... a good after market exhaust can
cost $1800 to $2500 just to gain a precious 3 to 5 HP... a Power
Commander promises another another 6 HP... my experiences show that
running the recommended 30 weight oil prescribed in the owners manual
will also net 2 to 3 HP gain over a 40 weight and 4 to 6 HP gain over
a 50 weight and a 30 will still meet and exceed your track and mileage
expectations...
Oil drag in a tube comparison...
In summary we all gave you our best learned opinions... key word in
your topic was and still is "TRACK BIKE" and true to its racing intent I
believe you want to safely extract the most HP from the 900RR...
typically owners spend a lot in aftermarket parts to improve
performance and thus improve their joy... leaving HP on the table is
not what a savoy track racer wants... a good after market exhaust can
cost $1800 to $2500 just to gain a precious 3 to 5 HP... a Power
Commander promises another another 6 HP... my experiences show that
running the recommended 30 weight oil prescribed in the owners manual
will also net 2 to 3 HP gain over a 40 weight and 4 to 6 HP gain over
a 50 weight and a 30 will still meet and exceed your track and mileage
expectations...
Oil drag in a tube comparison...
You could illustrate the same test by timing a bubble rise in each of the engine oil grades.
True of most sports....
As per your post a few up, I not sure if riding takes guts or titanium balls, but the willingness to be injured and reinjured, recover and do it all over again.
Sooner or later most people slow down, stop taking risks and stop hurting and limping around on sprains, tears and breaks.
True of most sports....
As per your post a few up, I not sure if riding takes guts or titanium balls, but the willingness to be injured and reinjured, recover and do it all over again.
Sooner or later most people slow down, stop taking risks and stop hurting and limping around on sprains, tears and breaks.
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
OP
In summary we all gave you our best learned opinions... key word in
your topic was and still is "TRACK BIKE" and true to its racing intent I
believe you want to safely extract the most HP from the 900RR...
typically owners spend a lot in aftermarket parts to improve
performance and thus improve their joy... leaving HP on the table is
not what a savoy track racer wants... a good after market exhaust can
cost $1800 to $2500 just to gain a precious 3 to 5 HP... a Power
Commander promises another another 6 HP... my experiences show that
running the recommended 30 weight oil prescribed in the owners manual
will also net 2 to 3 HP gain over a 40 weight and 4 to 6 HP gain over
a 50 weight and a 30 will still meet and exceed your track and mileage
expectations...
Oil drag in a tube comparison...
Not sure that an RC dropped in a column of oil and seeing which hits the bottom first is a form of racing, but it could be. That ball and tube effect is kinematic viscosity (what you refer to as gravity flow).
It was determined decades ago that with multigrades they didn't provide protection against wear as their KV (gravity flow) grades would suggest, and they started testing oils in very high shear rate regimes, which are typical of the loaded side of bearings, and the mid stroke of pistons and rings.
Found that the viscosity was markedly lower due to the Viscosity index improvers.
That's when they brought the minimum HTHS (high temperature high shear) requirement into J300.
Wear, power and economy are more directly related to HTHS than they are "gravity flow"...see recent discussions re some of the Unicorn 0W50s and the like, with ridiculously low HTHS, and meeting a "50" grade, based on "gravity flow" (rest of us call it Kinematic Viscosity".
First thing you've got to do to win anything is get to the finish line. That means adequate HTHS.
Second thing is to get there fastest.
And then you've got to balance the roadgoing racer that's not doing a rebuild every time out, or whether the risk/reward is in the check it over once, twice, thrice a season.
I'm positive that no motorcycle manufacturer has ever specified an ILSAC GF-4/5/6 (energy conserving) oil for a motorcycle application...they are low HTHS for unstressed economy applications.
the majority of the players in JAMA report gear pitting as ether a problem or present at lower then 3 HTHS.
So a "30" isn't a "30" in your simplistic view.
There are 30s which have decent HTHS (3.4-3.6) which will provide decent protection to combined engines and trannies...and they aren't ILSAC.
OP
In summary we all gave you our best learned opinions... key word in
your topic was and still is "TRACK BIKE" and true to its racing intent I
believe you want to safely extract the most HP from the 900RR...
typically owners spend a lot in aftermarket parts to improve
performance and thus improve their joy... leaving HP on the table is
not what a savoy track racer wants... a good after market exhaust can
cost $1800 to $2500 just to gain a precious 3 to 5 HP... a Power
Commander promises another another 6 HP... my experiences show that
running the recommended 30 weight oil prescribed in the owners manual
will also net 2 to 3 HP gain over a 40 weight and 4 to 6 HP gain over
a 50 weight and a 30 will still meet and exceed your track and mileage
expectations...
Oil drag in a tube comparison...
Not sure that an RC dropped in a column of oil and seeing which hits the bottom first is a form of racing, but it could be. That ball and tube effect is kinematic viscosity (what you refer to as gravity flow).
It was determined decades ago that with multigrades they didn't provide protection against wear as their KV (gravity flow) grades would suggest, and they started testing oils in very high shear rate regimes, which are typical of the loaded side of bearings, and the mid stroke of pistons and rings.
Found that the viscosity was markedly lower due to the Viscosity index improvers.
That's when they brought the minimum HTHS (high temperature high shear) requirement into J300.
Wear, power and economy are more directly related to HTHS than they are "gravity flow"...see recent discussions re some of the Unicorn 0W50s and the like, with ridiculously low HTHS, and meeting a "50" grade, based on "gravity flow" (rest of us call it Kinematic Viscosity".
First thing you've got to do to win anything is get to the finish line. That means adequate HTHS.
Second thing is to get there fastest.
And then you've got to balance the roadgoing racer that's not doing a rebuild every time out, or whether the risk/reward is in the check it over once, twice, thrice a season.
I'm positive that no motorcycle manufacturer has ever specified an ILSAC GF-4/5/6 (energy conserving) oil for a motorcycle application...they are low HTHS for unstressed economy applications.
the majority of the players in JAMA report gear pitting as ether a problem or present at lower then 3 HTHS.
So a "30" isn't a "30" in your simplistic view.
There are 30s which have decent HTHS (3.4-3.6) which will provide decent protection to combined engines and trannies...and they aren't ILSAC.
Originally Posted By: used_0il
True of most sports....
As per your post a few up, I not sure if riding takes guts or titanium balls, but the willingness to be injured and reinjured, recover and do it all over again.
Sooner or later most people slow down, stop taking risks and stop hurting and limping around on sprains, tears and breaks.
Imagine if you will being lucky enough to ride the OP's 900cc on a race track...
tucked in a fetal ball... arms wrapped around a Superbike's carcass of alloy...
magnesium and carbon fiber... with your head inches away from the screen...
it is you completing the aerodynamic whole of this bio mechanical exotic masterpiece...
The horizon comes towards you in a constant barrage of almost formless images...
suddenly you realize what it's like to interface with the law of physics... what it's
like to wrestle the apexes... all while obeying the telepathic messenger from HRC...
True of most sports....
As per your post a few up, I not sure if riding takes guts or titanium balls, but the willingness to be injured and reinjured, recover and do it all over again.
Sooner or later most people slow down, stop taking risks and stop hurting and limping around on sprains, tears and breaks.
Imagine if you will being lucky enough to ride the OP's 900cc on a race track...
tucked in a fetal ball... arms wrapped around a Superbike's carcass of alloy...
magnesium and carbon fiber... with your head inches away from the screen...
it is you completing the aerodynamic whole of this bio mechanical exotic masterpiece...
The horizon comes towards you in a constant barrage of almost formless images...
suddenly you realize what it's like to interface with the law of physics... what it's
like to wrestle the apexes... all while obeying the telepathic messenger from HRC...
Last edited:
OP... the choice is yours but anyone of these 30 weights have proven to meet or exceed
the owner's track and mileage expectations...
the owner's track and mileage expectations...
Last edited:
love the little story, but the 52 (RCAF?) Chipmunk better.
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - Yes
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.5
Shear Stability Index - 0.947
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - No FM, claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.5
Shear Stability Index - 0.989 - probably zero VIIs
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.8
Shear Stability Index - 0.99 - zero VIIs
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - ?
Shear Stability Index - ?
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - No, product data sheet is wrong.
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - contains VMs.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Marginal, HTHS 3.1 (*)
Shear Stability Index - 0.863 - lots of VIIs (*)
(*) the two combined mean that the oil WILL shear rapidly in MC application, and WILL compromise gear pitting and engine wear protection.
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - No - As evidenced above, there are clearly superior oils for actual motorcycle application.
IF I wanted a 30 from the above oils, I'd reccomend the Redline for wear protection, and the Amsoil for slightly higher potential power/economy.
Both the Amsoil and the Redline would be preferable (IMO) over a 10W40, as they are quite Newtonian in makeup.
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - Yes
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.5
Shear Stability Index - 0.947
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - No FM, claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.5
Shear Stability Index - 0.989 - probably zero VIIs
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Yes, HTHS 3.8
Shear Stability Index - 0.99 - zero VIIs
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - Yes
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - claims to be suitable for JASO MA.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - ?
Shear Stability Index - ?
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - No, product data sheet is wrong.
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Wet Clutch Compatibility tested against industry standards - contains VMs.
Viscosity sufficient to prevent gear pitting - Marginal, HTHS 3.1 (*)
Shear Stability Index - 0.863 - lots of VIIs (*)
(*) the two combined mean that the oil WILL shear rapidly in MC application, and WILL compromise gear pitting and engine wear protection.
Shannow's recommendation for 30 grade in racing bike - No - As evidenced above, there are clearly superior oils for actual motorcycle application.
IF I wanted a 30 from the above oils, I'd reccomend the Redline for wear protection, and the Amsoil for slightly higher potential power/economy.
Both the Amsoil and the Redline would be preferable (IMO) over a 10W40, as they are quite Newtonian in makeup.
- Status
Similar threads
