Oil

[belfastguzzi]

Well, well! Thinking about changing to synthetic at 600 miles or so?

 

Although magazine articles on oil and running-in in procedures directly contradict each other from month to month, there is an interesting piece in this month's (next month's according to the cover – August issue) T.W.O. magazine. It's sort of saying that you can thrash your bike from new if you want to and then start running it in at some later date, when you are more inclined, or ready to draw your pension perhaps, because, "you can restart the running in process to repair and stabilise the surfaces later on."

 

Well, anyway, the bit about oil is this (and it comes from 'the highest authority', 'the world leading', The Castrol Technology Centre):

 

"don't splash out on a costly synthetic oil until your engine's covered [wait for it...] 5,000 miles."

Synthetic oils interfere with running in [because of a chemical process happening in the metals].

"Although you can treat an engine as fully run in after 500 miles, surface stabilisation continues for at least the first 5,000 miles of an engine's life. Synthetic oils actively prevent this from happening, possibly by holding friction surfaces apart. The consequence of using a synthetic too early is your engine will never run in properly. I would even suggest waiting until 10,000 miles before using it in most engines subjected to normal use. Until then you are best to use an inexpensive but branded mineral oil."

 

Now, what about a thread on 'the Beilby layer'? I'm sure that hasn't been done here before.

[TX REDNECK (R.I.P.)]

Oil ? Well..... then you might as well know about this

[gthyni]

This would means running WITHOUT oil would make the break-in very swift

if we got rid of friction dampers all together.

 

Dino-oil is a religious cult and the price difference in Europe so small

that wanting to join the cult would be the only reason to use it in a

engine in good condition.

[belfastguzzi]

Oil ? Well..... then you might as well know about this

Hmmm

do they have one for

Jam on Road

during heavy traffic

?

[belfastguzzi]

This would means running WITHOUT oil would make the break-in very swift

 

Dino-oil is a religious cult

wanting to join the cult would be the only reason to use it in a

engine in good condition.

G: I think that you have closed your mind to the Beilby layer.

[Janusz]

"don't splash out on a costly synthetic oil until your engine's covered [wait for it...] 5,000 miles."

Synthetic oils interfere with running in [because of a chemical process happening in the metals].

"Although you can treat an engine as fully run in after 500 miles, surface stabilisation continues for at least the first 5,000 miles of an engine's life. Synthetic oils actively prevent this from happening, possibly by holding friction surfaces apart. The consequence of using a synthetic too early is your engine will never run in properly. I would even suggest waiting until 10,000 miles before using it in most engines subjected to normal use. Until then you are best to use an inexpensive but branded mineral oil."

 

So how would you comment, in view of these revelations, on the fact that Moto Guzzi factory themselves, along with many other makes including Porshe, Mercedes etc, fill the crancase in the new bikes with a synthetic oil?

 

The oil recommended by the factory, Agip 4T Super Racing is a synthetic oil of course.

 

My comment is this:

 

Do you remember all these guys some years ago who were clinging to vinyl records preaching that they sound better then CD's? That was also pathetic.

 

Also; I am of the opinion that modern methods of engine production (yes, including Moto Guzzi) make the whole "breaking in" process more and more meaningless.

[al_roethlisberger]

.... I like records

 

[robbiekb]

records do sometimes sound better than cd's

 

I like the analogue "hiss"

 

oh yeah and my Marshall Stack Guitar amp has VALVES in it !

[Steve G.]

Did Castrol mention whether this comment was applicable to air cooled engines, liquid cooled engines or any engines? The tolerances are quite different between the two.

It's hard to argue against the engineers at Castrol, I mean they make synthetics [very good ones] as well, so the could in theory sell more of them if they said to use synthetics right away. I don't know!

I'd just go the safe route, do what it says in the owners manual. Engine makers design and produce engines based on the lubricants available out there, and oil companies are given oil parameter guidelines from governments, and also to a lesser extent engine companies.

Ciao, Steve G.

[Guest Brian Robson]

"I like the hiss in records"

"My guitar amp has valves in it"

My TV doesn't and I'm bloody delighted.

I bet your Hummer doesn't have points and need a decoke every 3 months.

I agree with Janusz, the bike is filled with synthetic, runs at the factory, then is hammered round their track, and it will improve the engine if you drain the oil and fill it with Wally Mart special?

Bollocks it will.

[Guest Brian Robson]

That felt so much better.

My recent postings were getting so happy and friendly.

I'm off to change a valve in my computer, then de-coke the MZ.

[antonio carroccio]

Héy Brian, what a hell are you doing with the avatar of TX!!!

[Guest Brian Robson]

Antonio, we are trying out the new anti Atkins diet

[badmotogoozer]

Well, if we're gonna talk music, I'd better get on in!!

 

Vinyl will always sound better (ie more like the original artist's performance). Always. Music is analog. Vinyl is analog. There is no analog-digital conversion required. As much as 4% of the analog signal is lost every time an A-D conversion is done. On a CD you have a minimum of 2 A-D conversions. Once when it was recorded, once again when it is decoded and returned to analog which drives the speakers.

 

CD's are handy, trouble free, maintenance free, and can be digitally altered to sound like anything the listener wants to hear, not necessasarily how the music was intended to be heard. A huge improvement over tapes but cannot possibly match the ability of vinyl. Most people who remember vinyl and the "hiss" were using cheapo Sears-o-matic turntables with $5 needles. Of course this sounds like crap - it is crap. But it is not the fault of the vinyl.

 

A close friend has spent over 10 years and $15,000 trying to get his CD system to match the quality of sound he had from his vinyl system. Still isn't there.

 

Oh, yeah, oil. Use whatever the hell you want and change it regularly.

 

Rj

[gthyni]

hmm, as a bloke who was in the music industry when the digital revolution

started 20 years ago, I will comment too.

 

(This is as inflammatory as an oil thread,

so don't take it personal when I give you my views

on these thing)

 

The 2 AD-converters are gone a long time ago,

most music recorded today is converted to digital once

and never go back until you put the CD into your player.

 

Vinyl has many weaknesses, first 2 processes is used to

make the engraving at all possible:

- a conical filter that center lower frequencies to mono

- a RIAA filter that do radical frequency dependent compression

(the RIAA is reverted as far as possible, the "cone filter" is not)

 

then you got:

- media noise

- disturbance from external vibration

- mechanical problems like dust and scratches

 

IRL, no way is vinyl better than CD.

It's just a cult, just as strong as the dino-oil-cult.

 

These cults are both based on mumbo-jummbo-physics IMHO.

 

Then most CDs is not produced with optimal quality,

but that was certainly the case with vinyl albums too in their days.