Quote:
I am the Manager of Product Development at Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation and have held that position for 20 years. I would like to clarify some of the analyses that have been posted in the forum you moderate. I have many issues to discuss here and hope that you don't take offense to my criticism. I am not angry with you and I realize that you have been advised by oil analysts which may not completely understand certain differences which are characteristic of Red Line.
Perhaps the greatest issue I have is an analysis of 2007 FXSTD; 6500 miles. This one is easy. That is not Red Line Oil. I have been in charge of all formulations for the past 20 years, and that formulation has never been created in our manufacturing plant. It could not have been put into a Red Line bottle. We typically have greater than 500ppm Molybdenum and little or no magnesium in our lubricants. At least once a year, I get an analysis back from an analytical lab which is not what I sent. Samples can get switched in analysis. Samples can get put in the wrong container when sampling, and products can get in the wrong bike during installation. What I can guarantee is that the analysis posted is not Red Line.
Then this wrong analysis causes the chemist to be "Blown away" at the lack of consistency of Red Line. I would appreciate a reassessment of that statement in light of this knowledge.
I also take issue with his statement that Red Line is an inferior basestock with a pretty good additive package. His only reason to doubt the superiority of the Red Line basestock is because of the oxidation number of 106. That is an erroneous number. Red Line contains a significant amount of synthetic esters which have very great thermal and oxidation stability. Those esters absorb at the same wavelength as organic acids, which are a result of oxidation. What he is seeing is not oxidation, which he simply assumes, but the absorbance of the ester in the FTIR testing. His assessment is wrong and thus his comments about the inferiority of Red Line's base stock are wrong. He must use the same product unused as a baseline to do a differential IR scan. Even with that, differences in evaporation of various components during use will cause differences in the FTIR scan to make oxidation very difficult to measure using FTIR when esters are present. If oxidation is occuring, acids will be created and they will neutralize the TBN. If there is significant TBN, then there cannot be significant oxidation. TBN can also be depleted by NOx, but that is another wrinkle, but it can be said that if there is still TBN, then significant oxidation did not occur.
Another analysis to discuss is the 2007 FXSTD 6,600 miles.
The viscosity of the product has nothing to do with water being emulsified and more-or-less bonded with the oil. This lubricant is in physical terminology "thixotropic" and has a high apparent viscosity under certain testing. The water may be from condensation, but more likely from a very good hosing down. This water would be evaporated during high-temperature service. His assessment that this base is a diester is totally false. This is not a diester lubricant, but does contain polyol esters, which have little affinity for water also. Left open, these esters will have only a few ppm water, much less than the 50,000ppm shown.
There was another analysis 2007RK Classic; 4974 miles
This appears to be a mixture and something else, probably 80% Red Line, but we have no boron in our oil and usually only 10ppm magnesium, and approximately 3500 ppm calcium, and 1400 ppm Phosphorous in this product. I only bring this up because some readers may find that level of phosphorous unsatisfactory.
The last issue is with 2005 Sportster
The assertion of the chemist that he did not have a baseline because Red Line is not a "certified" oil is not true. The reason he did not have a baseline is that he never purchased a baseline. That is all he would have to do.
I hope you can help rectify some of these issues, especially the inconsistency issue. If you have any questions about this, email me at
[email protected] or call me at 707-745-6100. Thanks for your time.
Regards,
Roy Howell
Manager of Product Development
Red Line Synthetic Oil Corp
Nov 9, 2007, at 7:19 PM, I replied:
Thanks for taking the time to contact me. I live and breathe Harley-Davidson motorcycles and that's why I volunteered to moderate on this site. I am no expert on oils, but simply as self-educated as I can get in order to help me choose wisely. I ended up with moderating the oil section because I had a bit more knowledge than the next choice! I work in a power plant with emissions equipment, and have some experience with various gas analyzers and water analyzers. I also acted as the backup to the plant chemist and know first-hand that it is very easy to get samples messed up, contaminated, mixed up.
With your permission I would like to attach this e-mail directly to the UOAs. I think that would be the best way to ensure anyone looking at the information can get as accurate a picture as possible.
Again, thanks for contacting me. We've had others who said they were in the industry take exception to things that have been posted, but they were very cryptic and would provide no relevant information to clarify any possible misinformation. It is refreshing to hear from someone who has taken the time to provide explanations that we can understand.
Skip
Nov 15, 2007
Skip:
I understand your position as a moderator of this forum and I appreciate your offer to attach this, it would be helpful to us to clarify some of the information taken out of context. Oil analysis can be a very useful tool for evaluating the condition of equipment and can help determine the useful life of lubricants, but there are many discrepancies which must be considered. First, the accuracy of the elemental concentrations is in the range of +/- 15%. This is because finding the appropriate standard for the various formulation in the market is very difficult. If you needed a very precise number, that could be evaluated, but it would cost around $100 per element. You get a very good value for the price they charge, but it cannot be assumed to be "accurate", only "reasonably accurate". Another issue is that particles with a size greater than 5 microns are very difficult to detect by spectroscopy. It is entirely possible that a product with low wear numbers actually has much greater wear. It is very difficult to evaluate different lubricants by the oil analysis numbers, because of the sensitivity of oil analysis to particle size, and how operating under different conditions and different formulations can cause the wear particle distribution to change considerably. Oil analysis is great for monitoring the condition of equipment on a regular basis, and is useful once a good baseline for the equipment has been established and it is useful to alert you when a problem begins to arise. Thanks for your helpfulness and I hope this can clarify some confusing issues.
Regards,
Roy Howell
Red Line Synthetic Oil Corp
http://www.hdforums.com/archive/threads/used-oil-analyses-uoa-2061824-1.html
