Shell Racing Oil Patent

Not open for further replies.
Nov 16, 2002
NJ Some interesting info on the components of Shell's racing oils. Some comparative info on competitor racing oils also.
In the past, racing oils were formulated using “conventional oils” as a base oil. Conventional oils are used to lubricate engines in passenger vehicles. To formulate a racing oil, a “conventional oil” was simply modified, typically by adding anti-wear and/or antifriction additive(s), in an effort to meet the high performance requirements of racing oils. Unfortunately, conventional oils contain a number of additives that may be necessary to meet industry specifications applicable to conventional oils, but that are not necessary or even helpful in racing oils. Some of the additives found in conventional oils actually have a negative impact on performance in a racing oil. Conventional oils and racing oils are exposed to completely different conditions. Passenger vehicles provide transportation over long periods of time under relatively mild conditions. Racing oils are used to lubricate very expensive engines under extremely intense conditions. Racing oils must provide excellent engine protection under high loads at high temperatures over short periods of time. The present application provides specially formulated racing oils having optimal overall performance. The racing oils are formulated using a base oil comprising polyalphaolefin and using only “racing oil components.” Only those additives which provide a performance benefit, or which are required to provide effective racing oil properties are used in the racing oil formulations. Different types of oils for different racing applications are efficiently and effectively formulated to meet the rapid demands of racing teams. The racing oil comprises base oil, ester, and a sufficient quantity of the racing oil components to provide effective racing oil properties. Effective racing oil properties include, but are not necessarily limited to a specified kinematic viscosity at 100° C. and a coefficient of friction of about 0.065 or less at 180° C. The specified kinematic viscosity of the racing oil at 100° C. will vary with the grade of racing oil. Generally, the specified kinematic viscosity at 100° C. is from about 3.2 centistokes (cSt) to about 25 cSt.
Here's the complete patent application. It seems to me like they are trying to patent the idea of making oil that is targeted for racing applications from PAO, since that is claim #1. Shell patent
That's pretty much what this patent means, considering Claim 1, which is the claim upon which all other claims are based.
 Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Here's the complete patent application. It seems to me like they are trying to patent the idea of making oil that is targeted for racing applications from PAO, since that is claim #1. Shell patent
Link doesn't work.
Like most other oil blenders, their oils are comprised of various components from different suppliers like XOM, LZ, Durasyn and Infineum. Looks like some of their PAO comes from BP. (Durasyn)
Very interesting. Among the non-Shell oils tested I say: The Mobil 1 and Red Line oils didn't do so well in one or more metrics (overall). The Valvoline oils and Kendall GT-1 oils did very well I'd say. Amsoil did well but wasn't the best. Royal Purple seemed to end up in the middle overall. I wouldn't have predicted these things...I'm humbled and learned something from this. Disclaimer: my conclusions may be partly wrong and they result from a lot of scrolling up and down the document. I'd like to hear what others concluded too.
I'm not sure why RL's contact film is "0". Mobil 1 0w30 produced the smallest viscosity loss.
buster, I noticed that while Red Line 15W-50 contact film was "0", it's wear scar was smaller than M1 0W-30 Racing and M1 5W-50, both of which had non-zero contact film. So I think there must be something going on with the resistance of the anti-wear film of Red Line, like maybe it's conductive while the other oil's film is non-conductive or much less so. What counts is the wear scar IMO. It's a direct measure of what we care about. The contact film is indirect and potentially has issues with some oils. I also noticed that of the non-super thin oils and non-Shell oils, M1 5W-50 had the largest wear scar. It's coefficient of friction wasn't so hot either. That's weird and I'd love to know why. Valvoline Racing 20W-50 had the lowest wear scar of all the non-Shell oils. I guess it is not synthetic as well. I'm very impressed!
 Originally Posted By: Saab9-3
Whats so bad about Redline and Mobil #'s?
It's just that they ranked behind some of the other oils. Mobil 1 in particular looks bad.
I look forward to that UOA, Saab9-3. I just finished a short 3.2K mi. run of Red Line 5W-30 in my VW 1.8T. The amount of iron/steel caught on the drain plug magnet was comparable to what was caught on a previous 3.9K mi. run using Mobil 1 0W-40. I was hoping for better but knew it might not happen. Maybe Red Line 10W-40 would have been different. There's only one way to find out. Obviously, expectations are often wrong in this tribology "game".
I didnt spend too much time trying to digest this file, but wouldnt friction and wear data be more interesting across similar grades. Eg a OW5 oil is not likely to perform the same as a 5W30. Some grades are designed for low temp operation like qualifying.
Not open for further replies.