Lubeing the Rear End

[Scotch]

Ok, I know oil and lubes have been covered exenstively in this forum, but I have to put this question out there anyway.

 

Some of you know from recent posts that I am reworking a Rosso Mandello V11 which I acquired in January.

I have got to the Changing of The Rear Drive and Transmission Lube part.

 

Here is what I think I know.

* The manual calls for 80w90 PODO (plain old dinosaur oil).

* The manual calls for a quantity of Moly additive to be included.

* Some in this forum (and others) have recommended a more modern synthetic oil, which makes sense to me.

* I have the moly additive on my shelf ready to go.

* Some others (Dave Richards of Guzziology) have reported of hearing of people who claim to know people that have heard from synthetic oil reps that the moly additive will seperate from some of the synthetic products.

 

Whats a fellow to do? PODO or modern synthetic oil? Additive or not? Will Marsha find out John cheated on her in Manila?

 

What do you Guzziologists do? (about Rear Drive Lube - not Marsha)

 

By the way - I drained both of these yesterday. The both have magnetic plugs. Both of the plugs have a three day beard growth of metal filings stuck to the magnets. Imagine that, filings stuck to the magnets.

Is that something to be concerned about?

 

By the by the way - The rear lube I drained from the drive definitly had a moly additive judging from the color. Either that or it has never been changed and was used to start with!

 

Scott

[Guzzirider]

Just use the synthetic Motul gear oil- has an additive so you don't have to much about adding Moly.

 

Not worth worrying too much about.

[Guest ratchethack]

* Some others (Dave Richards of Guzziology) have reported of hearing of people who claim to know people that have heard from synthetic oil reps that the moly additive will seperate from some of the synthetic products.

About 4-5 years back, after doing fairly extensive background research, and having previously (and very satisfactorily) used Redline MTL in multiple manual transmissions for decades, I'd started using Redline Shockproof Heavy in both trans and bevel drive of the Guzzi. This Forum was not familiar with it at the time, and many posters were mighty suspicious, some skeptical, some downright incredulous.

 

Since that time, I've noted that more and more hereabouts are using it with positive reports. Since Redline's worldwide Corporate offices are in my home state, I considered it "convenient" to call their people with questions, which I've done multiple times, and which they have always answered to my satisfaction -- except for the Q I posed to their technician (his name is Dave, not a sales guy) on moly additive for Shockproof Heavy. Dave said no moly additive is necessary with Shockproof Heavy, because it already contains "synthetic moly". When I pointed out that of the many additives listed in their tech product bulletins (at that time), moly was not listed, nor was it even mentioned in any of all the tech docs they had on their Web site (there was lots more extensive tech documentation available then than they have today) Dave had no comment.

 

I did, however, come across the following from multiple independent sources in my research: Synthetic gear lubes formulated on Group 5 ester base stock (of which Redline Shockproof Heavy is an example) do not require moly additives. They are designed for applications that typically require moly additives only with dino gear lubes.

By the way - I drained both of these yesterday. The both have magnetic plugs. Both of the plugs have a three day beard growth of metal filings stuck to the magnets. Imagine that, filings stuck to the magnets.

Is that something to be concerned about?

I had the same thing, until I started using RLSH, whereupon the drain magnets have always come out clean. What does that tell you? Since my own experience has been that not only does the trans feel noticeably smoother and less sluggish when cold, but the operating temp of both trans and bevel drive has been very significantly cooler to the touch since I converted to RLSH, I conclude that overall, it was a good move, and I ain't likely to make any changes unless or until a preponderance of evidence suggests there's somethin' better. From all I've learned, I've never considered using moly with RLSH, and never will. But that's just me.

 

For anyone interested in mfgr. info on Shockproof Heavy:

 

http://www.redlineoil.com/products_gearlub...ubCategoryID=16

 

Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation is open for

business Monday through Friday, 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PST.

 

Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation

6100 Egret Court

Benicia, CA 94510

PHONE: (800) 624-7958

[Scotch]

Thanks for all the details, Ratchet

 

As I recall, someone once said, on some forum, somewhere,

"Inquiring Minds, " well, you know...

 

Scott

[dlaing]

Redline shockproof has moly in it.

You can read about it in the Material Data Safety Sheet

http://www.redlineoil.com/msds/44.pdf

Nearly six years ago, forum member Janusz introduced Redline Shockproof to the forum.

I thought it was obvious from Redline's documentation to use the Shockproof LIGHTWEIGHT.

Redline says the HEAVY has "a film thickness similar to a 75W250 grade", while the LIGHTWEIGHT is "Similar to a 75W140 gear oil".

I went with the LIGHTWEIGHT, but after a year or so of reading Ratchet and others recommend the HEAVY, I switched to the HEAVY and found the bike shifts slightly better with the HEAVY.

But I still suspect the LIGHTWEIGHT may be better in cold climates.

You can make the judgement yourself based on how it shifts as the engine warms up.

FWIW, I was concerned the HEAVY would consume more fuel, but I noticed no increase in fuel consumption after switching to the heavy.

[Ryland3210]

The "Moly" in the Redline data sheet is the oxide form.

The Molykote type M from Dow Corning gear oil additive consists of solvent-refined heavy paraffinic petroleum distillate, petroleum, and molybdenum disulphide.

 

The Dow Corning additive is opaque black. When mixed with conventional oil, it turns it grey, even in small percentages. A beard of filings on the magnetic drain plug is normal during break in. That's why my practice is to change oil within the first 25-50 miles, and again around 300-500. By the third oil change, there should be just a scum of fine particles, almost like carbon dust. If fairly large particles appear later on, it's probably a sign of a mechanical problem.

 

If your bike has a lot of miles on it, perhpas the oil was never changed, or it's been many miles in the past, or the drain plug was not wiped clean, or there is a real problem.

[Scotch]

If your bike has a lot of miles on it, perhpas the oil was never changed, or it's been many miles in the past, or the drain plug was not wiped clean, or there is a real problem.

 

All good suggestions, thanks.

I wiped the mangets clean, have a brand new bottle of "heavy" on my desk, and when I get home, it's going into the drive.

 

I'll keep tabs for the next little bit on how the plugs look and if no more metal shows up, then I'll consider that a done deal.

 

Oh, the bike has about 7000 miles on it. Not exactly new, but not over the hill either. I have no maintenence information from the former owner, so I am changing everything and paying careful attention.

 

Scott

[Guest ratchethack]

FWIW, there is no mention wotsoever of "moly" at the link Dave provided above on Redline's MSDS, or Material Safety Data Sheet. First off, a MSDS is neither a product doc., nor a tech doc. A MSDS is NOT a source where one ever properly looks for a comprehensive determination of the chemical composition or ingredients of any material. No such comprehensive formula and/or exact proportion of ingredients will ever be found on the MSDS of any proprietary compound, and it certainly isn't found here.

 

Please note that molybdenum is a pure element. MoS2, aka molybdenum disulfide, commonly known as "moly", is a compound of the element molybdenum and another element, sulfur. There are probably hundreds of different kinds of molybdenum compounds (ref. Chemie.De http://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Category:Molybdenum_compounds )

 

According to Redline's MSDS, oxides of molybdenum are byproducts of the combustion (thermal decomposition) of whatever compound of molybdenum is used in the formula. Neither the original formula of the product of combustion, OR the chemical composition of its components, OR the oxidation byproduct compounds of molybdenum disulfide, OR "moly" are specified on the MSDS. Oxides of molybdenum from thermal decomposition on the MSDS ARE NOT necessarily an indication that "moly" is present in the product.

 

Many compounds (such as oils) are composed of proprietary formulae protected by patents. Mfgrs. aren't required to make their formulations public. The MSDS is a public document required by law here in the US, which indicates a very specific listing of certain safety aspects only of materials, including a list of general kinds of potentially toxic byproducts that are formed in event of exposure to fire (thermal decomposition).

 

The MSDS at the link lists a general category of compounds "oxides of molybdenum" (as well as oxides of other elements) as byproducts of thermal decomposition. While, in this case, the presence of oxides of molybdenum may be an indicator of MoS2, or molybdenum disulfide, (moly) in the formula of the lube, this is neither specifically indicated, nor can this assumption be made in any way, shape, or form. Again, last I checked (not for a year or so, but also not when I first checked this many years ago, either), there was no mention of MoS2 as an ingredient wotsoever on the site in any of the the tech product docs, which at one time listed and described many other additives. This doesn't necessarily mean MoS2 isn't in there. A molybdenum compound of some kind apparently is part of the formula, but possibly, and more'n likely even probably, according to what I was told directly by Dave the Redline Tech, the "synthetic moly" he described (again, also not mentioned in any of all the tech docs I read) is different from MoS2.

 

Is there a possibility that the "synthetic moly" that was described is simply a marketing term for something that may (or may not) be MoS2, or "moly"? Methinks either possibility exists!

 

In any case, it's impossible to "backwards deduce" the specific form of molybdenum (there are likely very many possibilities of "synthetic" compounds) from what appears on a MSDS as a general category of oxides of molybdenum as byproducts of thermal decomposition.

 

As far as use in the Guzzi trans and bevel box goes, can adding moly to RLSH or other group 5 ester base stock synthetic lubes hurt anything? I sincerely doubt it. Can adding moly to RLSH or other group 5 ester base stock synthetic lubes help anything? I sincerely doubt this too, but that's just me.

[Scotch]

In any case, it's impossible to "backwards deduce" the specific form of molybdenum (there are likely very many possibilities) from what appears on a MSDS as general categories of oxides of molybdenum, which are byproducts of thermal decomposition.

 

Well - I used to manufacture a few products in a former life. I do know that MSDS are mainly provided for workers safety and the HASMAT team when they show up to the fire or spill. I wouldnt use one as a sales brochure or buying guide.

 

For anyone interested, I have a bottle of Red Line "Heavy" on my desk, and Moly included or not, it states on the label that it is "Compatible with petroleums and synthetics".

I take that to mean whether or not you need (or want) to, you probabaly could add the Moly into this stuff with at least no ill effects.

 

Now, I am going home in a bit, break out the Red Line and tomorrow......

 

Scott

[Greg Field]

Here's how we established here that there was moly in RLSH.

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...hl=strawberries

 

Some folks here thought that pink color was ground-up strawberries or something.

 

You should use either a moly additive, such as Power Punch, or a lube that already contains moly.

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks for the link and the reminder, Greg. Dave at Redline told me the second time I spoke with him that Redline's "synthetic moly" is organic. This eliminates wot industry standards have referred to as "moly" since Hector was a pup (MoS2) as a possibility in RLSH, since MoS2 moly is inorganic -- and n'er the twain shall ever, ever be considered the same category of compounds.

 

So to clarify the distinction, there is inorganic moly, MoS2, which has been used as a lubricant and additive for over a century, and then there's a relatively new category of synthetic moly, which is organic, and likely is an entire category of synthetics with many different chemical formula possibilities.

 

Incidentally, in my research many years back, I learned that the cost of MoS2 had something like quintupled in the previous ten years, launching a market boom on alternatives, undoubtedly resulting in the greater appearance of synthetic moly, as well as tungsten-based additive compounds, which had previously been prohibitively expensive compared to molybdenum compounds. The tungsten lube compounds had long been recognized as having superior lubrication properties in many applications.

[Scotch]

Here's how we established here that there was moly in RLSH.

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...hl=strawberries

 

Some folks here thought that pink color was ground-up strawberries or something.

 

You should use either a moly additive, such as Power Punch, or a lube that already contains moly.

 

Thanks Greg - told you I was pretty new here and that post was full of information. I always enjoyed history and that thread is the Red Line History story, I reckon.

Heck, I even saw that my buddy, Wick named a new (old) Grunge Band in that thread.

 

The Pink Mollys

[dlaing]

Yah whatever guys.

Moly is slang and could be used to describe just about any Molybdenum compound or even free molybdenum. For example on commodities charts it is referred to as moly.

http://www.moly.imoa.info/

The safety sheet says oxides of sulfur and molybdenum.

"THERMAL DECOMPOSITION: Oxides of carbon, phosphorous, calcium, molybdenum, and sulfur."

They would not say it if it were not there in quantity enough to merit the warning.

Does this mean there is enough molybdenum in there to protect the engine?

No, but it would be an INCREDIBLE long shot that the molybdenum was NOT put in there to protect the engine. Possibly it is in there to reduce oxidation, but the side effect is still lubrication!!!

Molybdenum in ore state is bound to sulfur. The sulfur is not an additive.

For the Sulfur not to be part of the compound, it would have to undergo an expensive process.

Yes, they may have added carbon to it, but it is purely a semantic argument whether or not it could still be called 'moly'.

Just for giggles, take a big whiff of the shockproof next time you change the oil and try to tell me you don't smell sulfur. I can not imagine why they would add sulfur, unless it came along with the moly.

It's moly. Shockproof Pink is made out of moly. They're making our gear lube out of moly. Next thing they'll be mining it in China and putting it in engine oil. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

"It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!" -- Detective Thorn

[Guest ratchethack]

For the Sulfur not to be part of the compound, it would have to undergo an expensive process.

Yes, they may have added carbon to it, but it is purely a semantic argument whether or not it could still be called 'moly'.

Just for giggles, take a big whiff of the shockproof next time you change the oil and try to tell me you don't smell sulfur. I can not imagine why they would add sulfur, unless it came along with the moly.

Dave, with very little due respect for the extreme speculation above, it seems the speculation train has once again jumped the track, and now (again) plummets over yet another fearsome precipice, where anything resembling knowledge and understanding fear to tread (and with good reason). . .

 

Synthetic moly IS NOT made by simply "adding carbon" to inorganic MoS2! The whole point of synthetic lubricants is to achieve as low cost substitutes for petrochemicals as possible on a commercial scale. Since the cost of synthetics at the retail level is usually considerably higher than the comparable retail price of "dino" lubricants, synthetics have to offer more desirable properties than achievable from derivatives of crude oil. It's the same principle at work with mineral vs. synthetic additives such as moly. If mfgr's cannot achieve these objectives, they have no commercially viable alternative to dino (mineral) lubricants.

 

MoS2 (aka "moly") has no odor. You cannot smell moly in Redline Shockproof, and it is impossible to smell the sulfur either in MoS2, or in "synthetic moly". There are literally thousands of chemicals, all different at the molecular level, in common lubricants, Dave, including RLSH. Unlike moly, many of these are volatile. These are what you smell in RLSH. Let's take a little trip back to Junior High School Chemistry, shall we?

 

Compounds are made up of combinations of elemental atoms chemically bonded together to form molecules that are the "building blocks" of materials with entirely different physical and chemical properties than those of the elements of which they are made. The physical properties of MoS2, or "moly", for example, have as little in common with those of its fundamental elements, molybdenum (Mo) and sulfur (S), as the properties of water have in common with the properties of its fundamental elements, hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O).

 

Sulfur itself, a pure element, has next to no odor. Sulfur IS NOT a lubricant. Many volatile compounds of sulfur, however, the sulfates, sulfides, and sulfites, for example, have a characteristic "rotten egg" smell most commonly associated with hydrogen sulfide, H2S. "Moly", whether inorganic (MoS2) or organic, IS NOT one of these classes of sulfur compounds. What you smell in RLSH and many many other lubricants are these volatile sulfur compounds, of which there are literally hundreds, having nothing to do with "moly" -- not in its inorganic form, MoS2, OR in any one of a number of possible synthetic, organic forms.

 

Molybdenum, also a pure element, also has no odor whatsoever. Molybdenum itself is a heavy metal, and also IS NOT a lubricant.

[dlaing]

Dave, with very little due respect for the extreme speculation above, it seems the speculation train has once again jumped the track, and now (again) plummets over yet another fearsome precipice, where anything resembling knowledge and understanding fear to tread (and with good reason). . .

What extreme speculation? That there is Moly in Shockproof?!?

I could be wrong about the source of the sulfur smell, but it is not extreme speculation to think that the known thermal breakdown components of sulfur and or molybdenum are evidence of the use of a MoS2 based compound.

Synthetic moly IS NOT made by "adding carbon" to inorganic MoS2!

Synthetic Organic Moly (where 'Moly' is defined as a molybdenum based compound) is made by adding(synthesizing) carbon (and usually other molecules(especially hydrogen)) to Molydenum (or more typically to inorganic MoS2).

Perhaps "adding" is an inappropriate word, but I thought it would suffice for a forum conversation.

Let's take a little trip back to Junior High School Chemistry, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

"Organic compounds comprise all chemical compounds containing carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds of covalent character. Due to historical reasons (see below) a few compounds containing carbon not bound to hydrogen are also subsumed under this term"

The whole point of synthetic lubricants is to achieve as low cost substitutes for petrochemicals as possible on a commercial scale.

What!?!

Since the cost of synthetics at the retail level is usually considerably higher than the comparable retail price of "dino" lubricants, synthetics have to offer more desirable properties than achievable from derivatives of crude oil. It's the same principle at work with mineral vs. synthetic additives such as moly. If mfgr's cannot achieve these objectives, they have no commercially viable alternative to dino (mineral) lubricants.

 

MoS2 (aka "moly") has no odor. You cannot smell moly in Redline Shockproof, and it is impossible to smell the sulfur either in MoS2, or in "synthetic moly". There are literally thousands of chemicals, all different at the molecular level, in common lubricants, Dave, including RLSH. Unlike moly, many of these are volatile. These are what you smell in RLSH. Let's take a little trip back to Junior High School Chemistry, shall we?

All I know is that it stinks of Sulfur after the Shockproof is used....peeeyooooo!!!!

When fresh it is not bad.

Probably the Sulfur is separating from the moly molecular compound or somehow oxidizing.

EDIT Maybe something like MoS2 + 3O2 = MoO2 + 2SO (feel free to correct me, I don't remember how to balance an equation)

Yes, let us go back to chemistry class...

Compounds are made up of combinations of elemental atoms chemically bonded together to form molecules that are the "building blocks" of materials with entirely different physical and chemical properties than those of the elements of which they are made. The physical properties of MoS2, or "moly", for example, have as little in common with those of its fundamental elements, molybdenum (Mo) and sulfur (S), as the properties of water have in common with the properties of its fundamental elements, hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O).

 

Sulfur itself, a pure element, has next to no odor. Sulfur IS NOT a lubricant. Many volatile compounds of sulfur, however, the sulfates, sulfides, and sulfites, for example, have a characteristic "rotten egg" smell most commonly associated with hydrogen sulfide, H2S. "Moly", whether inorganic (MoS2) or organic, IS NOT one of these classes of sulfur compounds. What you smell in RLSH and many many other lubricants are these volatile sulfur compounds, of which there are literally hundreds, having nothing to do with "moly" -- not in its inorganic form, MoS2, OR in any one of a number of possible synthetic, organic forms.

It seems to be that Moly should be stable at gearbox temperatures and not break down into separate Molybdenum and Sulfur oxides.

The Shockproof smells more like sulfur than any other used oil that I have ever noticed, but according to you I am jumping to a false conclusion.

You could be right, but I certainly need more than your Junior High lecture.

What other sulfur compounds are in Shockproof?

And why are they there?

And how do you know they are what stinks and not the result of the moly compound enduring a year of hot Guzzi gears?

Just cause Dave at Redline says his product does not wear out, does not mean it does not wear out.

Certainly something is making it stink like rotten eggs!

And somewhat related:

Redline claims that there product does not wear out, but conventional gear oil with moly additive does not keep the moly in suspension forever. Open the gearbox, drain the oil completely, and you will see a coating of moly. Do you get this coating if you use Shockproof?

If so, is it pink instead of grey?

inquiring minds need to know.

The bottom line to my mind is that if there in molybdenum in safety sheet, their is Moly added for lubrication. The moly may or may not be simply MoS2. It could be one of many MoS2 based compounds. Denial is futile.