And you wonder why anyone with half a brain questions your results...
661 Oil Test 32:1 vs 40:1 vs 50:1 ?
- Thread starter redbull660
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
And your IQ is close to your shoe size, give or take 2 points.
Grow up.
Brad, even though Redbull is your buddy you have to see the holes in this BS test. The least of which is using a crappy oil the has well known negative effects on combustion..
My comment has nothing to do with RedBull. I haven't taken anyone's side in this. It's just way lame the way you are so degrading. You totally undermine anything you have to say.
I only responded to his "lame" attempt at an insult.
Now, will you go on record as saying you think this test is valid? Because if you do not contradicts your own advice to your customers.
I'm not saying the testing has been absolutely scientific, but I think it has been painstakingly done and presented objectively, and I appreciate it.
We all learn from information, regardless if we agree with it.
It is far too easy to just be a critic. If you disagree with the information, do it in a respectful manner and provide a basis, but don't shoot the messenger.
Carry on Redbull, some of us appreciate it.
FYI, I have rec'd 2 saws back from Randy in the past year. Since I use both a different oil and ratio than Randy, I had to do a "Reset" on the M-Tronic saw to get it to run flawlessly, and had to lean out and adjust the idle on the other. This thread is helping me to understand why.
We all learn from information, regardless if we agree with it.
It is far too easy to just be a critic. If you disagree with the information, do it in a respectful manner and provide a basis, but don't shoot the messenger.
Carry on Redbull, some of us appreciate it.
FYI, I have rec'd 2 saws back from Randy in the past year. Since I use both a different oil and ratio than Randy, I had to do a "Reset" on the M-Tronic saw to get it to run flawlessly, and had to lean out and adjust the idle on the other. This thread is helping me to understand why.
So in a nutshell you are saying even misinformation is good because we learn from it? It's no wonder there are so many strange ideas around here..
I'm saying that we learn from testing, even if sometimes the results may be misleading. But w/o testing, we would just have BS!
I respect the testing, and the time it takes to do it, and the comments should be respectful.
I never inferred that you can't disagree with it. Debate can also be healthy, but lately this thread has looked more like a Dog chasing it's tail!
I respect the testing, and the time it takes to do it, and the comments should be respectful.
I never inferred that you can't disagree with it. Debate can also be healthy, but lately this thread has looked more like a Dog chasing it's tail!
Testing without adequate control of variables generates BS and nothing else.
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
And telling people that they are wrong just because you say so generates BS and nothing else.
Who crowned you as king ?
Another not sharp enough to see the holes in this..
porsche965
Addicted to ArboristSite
Bwalker- do you have any videos or personal testing that we could use to compare that H1R is an oil not to use? I think that opinions from a manufacturer would be more biased than real world experiences with oils and mixes. At least to me, and obviously to the rest of us that doubt, isn't that why we are on this thread lol? Yours would be appreciated.
Lot's of Professionals feed their families with factory oils at 50:1 daily, year in and year out.
Does anyone have any videos or personal tests that they have conducted that support their personal choice and why? Other than erring on the side of perhaps the "way more oil is safe theory." What is amazing is how few, if any, actual pictures or videos show a complete seizure. Not just some hot photos or almost failed situations. Real failures from not enough oil.
Using more oil than necessary is like never driving your truck over 45mph in fear of the brakes failing....
Lot's of Professionals feed their families with factory oils at 50:1 daily, year in and year out.
Does anyone have any videos or personal tests that they have conducted that support their personal choice and why? Other than erring on the side of perhaps the "way more oil is safe theory." What is amazing is how few, if any, actual pictures or videos show a complete seizure. Not just some hot photos or almost failed situations. Real failures from not enough oil.
Using more oil than necessary is like never driving your truck over 45mph in fear of the brakes failing....
KenJax Tree
Terraphobic
I have no scientific proof or reason why i use what i use or have used in the past. I used Maxima K2 for a long time because i always had some for my dirt bike so i just used it in everything. I heard good things about Lucas and K2 is getting expensive so i tried it and liked it. Then for whatever reason i wanted to use up some K2 i had. After using Lucas at a cheap price i realized how expensive it was to keep using K2, but i like the idea of ester synthetic oil so i decided to try some Maxima Super M, its an ester based semi synthetic oil with 60% K2 and its $11 a liter, about a $1 more than a qt of Lucas (but $10 more a gallon[emoji10]) but i'm using an ester based oil. So far i like it after about 5 gallons of mix its clean, don't smoke, readily available at the bike shop in gallons (a gallon of K2 had to be ordered), and fairly cheap so thats where i am now and will probably stay with Super M. No scientific proof, reason, or explanation behind it, it just what works for me[emoji6]
Oh and 40:1.......it just works.
Oh and 40:1.......it just works.
One could argue 50:1 is an EPA mandate, factory recommend obsolescence and so on. it could also be looked at, like running your truck with half the required oil.
Look we all know that a dull chain and lean tuning, will kill a saw in short order. With that said in extreme environments, more oil is factually going to extend the life of these engines. My experience from seeing the inside of these engines, I've come to my own conclusions. Added to that, the countless recommendations from other engine builders, and I do mean builders, not just someone with a grinder.
The OP is doing his best. My intention is not to shoot him down, like some have. You know who you are, and I've respect for those folks. However his lack of knowledge and basic requirements for performing a test of this nature, is quite clear.
I have stated my concerns. Most critically, I think a lot of assumptions have been made without any scientific support at all. That leads to false conclusions. On the other hand, I have enjoyed seeing his findings. I think there's something to be learned there. I like that he's not afraid to buck the status quo. He's an individualist. I like that in a person. For me, I take the good and leave the bad. There's NO excuse for the repeated demeaning remarks.
Not many members these days find a thread topic that endures more than a couple of pages. This thread in short order is nearly one hundred. l thank the op for doing some tests and providing something of interest to talk about irrespective of how scientiffic the testing method is. lt would take a bit more than a camera, saw and a few logs to do anything really conclusive in any case. lf you don't like what the op is doing or have nothing nice to say there are plenty of other places to be. lf you thought at the end of this thread Belray would be coming here to understand their oil that would be a little silly.
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
I appreciate the testing that Redbull is doing.
Nobody has had the bowls to purchase hundreds of links of chain to remove one very fluid variable like he has.
He probably went through at least 24 loops of new chain for the testing he has bent over backwards to do, as well as he could.
His testing, (regardless if you like it, want to modify it, do it differently, or hate it) used lots of chain, and we could all try to help him recover a little.
I sent him some cabbage for some of the chains with 1 cut on them, anybody else want some of his extra .404 loops ?
Nobody has had the bowls to purchase hundreds of links of chain to remove one very fluid variable like he has.
He probably went through at least 24 loops of new chain for the testing he has bent over backwards to do, as well as he could.
His testing, (regardless if you like it, want to modify it, do it differently, or hate it) used lots of chain, and we could all try to help him recover a little.
I sent him some cabbage for some of the chains with 1 cut on them, anybody else want some of his extra .404 loops ?
Moparmyway
Its just a saw
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 2,481
- Reaction score
- 3,399
So when you don't find Google usefull enough to support your sarcastic position(s), your fallback position is to throw insults.
So is that 300 RPM within the repeatability of your instrument? How do you know your not chasing a ghost?
So with each test that had more oil you had to lean it out slightly? Was that consistent for each brand of oil?
When can we expect your test uncertainty analysis?
http://asq.org/quality-progress/2014/07/measure-for-measure/calculating-uncertainty.html
