Yamaha Starbike Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
"ah..American (Bill) check out this oil film, bearing stress test...

....amongst these oils, is also Redline, and Royal Purple....

Check out the bearing load out test...between Redline...and Royal Purple...this magazine group tested a ton of popular oil producers, and they said DESPITE all the hate-on and misinformation regarding Royal Purple brand...that was the ONLY oil that not only showed no scarring of the bearing surface, but in fact POLISHED the surface...check this link out....Redline is mid way down the list and comments, Royal Purple is near the bottom of the pages...and their two samples...the best in class from ANY manufacturer they tested....wow...

The Achilles Heal of this bike, if one wants to call it that...is the extreme pressure the cam lobe has to exert upwards upon the lifter, to open two large, powerful valve springs...as it rides those cam lobes. It seems Royal Purple is the best oil out there, to negate any further worry about heavy pressure and friction contact between the cam lobe and the bottom of the H.L's...those two Royal Purple test bearings visually sure support that opinion. One with their Synerlec based oil, tested within its bath, and the other only running on a dipped oil film...not even the oil bath, (for they took that away as the load test continued,...and scarring 90 percent less than all the other competitors running the bearing in their oil bath. Wow....it seems that the Royal Purple with Synerlec will actually POLISH the cam lobe and the riding, contact surface of the bottom of all four H.L's...,so cool!

I think I'm going to see great operating results with their Max Cycle 10W40 with their Synerlec additive package. I mean...look at all the other load bearings...geez..and then Royal Purples'...and this NOT DONE by Royal Purple, or Redline themselves...so no result 'doping'.

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
i'm not sure how much stock to put into his test. it was conducted by a magazine editor, not an expert. and before the test or publication, he was reaching out online to ask the public about a lot of generalities that questions the credibility of his findings or whether they actually prove anything about actual working conditions of engines.

https://forums.noria.com/topic/oil-testing-procedures
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
i can't verify this directly with the publication since the link is no longer active, but there is a forum that found a post script to their testing:

"A few months back (issue 108), you might remember we did an oil comparison. At the time, we thought it was a bloody good thing, and we don't mind telling you we were pretty proud to publish an article that basically bagged a heap of big name brands. You see, at Street Commodores, we can't, and won't be bought. We like to play things straight. And in the name of playing things straight, we'd like to tell you what has happened since that story went to print.

Basically, we made a few oil companies very cross, and some others quite happy; but we've also been educated some more on engine oils, and being the type of publication that we are, we wanted to fill you in on it. The information we've learned since then suggests the test we performed may be irrelevant. Some sources have advised us that the test we used would have been better served testing some of our favourite greases rather than the engine oils we commonly use on our street cars. Sure, we did the test with the best intentions, with a level playing field for each oil and no preconceptions as to who would perform better than another, but when, and if, we mess up, we like to think that we're man enough to set the record straight."

http://www.streetcommodores.com.au/news.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
i can't verify this directly with the publication since the link is no longer active, but there is a forum that found a post script to their testing:

"A few months back (issue 108), you might remember we did an oil comparison. At the time, we thought it was a bloody good thing, and we don't mind telling you we were pretty proud to publish an article that basically bagged a heap of big name brands. You see, at Street Commodores, we can't, and won't be bought. We like to play things straight. And in the name of playing things straight, we'd like to tell you what has happened since that story went to print.

Basically, we made a few oil companies very cross, and some others quite happy; but we've also been educated some more on engine oils, and being the type of publication that we are, we wanted to fill you in on it. The information we've learned since then suggests the test we performed may be irrelevant. Some sources have advised us that the test we used would have been better served testing some of our favourite greases rather than the engine oils we commonly use on our street cars. Sure, we did the test with the best intentions, with a level playing field for each oil and no preconceptions as to who would perform better than another, but when, and if, we mess up, we like to think that we're man enough to set the record straight."

http://www.streetcommodores.com.au/news.php
To me...BEVO, this was a visual test...one that I can make my own judgments from and not defensible, through pages of 'approved' methodology...etc. This visually showed me, even if a Chimp was the one doing the same exact, pouring the oil sample into the bath...putting a new unscathed bearing sample on the machine...applying the SAME weight to cause load and friction between the two parts, one not moving the other applying the point-of-contact friction to lock up...

This editor, trained chimp, the guy's wife...his neighbor...whomever, lol...if they all did it, each and every sample...did them the same...then what 'methodology' must be questioned? I would certainly question any of the brands, if each sample was done by a 'factory representative'...certainly...but that didn't happen here...the guy did the test...and this was the visual results, with photographs taken...:)

To see that there was NO damage to the Royal Purple sample bearing....visually to myself...tells me I have no further need to worry 'if' there might be later on, some ensuing wear/abrasion damage between the cam lobe and the bottom of the H.L. following its course. Nope...I put more on my own ability to recognize test output by seeing results, rather than relying on a page printout...of various metal trace compounds. I saw the bearings of the other samples...and can only IMAGINE, the amount of metals floating in the oil...that should still be upon the surface of those bearings. Royal Purple? Pfttt. I'll now sleep nights...and it bears out over a lot of forums (since buying it last week) by users of the brand in bikes, ATV's, water crafts, lawnmower equipment, generator engines...that since having switched to this brand with Synerlec additive packages, they have stuck with it, for better operation of their noted equipment. Visually? After viewing the results from the photographic evidence, after each bearing test, with my own eyes, no matter what methodology was used, as long as each sample was subject to the same as was here......I'm sold. All of the bearings were crapped out...except for the Royal Purple 10W40 sitting in its sample bath. Visually...it killed the competition in oil film load endurance. That is what I am singularly after regarding my oil choice for my SVTC. Oil film endurance (and its continued premium lubricity factor) is critical to the continued great operation of this fine bike....keep the cam lobe pushing up on the H.L...but...leave the metal surfaces intact on the bottom of the H.L's, where the cam lobe finds it....:)

Bevo, from the test results between two examples:

Redline brand: only 6,389.06 PSI, before bearing damage caused by the further inability of the lubricating film surface to maintain protective lubrication between the two metal parts, the pressure point, and the rotating bearing sample...with subsequent----> failure

Royal Purple brand: (this should blow any reader's mind----->) Royal Purple withstood a per square inch pressure of (are you ready?!?!?)----> 131,432 PSI before it became unable to separate, and lubricate the pressure load, and the rotating bearing sample! That...was no typo!

There is NO WAY that the lift pressure exerted in PSI, upon the lower bottom of the H.L in the SVTC's 1854 cc engine, comes mind-boggling near, the lubricating PSI failure threshold limit of Royal Purple, folks.... Look at the Redline PSI threshold, and then once more gaze at the R.P. PSI threshold. No kidding there was no damage caused between the weighted pressure applier, and the rotating bearing sample. No kidding! SVTC owners...glance above at those figures one more time...and then YOU decide, what any visual, or heck...any printed metrics, get you to move one way, or the other....yes, it's a personal 'deal'....Personally for myself, I choose a product lubricating inside my SVTC that can take a pressure point between two opposing metal surfaces....at 131,432 pounds per square inch...before one scratch or gouge mark might star to evolve. :)

I picked up some sometimes you hear, sometimes you don't...transmission gear whine, when having had the break-in YamaLube mineral 10W40 swapped out with the top of the line, YamaLube 15W50. Dependent on whether I was single, or with my wife aboard, with or without luggage, how much throttle/torque I put to the transmission, I'd either get no whine, or some whine. There was none in running a 10W40 viscosity. It will be interesting, I'm sure to myself as well as others, if upon introducing 10W40 back into Charlotte, whether I will hear any further tranny gear whine. If I don't...then American (Bill ) is most right on....the SVTC runs better...working less hard, internally with 10W40 as its blood.... I'll let everybody know, as soon as I see how the bike runs/sounds, post Royal Purple Max-Cycle 10W40 installation. That will be in the not too distant future...for I want to get one more tour out of the YamaLube 15W50, and then the R.P. goes in. I'll be sure to do it before I can't ride...and will report my findings... :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
you can take from it what you want, and maybe Royal Purple does provide better protection than all those others tested back in 2006. but for me, i think a test is only as credible as its source. and the methodology and results don't mean anything to me unless it's from a credible source. the people who conducted the test themselves even claim that their findings may be irrelevant. if i saw these same results and photographs on a 3rd grader's poster at an elementary school science fair, and the methodology used was from a kid dipping bearings in oil and then scratching them across the surface of their driveway, i wouldn't rely too much on them for determining what i put into my bike. credibility is everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,357 Posts
A bearing is always being fed oil under pressure - there is no metal to metal contact, there is always pressurized oil between the bearing and the rotating surface (crankshaft, cam shaft, transmission drive shaft...) unless the oil pump is starved and starts sucking air.

The cam lobe is lubricated by rotating in the oil bath. Its only under pressure for milliseconds, and it is designed so the film stays intact for the duration of the wipe.

Its easy to design a bearing test that does not match either of these actual motor conditions, and call one oil better or worse.

But keep in mind: the engineers at yamaha have called out the oil specs required for you to get the level of lubrication the engine needs. When you pull into a gas station anywhere on earth, you can get a quart of the SAE rated oil your engine needs.

If you want to put something 'better' in the engine, and pay more for it, that is up to you. People are getting 100,000 miles easily on quaker state and mobil and all the other brand name oils.

If yamaha has designed a touring bike that needs a very specific type of oil to keep the cams from scoring the lifters, they have screwed up royally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
you can take from it what you want, and maybe Royal Purple does provide better protection than all those others tested back in 2006. but for me, i think a test is only as credible as its source. and the methodology and results don't mean anything to me unless it's from a credible source. the people who conducted the test themselves even claim that their findings may be irrelevant. if i saw these same results and photographs on a 3rd grader's poster at an elementary school science fair, and the methodology used was from a kid dipping bearings in oil and then scratching them across the surface of their driveway, i wouldn't rely too much on them for determining what i put into my bike. credibility is everything.
But, lol BEVO...no kid, dipping on his driveway was the tester or methodology. It was an intelligent man, an adult...that took samples...had the machine that could apply the pressure equally across all samples...and that...alone for myself is all I need. He then cataloged the results with photographs that the reader/viewer could parse intelligently for themselves. I would have passed this by, had it been a two year old, drooling upon the samples...and turning them like a top on the driveway...as per your example. :)

but...it wasn't.

Sold....:)

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
A bearing is always being fed oil under pressure - there is no metal to metal contact, there is always pressurized oil between the bearing and the rotating surface (crankshaft, cam shaft, transmission drive shaft...) unless the oil pump is starved and starts sucking air.

The cam lobe is lubricated by rotating in the oil bath. Its only under pressure for milliseconds, and it is designed so the film stays intact for the duration of the wipe.

Its easy to design a bearing test that does not match either of these actual motor conditions, and call one oil better or worse.

But keep in mind: the engineers at yamaha have called out the oil specs required for you to get the level of lubrication the engine needs. When you pull into a gas station anywhere on earth, you can get a quart of the SAE rated oil your engine needs.

If you want to put something 'better' in the engine, and pay more for it, that is up to you. People are getting 100,000 miles easily on quaker state and mobil and all the other brand name oils.

If yamaha has designed a touring bike that needs a very specific type of oil to keep the cams from scoring the lifters, they have screwed up royally.
They very much could have...royally. With my intention of putting in R.P...with their PSI rating...that is my insurance against my SVTC perhaps being also exposed to what might have been a severe engineering flaw. Just look at the Yamaha TX-750 Twin of 1974....I owned one...what a catastrophe of ownership. The Omni-Phase counter balancers splashed in the wet sump...along with the chains that drove them...and caused oil pump starvation...with engines failing left and right. Also, the balance pipe between the two header pipes caused overheating, and in some cases seized the pistons. They tried some modifications and this was the first Yamaha motorcycle to ever have an authorized factory recall. The first! The TX-750 Twin, didn't last two years production. So...can Yamaha screw up? Yes....but..in this case, if they do recall this model...putting in cam-follower rollers, will retire this so, far that we know about, three SVTC motorcycle cam/follower failures. Three of them...probably more...but we don't know about within this forum. Obviously the failure repeatable by three separate engine serial numbers... So KCW....YES....Yamaha could have screwed up...and will hopefully recall and put in what needs to be...

The 1974 TX-750 Twin, by Yamaha...was an unmitigated engineering disaster....and I owned one...and I lost my shirt on it...nobody would touch them, one year out....

https://www.google.com/search?q=1974+TX-750+Twin&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:{referrer:source?}&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjynOmdma_dAhUo5YMKHWf_CRwQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=2752&bih=1042

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,357 Posts
If you go back to the '60s motorcycles were notoriously high maintenance. If you got 15k miles on a new bike without splitting the case you were lucky. The fact that bikes were mostly in the 100 to 350cc range back then made it easy to pull the engine out and take it apart to the crankshaft, and put it all back together with the new parts it needed in a couple days.

That is where the big engine american companies were standing out: Indian, HD... I forget the rest off the top of my head. Being able to make a bike that would last 40,000 miles was a huge accomplishment.

In the late 60s and thru the 70s companies were coming out with bigger engines, the Honda 750/4 set off a HP race.

They were still designing bikes with slide rules and paper and ink drawings, going on the seat of the pants experience of the engineers - so yes, there were big mistakes, and big successes.

I was thinking of buying a new 1978 Yamaha SR500, a thumper based on their motorcross 4 cycle engine. I got an enduro bike instead and dodged a bullet on the SR500. It had a clever counterbalancing shaft with weights that smoothed out the 1 cylinder engine, but like the 750 twin, there were issues and the counterbalancing system tore itself apart after several thousand miles.

No one is designing motorcycles that way anymore. The mechanical engineering CAD systems let you design an engine, and 'run' it in simulations, showing you where every drop of oil is flowing, its pressure, its velocity and temperature.

Like I said, if Yamaha screwed up the lube on the cams with all the design tools they have at there facilities today, then someone really screwed up.

You really dont see that very much anymore - mechanical engineering is to the point where just about any car you buy today will last for 200k miles, and the motorcycles are right there with them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
this is interesting. the magazine article used a Falex test machine. here's a video that shows just how unreliable this type of testing can be. if you don't want to invest the 6 minutes to watch it, he 'proves' that shampoo is the best lubricating oil:




and here's a guy testing Royal Purple versus Amsoil with what looks like the same Falex machine used in the magazine article. look at the difference in how he applies the weights. look at the comments. why does this video have twice as many downvotes as upvotes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tt-VKe8Oaw[/url
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
this is interesting. the magazine article used a Falex test machine. here's a video that shows just how unreliable this type of testing can be. if you don't want to invest the 6 minutes to watch it, he 'proves' that shampoo is the best lubricating oil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY



and here's a guy testing Royal Purple versus Amsoil with what looks like the same Falex machine used in the magazine article. look at the difference in how he applies the weights. look at the comments. why does this video have twice as many downvotes as upvotes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tt-VKe8Oaw[/url


BEVO, I still go back to apples to apples...people can be creative and artistic when they have a mandate to 'debunk' another's findings. What ONLY matters to me, is NOT what machine they used..but that ALL of the tests were equal footing, and that all of the tests were done with the same machine. The results still are valid. Shampoo? How cute... Has nothing to do, with what was tested...and doesn't in any way, diminish the results. On the same machine, with the same 'method', R.P. killed the other brands right off on abrasion, and what damage resulted (and I don't care if it would have been a chain saw running against all of the bearings with a dab of each engine oil).....for it STILL would have been a fair-play same approach.... You can talk about kiddies on their driveway...you can talk about guys, smiling as they 'prove' shampoo (how cute :)...) is the 'best' lubricant...but still what does that have to do, with what each oil sample allowed under pressure on the same machine?!?!?...and if you look, yes...LOOK at the R.P. sample...it speaks for itself. Whether it was this particular machine, a running chain saw blade..or a herd of elephants...as long as any of the aforementioned, were used for ALL the oil and bearings samples...it only would prove one thing...that R.P. for oil layer stability and superior lubricity of their proprietary additive package, and buffer protection between two metal surfaces, IS SIMPLY KILLER! Eyes, don't lie...only the stuff, where people throw frosted glass between your eyes, and the R.P bearing results...

Again...for my take...SOLD! I'll take 16 liters of the stuff right now...oh wait...I did already...so I'm good to go, for next summer, worry free. Shampoo? Kiddies with coloring books? Not interested.....LOL..."My eyes, tell no lies...lol!"

Cheers, BEVO!

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
If you go back to the '60s motorcycles were notoriously high maintenance. If you got 15k miles on a new bike without splitting the case you were lucky. The fact that bikes were mostly in the 100 to 350cc range back then made it easy to pull the engine out and take it apart to the crankshaft, and put it all back together with the new parts it needed in a couple days.

That is where the big engine american companies were standing out: Indian, HD... I forget the rest off the top of my head. Being able to make a bike that would last 40,000 miles was a huge accomplishment.

In the late 60s and thru the 70s companies were coming out with bigger engines, the Honda 750/4 set off a HP race.

They were still designing bikes with slide rules and paper and ink drawings, going on the seat of the pants experience of the engineers - so yes, there were big mistakes, and big successes.

I was thinking of buying a new 1978 Yamaha SR500, a thumper based on their motorcross 4 cycle engine. I got an enduro bike instead and dodged a bullet on the SR500. It had a clever counterbalancing shaft with weights that smoothed out the 1 cylinder engine, but like the 750 twin, there were issues and the counterbalancing system tore itself apart after several thousand miles.

No one is designing motorcycles that way anymore. The mechanical engineering CAD systems let you design an engine, and 'run' it in simulations, showing you where every drop of oil is flowing, its pressure, its velocity and temperature.

Like I said, if Yamaha screwed up the lube on the cams with all the design tools they have at there facilities today, then someone really screwed up.

You really dont see that very much anymore - mechanical engineering is to the point where just about any car you buy today will last for 200k miles, and the motorcycles are right there with them.
Like I have stated, until Yamaha addresses on a grand scale, the obviously repeatable problem of cam lobe/lifter surface failures, it's only in my best due diligence interests to protect my investment, and find an oil that will absolutely reduce the chance of this happening to my engine, on my SVTC. I feel that I have found that oil..and that gives me great emotional comfort and relief. Yes..there is a whopping large warranty on this bike...but I don't want to have my ownership of this fine bike, with it being 'warrantied' time after time, in the shop, because they did not properly (if this is even the case..talking through my hat...) anticipate how much pressure must be exerted on the H.L bottom bearing surface time and time again, revolution after revolution, due to the fact the H.L. is having to overcome two heavy duty valve springs, and their valve body mass. The bottom line, is whether Yamaha swaps out different parts, or I negate this via a superior lubrication solution....it's all the same to me....that I get to put thousands upon thousands of miles on this great ride. This is not fatal to me....but just a disappointment, and irritation at present.

...as for my purchasing and buying into the Yamaha cool-aid about Omni-Phase on that 1973 TX-750....that was the worst buying decision, and the worst bike I have ever owned. I eventually sold it to some dude, by practically PAYING HIM, to take it off my hands. Nobody wanted to touch those P.O.S! Certainly not any Yamaha dealer, and it was such a bad rep...that even all other manufacturer dealers KNEW about that Yamaha P.O.S, and you couldn't foist it upon them, any easier.... Live and learn...and that's why until this year, I had never thought I would have another Yamaha motorcycle in my garage. That was a really, really bad trip..... BTW, Google them...read about them...all the problems the design of the engine had...and you will be shaking your head that it even made it off of the test track, let alone...into dealer's showrooms for '73....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,951 Posts
If you go back to the '60s motorcycles were notoriously high maintenance. If you got 15k miles on a new bike without splitting the case you were lucky. The fact that bikes were mostly in the 100 to 350cc range back then made it easy to pull the engine out and take it apart to the crankshaft, and put it all back together with the new parts it needed in a couple days.

That is where the big engine american companies were standing out: Indian, HD... I forget the rest off the top of my head. Being able to make a bike that would last 40,000 miles was a huge accomplishment.

In the late 60s and thru the 70s companies were coming out with bigger engines, the Honda 750/4 set off a HP race.

They were still designing bikes with slide rules and paper and ink drawings, going on the seat of the pants experience of the engineers - so yes, there were big mistakes, and big successes.

I was thinking of buying a new 1978 Yamaha SR500, a thumper based on their motorcross 4 cycle engine. I got an enduro bike instead and dodged a bullet on the SR500. It had a clever counterbalancing shaft with weights that smoothed out the 1 cylinder engine, but like the 750 twin, there were issues and the counterbalancing system tore itself apart after several thousand miles.

No one is designing motorcycles that way anymore. The mechanical engineering CAD systems let you design an engine, and 'run' it in simulations, showing you where every drop of oil is flowing, its pressure, its velocity and temperature.

Like I said, if Yamaha screwed up the lube on the cams with all the design tools they have at there facilities today, then someone really screwed up.

You really dont see that very much anymore - mechanical engineering is to the point where just about any car you buy today will last for 200k miles, and the motorcycles are right there with them.
Like I have stated, until Yamaha addresses on a grand scale, the obviously repeatable problem of cam lobe/lifter surface failures, it's only in my best due diligence interests to protect my investment, and find an oil that will absolutely reduce the chance of this happening to my engine, on my SVTC. I feel that I have found that oil..and that gives me great emotional comfort and relief. Yes..there is a whopping large warranty on this bike...but I don't want to have my ownership of this fine bike, with it being 'warrantied' time after time, in the shop, because they did not properly (if this is even the case..talking through my hat...) anticipate how much pressure must be exerted on the H.L bottom bearing surface time and time again, revolution after revolution, due to the fact the H.L. is having to overcome two heavy duty valve springs, and their valve body mass. The bottom line, is whether Yamaha swaps out different parts, or I negate this via a superior lubrication solution....it's all the same to me....that I get to put thousands upon thousands of miles on this great ride. This is not fatal to me....but just a disappointment, and irritation at present.

...as for my purchasing and buying into the Yamaha cool-aid about Omni-Phase on that 1973 TX-750....that was the worst buying decision, and the worst bike I have ever owned. I eventually sold it to some dude, by practically PAYING HIM, to take it off my hands. Nobody wanted to touch those P.O.S! Certainly not any Yamaha dealer, and it was such a bad rep...that even all other manufacturer dealers KNEW about that Yamaha P.O.S, and you couldn't foist it upon them, any easier.... Live and learn...and that's why until this year, I had never thought I would have another Yamaha motorcycle in my garage. That was a really, really bad trip..... BTW, Google them...read about them...all the problems the design of the engine had...and you will be shaking your head that it even made it off of the test track, let alone...into dealer's showrooms for '73....
Hey Joe, I sent you a PM. 😁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,357 Posts
...that 1973 TX-750....that was . the worst bike I have ever owned. ...
If it makes you feel any better, the senior engineers on the 1973 Tx-750 design have been dead for 25 years.

I owned a '69 Cougar and took an oath I would never buy another car from Ford - ever!

There is a 4 year old Fusion in my driveway now with 50k miles on it, and I cannot find anything to complain about on that car.

Engineering is a continuous learning and improvement process. Engineers take the current state of the art and find ways to make the products better. When they make a mistake that is part of the learning process.

if there is some problem with how the cam swips the lifters on your SVTC, they will fix it.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top