Another oil thread!!

45 pages worth - but I'll have a look when I have a spare day or so......

There's also a dedicated, searchable page where all the results are collated, there's a link to it on the page where you select which forum you want to visit. Further analysis of the results is pending too, so watch that space.

The first time I've seen an oil thread based on practical research, and it ain't over yet!

Previously robert_tuck wrote:

Has anyone been following the Acess Norton Cam follower scar oil test thread ?. Its now getting interesting as tests of oils more familiar to Uk riders are included. Who would have thought that Castrol GTX 20-50 would have come out so well. Of course it has to be understood that the tests are to establish the best oil suitable for a highly stressed big bore Comando motor running at much higher temps than we have here. Its likely that the final winner (possibly Bel Ray??) may not be the best choice for a std 99 getting normal classic use in the UK. A cheapish french supermarket oil is also a surprise.

hello well since I last raced and Norton I used Duckhams Q and Now Duckhams Q is back in business they will launch there product at the NEC Classic next week and they will be doing monograde oils as well as the all-time 20/50 and grease products and fuel additives so I might just have a day out at the NEC , yours anna j

I just googled and came up with this page .

https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/follower-scar-oil-tests.25898/page-34

The plots I find most interesting are the final ones: for 3000 and 4000prm. Both show a high initial peak (as the cam meets the inertia of the mass of the valve train, plus the spring stiffness) followed by almost nothing until the end of the lift period when the drop-off is almost a perfect mirror image of the lift off.

Leaving the mirror as a mystery - the fact (if it is a fact) of near-zero contact force after the tappet has been walloped by the cam suggests that valve lift is bigger than cam lift. Either that or the design is so refined that the contact is just maintained under almost zero load all the time the tappet is close to the peak of the cam.

So the only part of the cam profile that matters is the first part of the lift, and not the peak at all!

But why the second half is mirror of the first baffles me. Unless someone is making it all up?!

Harley Davidson 20-50 oil is a very good product which I used for years when I used to have Laverda triples, and also in my last Buell. Was recommended to me by Steve Winterton, a Laverda man through and through, who reckoned the Americans happen to know just a little bit about oil and litigation. Haven't used it in my 99 yet but will.

I have used Harley oil too. It is as high a spec as you can get with an AIR COOLED engine. Just make sure it is for the older air cooled motors as they are now going over to liquid cooled. It is I think API SH rated.

Hello All

I, along with some like minded souls, was responsible for funding and sending samples of the following oils to Jim Comstock for testing:

1. Total/elf Moto 4 Race 10w-60 API SN fully synthetic.2. Millers Classic Sport High Performance 20w-50 (described as full ZDDP) API SL/CF fully synthetic.3. Comma Classic 20w-50 (800 ppm ZDDP), oil requested by sponsor API SE CC Mineral based.4. Fuchs Silkolene Comp 4 20w-50, available at no cost, API SL synthetic ester based (semi-synthetic).5. Castrol Power 1 4T 20w-50 - API SJ Refers to ZDDP but no level available (probably semi synthetic).6. Duckhams Q 20w-50 (has 1200 ppm ZDDP) API SJ/C Mineral based classic with good ZDDP.7. Fuchs Titan Pro S 10w-60. API SL, SJ & SH fully synthetic.8. Rock Oil Syntheses Motorcycle 10w-50. API SN fully synthetic.

See https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/follower-scar-oil-tests.25898/page-39.

Of these oils only 4 Castrol Power 1 4T 20w-50 - API SJ and Total/elf Moto 4 Race 10w-60 API SN fully synthetic were viewed by Jim Comstock as suitable for Commandos in a mild state of tune with 213lb load/3.78 heat from viscous friction, and 228lb load/1.93 heat from viscous friction, respectively. By way of comparison Bel-Ray 20w-50 V-Twin Synthetic (which is available in the UK) tested with 500lb load and 0.013 heat from viscous friction.

Morris V-Twin 20w-50 at 222lbs/4.98 heat from viscous friction was also tested - I have this in my Commando at present.

Earlier in the thread on Access Norton, Jim indicated that load rating should be >150lb and heat from viscous friction <4 for use with Commandos.

Work is in hand to make the data more widely available in an accessible form.

Although testing can always be criticized for how representative it is, this is one of few tests with publicly available results. At the very least it is highly valuable as a comparative exercise. All imho.

Andy

Previously robert_tuck wrote:

Hi Anna, I don't think Duckhams came out as well as expected, However the tests are not representative of the conditions that we in the UK face so we will have to wait and see.

Hello Rob well back in my hey days I had a 99ss race tuned by Eric Cresser a BR Doncaster works engineer and machinist he rebuilt and race tuned my 99ss motor and I fitted a Quafe five speed cluster and a bob Newby clutch twin gardner flat side carbs set up, alloy five gallon race tank rear set and race seat were john tickle and the slimline race frame was chromoly sif bronze welded , light as a feather special made frame T51 now this bike I would ride 120 miles or so to a race meeting and enter a race and run that race and be with in the top five finishers and then ride back home up the A1 at brake neck speed seeing 100 plus nearly all the way and the oil I used back then was duckhams Q 20/50 never let me down the same bike would keep pace with my mate new Gs 1000 1978 model on the open motorways and this (99ss) would put my Manxman to same, it was that fast eric Cresser was a racing sidecar man and made many special parts for his BSA devimead 903 8valver now this sidecar was fast and timed to over 140 mph on the then new m18 and I was passenger back then we get a big buss out of speed and the oil Eric used was duckham Q 20/50 and was use in formula 1 racing cars by BRM and Lotus and formula ford happy days yours anna j

Anna, as an engineer you will of course understand that stringent testing with repeatable results always trumps (oops did I swear?) hearsay.

A word of caution

1/ Duckhams 20/50 was well regarded product of an independent producer in the early days of multigrade oils. It passed into the ownership of BP who let it fade away. They sold the brand name recently and the new owners has re-launched it. It is probably significantly different from the original and I cannot find from the new web site what, if any,performance standards it claims to conform to.

2/ The study 'published' on the Access Norton site should be taken with a large dose of salt. The valve train is the most stressed part of the engine with contact pressures of up to 1GPA. Fluid .Film formation depends on, elasticity of surfaces, viscosity of the oil, how viscosity increases with pressure cam, surface roughness and tappet radii of curvature at the point of contact. Reproducing the above in a simple bench test is next to impossible and the Timken tester used is about the last thing I would choose.

When I was responsible for Tribology with the bit of Exxon which developed, manufactured and supplied fueI and lubricant additives to Fuel and Lubricant supplier from Esso, Castrol Shell down to really tiny ones I used a Cam and tappet rig supplied by the Motor Industry Research Association to study the effect of Additive structures and interactions on valve train wear. We used commercial cams and tappets, but in order to get consistent results we had to reject 70 % of the components supplied.This Rig was modified to allow us to measure friction /load and temperature at the cam and tappet interface every 1 deg. of rotation and we studied wear at a range of oil temperatures and speeds.

Even then we only used it to identify possible advantages and definite no-no's.

Blow by gas has a huge impact on the formation of protective AW films as does fuel dilution.WE had more sophisticated cylinder head rigs which used production cylinder heads from industry critical engines and reproduced exactly the results of industry reference oils. All test methods need to show repeatability and discrimination. 10 repeat tests is regarded as the minimum for repeatability and complete discrimination between oils of acceptable and unacceptable performance.

In the end expensive fired engine tests are the final arbiter.

Previously Gordon Johnston wrote:

Anna, as an engineer you will of course understand that stringent testing with repeatable results always trumps (oops did I swear?) hearsay.

Hello, John well I think back in my hay days Ratting up and down the A1 at speed was a stringenttest, at the speeds I was going back then I was lucky there was never any Police around, but that was fun back then now I am too old for flying around on a fast Norton it happens to us all when we hit the buffers with old age, alwayslove your comments John keep up the good work ,, yours Anna J

Previously Charles Bovington wrote:

A word of caution

1/ Duckhams 20/50 was well regarded product of an independent producer in the early days of multigrade oils. It passed into the ownership of BP who let it fade away. They sold the brand name recently and the new owners has re-launched it. It is probably significantly different from the original and I cannot find from the new web site what, if any,performance standards it claims to conform to.

2/ The study 'published' on the Access Norton site should be taken with a large dose of salt. The valve train is the most stressed part of the engine with contact pressures of up to 1GPA. Fluid .Film formation depends on, elasticity of surfaces, viscosity of the oil, how viscosity increases with pressure cam, surface roughness and tappet radii of curvature at the point of contact. Reproducing the above in a simple bench test is next to impossible and the Timken tester used is about the last thing I would choose.

When I was responsible for Tribology with the bit of Exxon which developed, manufactured and supplied fueI and lubricant additives to Fuel and Lubricant supplier from Esso, Castrol Shell down to really tiny ones I used a Cam and tappet rig supplied by the Motor Industry Research Association to study the effect of Additive structures and interactions on valve train wear. We used commercial cams and tappets, but in order to get consistent results we had to reject 70 % of the components supplied.This Rig was modified to allow us to measure friction /load and temperature at the cam and tappet interface every 1 deg. of rotation and we studied wear at a range of oil temperatures and speeds.

Even then we only used it to identify possible advantages and definite no-no's.

Blow by gas has a huge impact on the formation of protective AW films as does fuel dilution.WE had more sophisticated cylinder head rigs which used production cylinder heads from industry critical engines and reproduced exactly the results of industry reference oils. All test methods need to show repeatability and discrimination. 10 repeat tests is regarded as the minimum for repeatability and complete discrimination between oils of acceptable and unacceptable performance.

In the end expensive fired engine tests are the final arbiter.

Hello, Charles,would you like to be a guest speaker On oil that one of our meetings next year you will get re-inburst for your fuel our members would be enthralled with your knowledge of this subject you will enjoy your night out there, the Bowmans Howden east yorks

.... or maybe an extended article for Roadholder? I remember Gerry Bristow's writings from decades ago but sadly he is no longer with us, and I'm sure oil has moved on since his articles.

Well...as Popeye says "That's all I can stands, cuz I can't stands n'more!"

To me this thread epitomizes all that is so wrong with the ultra conservative NOC.

Members are happy to slag off Jim Comstock's work but offer no viable alternative!

Us punters are at the mercy of all the marketing, hype and bull*hit of the suppliers and manufacturers.

Is there any other independent testing of oils that anyone can point to?

Perhaps Charles Bovington would propose a series of trials at MIRA, sponsored by the NOC, that helps us through the current mire of which oils are best for our air cooled dinosaurs using the fired engine tests he recommends as the 'final arbiter'.

Jim's work can be criticized, and I agree about the limited number of tests of individual oils, but what else is there?

Incidentally Charles Bovington is totally incorrect in describing Jim Comstock's use of a Timken Tester. Jim's is a test rig of his own making and uses a line contact arbor and a Norton cam follower. It is thus the most representative test us Nortonistas have.

Duckhams oils compliance with standards are specified here https://www.duckhams.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PDS-20W-50.pdf and it looks like 'hinge oil' according to Jim Comstock's tests.

As with so many modern replacements it may not match the original. All imho of course.

In the meantime take a look at Jim's results on Access Norton and think about using good old Castrol XL 20w50 or a Bel Ray or Royal Purple oil if you're feeling flush.

Andy