opti-2 2 Stroke Oil
Arthur T Lee
out there using it? if so what are you mixing it at? the bottle says 100 to
1. How do you find it compared to other brands?
Uwe Hale
Arthur T Lee <kx...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jpgz3.41695$2k6.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Unless your bike sits and just idles all day long, I recommend using a
richer fuel/oil ratio. Ratio's between 30:1 to 50:1 are common. More oil
equals more power and longer engine life but more spooge out the exhaust.
Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
http://www.rrdr.org
http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
Wesley Grass
|>
|> Arthur T Lee <kx...@home.com> wrote in message
|> news:jpgz3.41695$2k6.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
|>
|> > I've been using Opti-2 2 stroke oil since I purchased my bike. Anyone else
|> > out there using it? if so what are you mixing it at? the bottle says 100
|> to
|> > 1. How do you find it compared to other brands?
|> >
|>
|> Unless your bike sits and just idles all day long, I recommend using a
|> richer fuel/oil ratio. Ratio's between 30:1 to 50:1 are common. More oil
|> equals more power and longer engine life but more spooge out the exhaust.
|>
|> Uwe Hale
--
You let me down here Uwe.
|> > 1. How do you find it compared to other brands?
Same way, you scan the shelves and read the labels <VBG>
Wes
MxGuyYz125
Dave Dude
wrote:
> I've been using Opti-2 2 stroke oil since I purchased my bike. Anyone else
>out there using it? if so what are you mixing it at? the bottle says 100 to
>1. How do you find it compared to other brands?
>
>
>
>
Who makes it? 100:1? Got to be a synthetic. Wow man thats out there.
My two strokes run great and stay clean on Motul 800 2T mixed with
race/pump gas at 60:1.
Dave Dude
96yz250
Wesley Grass
|>
|> Thanks for reminding me. I've had a bottle of Opti-2 sitting on the shelf
|> for a really LONG time and I needed something to lube the tailgate on my
|> truck. I didn't want to waste my supply of WD40 :-)
|> <br>--
|> <br>Rich Rohrich
|>
--
Chain lube is much better for tailgates ;-)
Wes
Arthur T Lee
MxGuyYz125 <mxguy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990901224310...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Arthur T Lee
news:37cee308.3471134@news...
The stuff is sold at almost all bike shops out here (Abbotsford, B.C.,
Canada) and the local bike shops swear by it. I've been mixing at 50:1 (as
my bike says 32:1 and the Opti-2 says 100:1) smokes very little (except when
the engine is under a load in loose sand or something then you can see some
smoke)
Opti-2 made by Interlube International Inc., Bellingham, WA.
Contains Fuel stabalizer, exceeds standard E-GD+ (whatever that is) and is
compatible with Oxygenated Fuels.
Russell Wardman
in my CR125, Husqvarna chain saw, Evinrude outboard, and Lawnboy lawn
mower. As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
it as opposed to the views of rmd. My own uneducated guess is that the
petroleum engineers can design the oil to be mixed at whatever ratio they
want by adding more or less filler and most companies choose to be
somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1 because people are used to these ratios
and not scared away and because it makes it easier to mix gas in small batches
and still be fairly accurate.
Russell Wardman
Anxiously awaiting delivery of 2000 CR125!
paul
>
> Dave Dude <davey...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:37cee308.3471134@news...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been using Opti-2 2 stroke oil since I purchased my bike. Anyone
> else
> > >out there using it? if so what are you mixing it at? the bottle says 100
> to
> > >1. How do you find it compared to other brands?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Who makes it? 100:1? Got to be a synthetic. Wow man thats out there.
> > My two strokes run great and stay clean on Motul 800 2T mixed with
> > race/pump gas at 60:1.
> >
> > Dave Dude
> > 96yz250
>
> Canada) and the local bike shops swear by it. I've been mixing at 50:1 (as
> my bike says 32:1 and the Opti-2 says 100:1) smokes very little (except when
> the engine is under a load in loose sand or something then you can see some
> smoke)
>
> Opti-2 made by Interlube International Inc., Bellingham, WA.
>
> Contains Fuel stabalizer, exceeds standard E-GD+ (whatever that is) and is
> compatible with Oxygenated Fuels.
wackers. No problems. Its good stuff.
Mike Baxter
> I've been using opti-2 at 100:1 for >5years now with no problems. I use it
> in my CR125, Husqvarna chain saw, Evinrude outboard, and Lawnboy lawn
> mower. As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
> rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
> it as opposed to the views of rmd. My own uneducated guess is that the
> petroleum engineers can design the oil to be mixed at whatever ratio they
> want by adding more or less filler and most companies choose to be
> somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1 because people are used to these ratios
> and not scared away and because it makes it easier to mix gas in small batches
> and still be fairly accurate.
>
> Russell Wardman
> Anxiously awaiting delivery of 2000 CR125!
I guess if I'm ever looking for a used CR125, I'll skip over yours. I bet you'll
wait 100,000 miles before changing the spark plugs in your car/truck because the
engineers say so. Do you buy into the slick 50 hype also? Damn man, we have a
fuel expert that has laid it out for us a few times.
--
Mike Baxter "Don't worry, I saw this done in a cartoon once!"
1997 YZ250 Want crash stories? www.dirtrider.net/motopain
ICQ#26379440 Aftershocks makes my suspension rock!
Uwe Hale
> As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
> rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
> it as opposed to the views of rmd.
>
How about following the recommendations of the engineers that designed your
motor? They might have a better idea of what the engine requires than the
petroleum engineers that have no clue as to what their product will be used in.
Russell Wardman
haven't seen the "fuel expert" posts that you refer to. If anyone would
like to re-post them, I'd like to see them.
Russell Wardman
Mike Baxter wrote:
> Russell Wardman wrote:
>
> > I've been using opti-2 at 100:1 for >5years now with no problems. I use it
> > in my CR125, Husqvarna chain saw, Evinrude outboard, and Lawnboy lawn
> > mower. As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
> > rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
Russell Wardman
include a specific oil as well as mix ratio. If you are using the oil they
recommend, it would be prudent to also follow their mix ratio recommendation.
If, however, you are using a different oil, would their recommendations not
be invalid?
Uwe Hale wrote:
> Russell Wardman wrote:
> > As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
> > rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
> > it as opposed to the views of rmd.
> >
>
Scott Aldrich
: I've been using opti-2 at 100:1 for >5years now with no problems. I use it
: in my CR125, Husqvarna chain saw, Evinrude outboard, and Lawnboy lawn
: rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
: petroleum engineers can design the oil to be mixed at whatever ratio they
: want by adding more or less filler and most companies choose to be
: somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1 because people are used to these ratios
: and not scared away and because it makes it easier to mix gas in small batches
: and still be fairly accurate.
A friend of mine gave me some 100:1 (amsoil?) oil to try recently.
I took it and said I'd give it a try but to tell the truth, I just
can't bring myself to do it. I've been using Honda's recommendation
of 20:1 as my ratio up until recently. I switched to 32:1 but that's
as far as I can bring myself to go. I'm actually considering going
back to a 20:1 mix and learning how to jet properly after reading
Rich's posts.
--
Scott Aldrich
'98 Suzuki DR350SE
'85 Honda CR125R
Uwe Hale
Russell Wardman <rwar...@newbridge.com> wrote in message
news:37CFE7C6...@newbridge.com...
> The recommendations of the "engineers that designed your motor" always
> include a specific oil as well as mix ratio. If you are using the oil they
> recommend, it would be prudent to also follow their mix ratio
recommendation.
> If, however, you are using a different oil, would their recommendations
not
> be invalid?
>
Nope. The motor engineers design the oil flow through the motor, not the
oil engineers.
Sorry, but there is no "SuperOil" where 1 drop replaces a gallon of some
other oil. Some oils will lubricate better or last longer but you can't get
away with running 1 quart in your motor if it calls for 5. Same principle
with 2 strokes.
I'd rather enjoy the 10+% horsepower and longer engine life that high oil
ratios provide than worry about wiping spooge off my rear fender.
What do you think you are benefiting from at 100:1?
Wesley Grass
|> Russell Wardman wrote:
|>
|> > I've been using opti-2 at 100:1 for >5years now with no problems. I use it
|> > in my CR125, Husqvarna chain saw, Evinrude outboard, and Lawnboy lawn
|> > mower. As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
|> > rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
|> > it as opposed to the views of rmd. My own uneducated guess is that the
|> > petroleum engineers can design the oil to be mixed at whatever ratio they
|>
|> > want by adding more or less filler and most companies choose to be
|> > somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1 because people are used to these ratios
|> > and not scared away and because it makes it easier to mix gas in small batches
|> > and still be fairly accurate.
|> >
|>
|>
|> I guess if I'm ever looking for a used CR125, I'll skip over yours. I bet you'll
|> wait 100,000 miles before changing the spark plugs in your car/truck because the
|> engineers say so. Do you buy into the slick 50 hype also? Damn man, we have a
|> fuel expert that has laid it out for us a few times.
|>
|> --
|> Mike Baxter
--
I want to know what kind of "fillers" are used in oil so it has to be mixed
at a lower ratio. Sounds a little fishy to me, although I suppose you could
pre-dilute the oil with gas so you have to use more of it. Damn bean counters.
Wes
DaveyzDude
The heavy oil crowd here quotes a study done by a well respected
two-stroke tuner way back in the days. The guy used one brand of castor
based oil in his test. Which were dyno-runs I think for crying out
loud!! We got guys here bad mouthing dyno-data on one hand and then
adopting dyno-test data as bible on the other hand. Geez. But anyways
so now the heavy oil crowd here seems to think that all oils perform
like the old castor based oil. No similar test has been done on new
modren synthetics to my knowlege. But the heavy oil boys will espouse
the virtue of synthetic motor oil in a gearbox application, noting its
superiority to non synthetics but when it comes to synthetic pre-mix
they all have a brain-fade. Go-fast people all over the world
acknowlege the fact if you want the best lubricant you go with the
synthetic stuff, and my experience of 20 yrs in semiconductor
processing validates that synthetic oils are used where hydrocarbon
based oils just can't cut the mustard. I have run across synthetic oil
that costs $2500 an ounce-you could almost shoot that stuff into the
sun and it would not break down. Synthetic oils can be tailored to work
in enviroments the semi-synthetics and hydrocarbon based oils can't
begin to function, and most of the heavy oil crowd here seems to be
blind and actively in anal retentive denial of that fact. If I were as
ignorant, I might adopt a "more is safer" attitude about it too. And
don't forget, some oils REQUIRE large quantities be used to overcome
"less than synthetic" lubrication properties. But some don't and you
will catch a bunch of shit here from the ignorant if you choose to run
a kick-ass synthetic at a lean ratio. Oh well. Roost em if you can and
stay on two wheels.......
Dave Dude
Running for cover again.....
96yz250
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:32:24 -0400 Russell Wardman
<rwar...@newbridge.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I haven't been following rmd much the last few years, so I
> haven't seen the "fuel expert" posts that you refer to. If anyone would
> like to re-post them, I'd like to see them.
>
> Russell Wardman
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
IRKurt
>Russell Wardman wrote:
>> As to whether or not it should be mixed at 100:1 or not, I think I'd
>> rather follow the recommendation of the petroleum engineers who designed
>> it as opposed to the views of rmd.
>>
>
>How about following the recommendations of the engineers that designed your
>motor? They might have a better idea of what the engine requires than the
>petroleum engineers that have no clue as to what their product will be used
>in.
>
> Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
> http://www.rrdr.org
> http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
I have no Idea how a bottom end could be protected with a 100:1 ratio. Just
doe not "seem" right. Maybe outboard motors.
In any case, I'd be consistent. Not sure whether it has been brought up, but
ratios will affect your jetting. 100:1 would be really rich. (More fuel).
take it from a 4s guy. Har har. (Don't worry - 2s since the days of air
cooled engines and two shocks).
Kurt
Husaberg guy - agreeing with Gas Gas guy.
Rich Rohrich
DaveyzDude wrote:
Tell us what you really think Dave :-)
At what point did anyone say synthetics or semi synthetics like Yamalube 2R
weren't great oils? You're personal "less is more" prejudice seems to be
clouding your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and seems to be
driving you to read more into this than is really there. Synthetics RULE
everyone knows that, but your seemingly blind faith in high ratios is another
story altogether. There is a lot more than a static load horsepower change
at stake here, and you're right anyone who is basing their decision solely on
the HP change that Gordon Jennings quoted is kidding themselves. My opinions
about oil ratios are based on working with castor based, semi synthetic, as
well as some full synthetics in the real world paying for the parts and bones
I break, and the research I've followed over the years has only lead me to
believe that my experiences are consistent with the peer reviewed research.
As I've stated before, my experience has been that using more oil
consistently proves to be an advantage in terms of sustaining horsepower over
the life of an engine as well as from a general reliability standpoint. You'd
never get me to pour 66:1 in my tank and try to brake closed throttle into
turn 5 at Road America on a 13,000 rpm twin, without something other than
your good word to back it up. It's funny that you stated "No similar test
has been done on new modren (sic) synthetics to my knowlege (sic)", but you
are trashing people who at least have the foresight to try to use something
other than Marketing Drivel as their guide.
Absolute certainty with no proof seems to be the order of the day for you
66:1 types. While proof with out absolute certainty about their relevance
in today's environment seems to be the position of people depending on the
Jennings quoted McCulloch research and the substantial body of published
Japanese manufacturer research. Not the most solid stance either I'm afraid.
Although if I had to take a chance I'll err on the proven research and solid
empirical data side of more oil and live with the fact I can't run pump gas,
and may have to change a plug more then once a decade.
That said, I'm smart enough to know that being open minded is the only true
path to enlightenment, so I'm in the process of doing a long term test with
Mobil 1 MX2T on an RM150 at my own expense, just to satisfy my personal
curiosity, and hopefully to roost the "less is more" crowd with the ultimate
weapon, FACTS. It won't be the final say by any means, no fancy dyno
charts, just the best real world test I can afford to put together. It should
prove to be fairly interesting. Who knows maybe I'll end up agreeing with you
(and maybe super models holding winning lottery tickets will get hit by
lightning while ravaging me in my living room :-)
Hey my best friend runs a plating business , so I hope more people follow
Dave's well intentioned but scientifically SOFT advice and run 100:1, or some
other high zoot high ratio oil.
www-maxpower-engines.com Might want to bookmark that for later use Dave
<VBG>
Bring on the flaming retort Dude !!!
--
Rich Rohrich
Applied Fluid Dynamics
rroh...@interaccess.com
Uwe Hale
> The heavy oil crowd here quotes a study done by a well respected
> two-stroke tuner way back in the days.
And tests by outboard motor manufacturers.
What tests do you have that support running high ratios provides any sort of
benefit?
> modren synthetics to my knowlege. But the heavy oil boys will espouse
> the virtue of synthetic motor oil in a gearbox application, noting its
> superiority to non synthetics but when it comes to synthetic pre-mix
> they all have a brain-fade.
Actually I like ATF in my tranny.
Tranny and motor oil are in a closed system. Synthetics are best because they
don't break down. Mobil 1 is in my cars, BMW, lawnmower, powerwasher etc. 2
stroke oil is in a total loss system. The oil is constantly refreshed with new
oil. Even then, synthetic is best because it doesn't carbon or gum up as much.
It's not a question of synth, petro, or veggie oil. Synth wins hands down.
The debate is about quantity.
So are you only filling up your compressors with half as much synthetic oil as
you used to use with the petro? Only putting 2 quarts of oil in your car?
I think I'll slip some extra oil in your bike this weekend. The extra power
might make you loop out, crash, and knock some sense into your head.<VBG>
Wesley Grass
|>
|>
|> DaveyzDude wrote:
|>
|> > Go-fast people all over the world
|> > acknowlege the fact if you want the best lubricant you go with the
|> > synthetic stuff, and my experience of 20 yrs in semiconductor
|> > processing validates that synthetic oils are used where hydrocarbon
|> > based oils just can't cut the mustard.
Is that based on lubricating properties, or due to contamination risk from
hydrocarbons in a clean room environment?
|> > I have run across synthetic oil
|> > that costs $2500 an ounce-you could almost shoot that stuff into the
|> > sun and it would not break down.
Many high temperature synthetics are not suitable for extreme pressure
applications. In that particular case I could argue that they are inferior
lubricants.
|> Synthetics RULE
|> everyone knows that,
I've been skeptical for a long time, but I got a bit of a testimonial a week
ago at Laguna Seca. Audi brought a couple of the 1930's Auto-Union GP cars
over for the Monterey Historic Races. They were using Castrol RS (Racing
Syntec) in them. These cars are priceless, and I assume the factory engineers
know what they're doing. After hearing the V-16 run, I almost needed a
cigarette ;-) I couldn't believe some people were actually plugging their
ears. That'd be like covering your eyes when (insert favorite supermodel here)
walked in the room. I guess some people have no appreciation for music.
|> You'd
|> never get me to pour 66:1 in my tank and try to brake closed throttle into
|> turn 5 at Road America
Is that the left hand hairpin at the end of the downhill "all the controls
on the grader locked up for 12 miles" straight?
|> I'm in the process of doing a long term test with
|> Mobil 1 MX2T on an RM150 at my own expense,
|>
|> (and maybe super models holding winning lottery tickets will get hit by
|> lightning while ravaging me in my living room :-)
Can I help with this test????????????????
|> Rich Rohrich
--
Wes
Rich Rohrich
Wesley Grass wrote:
> |> You'd
> |> never get me to pour 66:1 in my tank and try to brake closed throttle into
> |> turn 5 at Road America
>
> Is that the left hand hairpin at the end of the downhill "all the controls
> on the grader locked up for 12 miles" straight?
No, but I know which one you're talking about. I think I still have stains in my leathers from
that one :-) Turn 5 is a slow 1st gear 90 degree turn at the end of a long fast slightly downhill
straight, then back on the gas hard up the hill under the Corvette bridge to turn 6. Great place
to scuff a piston or stick a ring.
>
> |> I'm in the process of doing a long term test with
> |> Mobil 1 MX2T on an RM150 at my own expense,
> |>
> |> (and maybe super models holding winning lottery tickets will get hit by
> |> lightning while ravaging me in my living room :-)
>
> Can I help with this test????????????????
Sure, I'm only good for 5 or 6 super models before I go into major arm pump. <VBG>
Uwe Hale
> Synthetic or petro? <G>
I don't really know, or care. It gets changed alot to clean out the contamination
from the clutch and stuff. I'm not worried about it lasting long without breaking
down. I assume it's petro since it's just a couple bucks for a gallon. Screw $8+
for a quart of bike oil.
> That's one of the reasons vegetable oils are still used in model airplane
> fuels,
The AMA (models, not motorcycles) had a test in their mag once. At extreme
temperatures, the castor oil would turn into a thick grease while everything else
burned off. Of course that grease probably turns into carbon and is the cause for
castor oiled engines requiring frequent cleaning. Synth burns much cleaner.
> How about Mobil 1 in your airplane? They pulled it from the market if I
> remember right.
I thought it was because of the additives. I think the first version had some sort
of additive that caused bike clutches to slip and something to build up in the plane
motors. They later changed the formula. That's why synthetics had such a bad rap
with motorcycles for awhile. Just what I was told, I'm not sure.
> Maybe a better comparison would be to run with half the oil pressure, since
> it's a superior lubricant.
Actually no oil is the correct comparison. Check out this test done on oil migration
through a motor at different ratios.
http://www.maximausa.com/migration.htm
No reason not to believe it. Maxima isn't touting their oil over anyone else's with
this test. Excellent charts and diagram.
So at 40:1, it takes all the oil 105 seconds to travel through the motor. At 60:1 it
takes 4, yes FOUR seconds.
Going back to Rich's example. Lets take 60:1. You're hauling butt down a
straightaway at 13K RPM. Shut off the throttle and start braking...4.3.2.1. BOOM!!!
At 40:1 you can take a minute and a half.
And the real kicker is the exhaust spooge. At 40:1 there was 99.4% unburnt oil in
the exhaust. At 60:1 there was 99.7%. Whoopee. Spooge is from jetting, not oil.
> Beta spec's a 2% mix for synthetic, and 4% for petro, in my trials bike. I'm
> running Redline at 50:1, mainly to be compatible with the gas my friends are
Trials bike aren't run at high speed with closed throttle. I ran 50:1 in my jetski
without worry. If I closed the throttle, the prop stopped spinning and the motor
idled. Same thing with outboard motors. Same thing with weedwackers, lawnmowers,
etc.
My opinion is that 100:1 claims such as AMSOIL makes are marketing geared at the bass
fishermen. They don't have a problem with the motor being driven. And they probably
buy a heck of a lot more 2S oil than dirtbikers do so targeting them is good
business.
Wesley Grass
|> DaveyzDude wrote:
|>
|> > modren synthetics to my knowlege. But the heavy oil boys will espouse
|> > the virtue of synthetic motor oil in a gearbox application, noting its
|> > superiority to non synthetics but when it comes to synthetic pre-mix
|> > they all have a brain-fade.
|>
|> Actually I like ATF in my tranny.
Synthetic or petro? <G>
|> Tranny and motor oil are in a closed system. Synthetics are best because they
|> don't break down. Mobil 1 is in my cars, BMW, lawnmower, powerwasher etc. 2
|> stroke oil is in a total loss system. The oil is constantly refreshed with new
|> oil. Even then, synthetic is best because it doesn't carbon or gum up as much.
|>
|> It's not a question of synth, petro, or veggie oil. Synth wins hands down.
|> The debate is about quantity.
Synthetic oils have had a reputation for not being good rust preventatives.
That's one of the reasons vegetable oils are still used in model airplane
fuels, although typically in small quantities blended with synthetics these
days. Probably not a concern for us, as long as we're not running Nitro-methane
;-)
How about Mobil 1 in your airplane? They pulled it from the market if I
remember right. I wonder why? People not changing it often enough because it
"doesn't break down"? Sorry, just stirring up the shit pot a little.
|> So are you only filling up your compressors with half as much synthetic oil as
|> you used to use with the petro? Only putting 2 quarts of oil in your car?
Maybe a better comparison would be to run with half the oil pressure, since
it's a superior lubricant.
|> I think I'll slip some extra oil in your bike this weekend. The extra power
|> might make you loop out, crash, and knock some sense into your head.<VBG>
You're cruel. Keep up the good work.
|> Uwe Hale
--
Beta spec's a 2% mix for synthetic, and 4% for petro, in my trials bike. I'm
running Redline at 50:1, mainly to be compatible with the gas my friends are
running. I usually cheat when I mix it though, by adding a little more oil to
the jug. It just doesn't look like enough oil to me. I think I'd feel better
if I changed to Castrol at 24-32:1. For the amount of fuel I use in it, the
cost would be insignificant (it's ~$24 a liter).
Wes
C5FltEngnr
>might make you loop out, crash, and knock some sense into your head.<VBG>
>
>
> http://www.rrdr.org
> http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
>
Uwe
Are you sure you want a more sensible Dave Dude? Be careful what you ask
for. If you should decide to carry out this adding of oil, be sure to let me
know. I would love to witness said loop out!
Mark (aka XC Racer)
'99 YZ 250
#567 OCCRA
I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.
C5FltEngnr
Your ciphering skills are better than mine. How did you detrmine they meant a
closed throttle and the engine being driven. I didn't get that. I didn't really
get much out of it. I believe your right, but what brought you to that
conclusion?
Now you know why I'm not in Intelligence <BG>
>Actually no oil is the correct comparison. Check out this test done on oil
>migration
>through a motor at different ratios.
>
>http://www.maximausa.com/migration.htm
>
>No reason not to believe it. Maxima isn't touting their oil over anyone
>else's with
>this test. Excellent charts and diagram.
>
>So at 40:1, it takes all the oil 105 seconds to travel through the motor. At
>60:1 it
>takes 4, yes FOUR seconds.
>
>Going back to Rich's example. Lets take 60:1. You're hauling butt down a
>straightaway at 13K RPM. Shut off the throttle and start braking...4.3.2.1.
>BOOM!!!
> At 40:1 you can take a minute and a half.
>
>And the real kicker is the exhaust spooge. At 40:1 there was 99.4% unburnt
>oil in
>the exhaust. At 60:1 there was 99.7%. Whoopee. Spooge is from jetting, not
>oil.
>
>> Beta spec's a 2% mix for synthetic, and 4% for petro, in my trials bike.
>I'm
>> running Redline at 50:1, mainly to be compatible with the gas my friends
>are
>
>Trials bike aren't run at high speed with closed throttle. I ran 50:1 in my
>jetski
>without worry. If I closed the throttle, the prop stopped spinning and the
>motor
>idled. Same thing with outboard motors. Same thing with weedwackers,
>lawnmowers,
>etc.
>
>My opinion is that 100:1 claims such as AMSOIL makes are marketing geared at
>the bass
>fishermen. They don't have a problem with the motor being driven. And they
>probably
>buy a heck of a lot more 2S oil than dirtbikers do so targeting them is good
>business.
>
>
> Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
> http://www.rrdr.org
> http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
David Jones
>Uwe
> Your ciphering skills are better than mine. How did you detrmine they meant a
>closed throttle and the engine being driven. I didn't get that. I didn't really
>get much out of it. I believe your right, but what brought you to that
>conclusion?
I was a bit confused by the text and the chart also. They mention
three ratios (25:1, 40:1 & 60:1) then say "the figures in the chart
reflect a 41.6:1 ratio".
They don't label the various "oil migration times" as to which ratio
but there are three columns....
The "% of unburned oil & oil combustion products discharged in exhaust
gas" line in the chart would lead one to think the 60:1 give the most
oil in the exhaust (99.7).
I think there is some information there, just difficult to interpret.
The little chart at the bottom which give recommended ratios by size
and anticipated use really says it all: the smaller the engine or the
harder it's run the more oil you need.
>Now you know why I'm not in Intelligence <BG>
You and I can play Dumb and Dumber.......
>
>>Actually no oil is the correct comparison. Check out this test done on oil
>>migration
>>through a motor at different ratios.
>>
>>http://www.maximausa.com/migration.htm
>>
>>No reason not to believe it. Maxima isn't touting their oil over anyone
>>else's with
>>this test. Excellent charts and diagram.
>>
<snip>
>> Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
>Mark (aka XC Racer)
David - 99 KTM 200EXC
Email: djo...@cyberhighway.net
Home of the "The Very Unofficial RMD Page"
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~djones/
C5FltEngnr
>I was a bit confused by the text and the chart also. They mention
>three ratios (25:1, 40:1 & 60:1) then say "the figures in the chart
>reflect a 41.6:1 ratio".
That is the average ratio. All three added together and divided by three.
>I think there is some information there, just difficult to interpret.
I'll agree with that!
>The little chart at the bottom which give recommended ratios by size
>and anticipated use really says it all: the smaller the engine or the
>harder it's run the more oil you need.
>
This was easy to understand. If it's small and you ring the piss out off it,
It better have sufficient oil!
>You and I can play Dumb and Dumber.......
Which one am I.... Dumb or Dumber? <G>
Uwe Hale
> Your ciphering skills are better than mine. How did you detrmine they meant a
> closed throttle and the engine being driven. I didn't get that.
The engine being driven part is what Rich was talking about. In many 2S
applications, when you let off the throttle the motor idles. Not so with wheeled
vehicles. When you close the throttle you shut off the supply oil.
>I didn't really
> get much out of it. I believe your right, but what brought you to that
> conclusion?
I see the 3 columns in the chart as being the 25,40, and 60 ratio times. The
figures below at 41.6 statement refers to the remaining oil percentages that are
listed below the table.
The unburned percentages is worded weird. I reversed the percentages giving
1.4% unburned oil at 25:1, .6% at 40:1 and .3% at 60:1
Now if I could just figure out how to get the cam sprocket back on the cam
without having to take my whole truck motor apart. AAArrrggghhh!!!
Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
C5FltEngnr
I assume you are trying to get the cam on with the chain on the sprocket? Do
you have an external cam chain tensioner? Can you back it off till you get the
cam installed?
>Now if I could just figure out how to get the cam sprocket back on the cam
>without having to take my whole truck motor apart. AAArrrggghhh!!!
Ok, so your saying it takes 105 second to suck all the remaining oil (from
piston skirts, rod, casings, ect,ect...) out of the enging at 40:1 and only 4
at 60:1?
>The engine being driven part is what Rich was talking about. In many 2S
>applications, when you let off the throttle the motor idles. Not so with
>wheeled
>vehicles. When you close the throttle you shut off the supply oil.
Good luck with the GYDBT.
Dave Dude
<rroh...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Tell us what you really think Dave :-)
OH SHIT! Rich (the man) is fixin to hit me with both barrels....where
did my cover go?<G>
>At what point did anyone say synthetics or semi synthetics like Yamalube 2R
>weren't great oils? You're personal "less is more" prejudice seems to be
>clouding your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and seems to be
>driving you to read more into this than is really there.
Dude I can't stand militant rabid fundamentalism on anything. I would
not like to be known as arrogantly stubborn. Being an asshole like my
buddies SCW and UWE is ok,<G> but I like to think I can acknowledge
logic without letting ego or pride in the way.
My stance on high ratio's is based on my real world experience
with my YZ and Motul 800 2T mixed at 66:1 or 60:1 as recommended on
the back of the bottle. My bike has been run with this mix since day
one and still need no replating of the stock bore.Lets see, it was
originally bought in late 95, modified by LCS racing for HIGH
COMPRESSION and raced hard mx for a year by Sprint(expert level mx'er)
out of FLY , then sold to J.Artinger(intermerdiatle level mx'er) who
raced it for a year. Then I bought it in late 97. I kept using the
oil, mix ratio and fuel that the previous owners used. Still on the
original crank this day. Original bore. In fine shape and comparable
to bores of bikes run that long and hard at higher oil ratios. Never
been stuck. Chug and lug the poor thing around all day. I have only
fouled one plug (when I left the choke on). I've done two piston
replacement but not because parts were worn past their service limit.
The ring wear from my last replacement measured 0.005" after a year of
my use. Plenty of golden oil coats all surfaces inside my YZ engine.
The bike has more power than I need. There are plenty of dudes(a
racing dynasty) around here that have been racing hard expert level MX
using Motul 800 2Tmixed at 66:1 or higher for YEARS and YEARS. I know
of one national level rider using it right now. Factory teams used it
until they were paid more money to run other stuff.. Blind faith? I
think not. Proof? I think so. I'm a single dad raising two kids full
time, I don't need to be spending big money fixeing broke bikes. Its
all I can do to keep my little munchkins in proper gear<G>. David
needs new boots, so does Genevieve.
Perhaps my trashing of the heavy oil boys is unfair but it is
just in response to my perceived feeling that most heavy oil mixers
make no bones about that they think I'm a lunatic for running 60:1 oil
ratio. I am not ignorant to the fact that 30:1 works, hell I used
Yamalube2R and Maxima 927 mixed at 32:1 for quite a while in other
bikes. Fouled plugs and stuck pistons in them too. But it does seem
the heavy oil users ARE ignorant to the fact that ratios of 60:1 work
just fine in the hardest uses a dirtbike can be put through. I can
only take so much ignorance before I pop.
I have no experience with oils mixed at 100:1 so can't vouch
for them but it wouldn't surprise me if a synthetic was engineered to
work at that ratio. Rich please don't run Motul 800 2T at 66:1 in your
road bike. The back of the bottle say 32:1 for road use.<G>
Hopefully someday I'll be able to send my cylinder to your
friend for the 2mm overbore and Apticote 2000 replate and long rod
kit(my dream).
Dave Dude
96yz250
Synthetics RULE
>everyone knows that, but your seemingly blind faith in high ratios is another
>story altogether. There is a lot more than a static load horsepower change
>at stake here, and you're right anyone who is basing their decision solely on
>the HP change that Gordon Jennings quoted is kidding themselves. My opinions
>about oil ratios are based on working with castor based, semi synthetic, as
>well as some full synthetics in the real world paying for the parts and bones
>I break, and the research I've followed over the years has only lead me to
>believe that my experiences are consistent with the peer reviewed research.
>As I've stated before, my experience has been that using more oil
>consistently proves to be an advantage in terms of sustaining horsepower over
>the life of an engine as well as from a general reliability standpoint. You'd
>never get me to pour 66:1 in my tank and try to brake closed throttle into
>turn 5 at Road America on a 13,000 rpm twin, without something other than
>your good word to back it up. It's funny that you stated "No similar test
>has been done on new modren (sic) synthetics to my knowlege (sic)", but you
>are trashing people who at least have the foresight to try to use something
>other than Marketing Drivel as their guide.
>Absolute certainty with no proof seems to be the order of the day for you
>66:1 types. While proof with out absolute certainty about their relevance
>in today's environment seems to be the position of people depending on the
>Jennings quoted McCulloch research and the substantial body of published
>Japanese manufacturer research. Not the most solid stance either I'm afraid.
>Although if I had to take a chance I'll err on the proven research and solid
>empirical data side of more oil and live with the fact I can't run pump gas,
>and may have to change a plug more then once a decade.
>
>That said, I'm smart enough to know that being open minded is the only true
>path to enlightenment, so I'm in the process of doing a long term test with
>Mobil 1 MX2T on an RM150 at my own expense, just to satisfy my personal
>curiosity, and hopefully to roost the "less is more" crowd with the ultimate
>weapon, FACTS. It won't be the final say by any means, no fancy dyno
>charts, just the best real world test I can afford to put together. It should
>prove to be fairly interesting. Who knows maybe I'll end up agreeing with you
>(and maybe super models holding winning lottery tickets will get hit by
>lightning while ravaging me in my living room :-)
>
> Hey my best friend runs a plating business , so I hope more people follow
>Dave's well intentioned but scientifically SOFT advice and run 100:1, or some
>other high zoot high ratio oil.
>www-maxpower-engines.com Might want to bookmark that for later use Dave
><VBG>
>
>Bring on the flaming retort Dude !!!
Dave Dude
snip
>I think I'll slip some extra oil in your bike this weekend. The extra power
>might make you loop out, crash, and knock some sense into your head.<VBG>
LOL!! pretty funny UWE!
Dave Dude
96yz250
Uwe Hale
> Ok, so your saying it takes 105 second to suck all the remaining oil (from
> piston skirts, rod, casings, ect,ect...) out of the enging at 40:1 and only 4
> at 60:1?
Yep. That's what the tests say. I wouldn't have thought that there was THAT
much difference.
My 250 (285) has enough low end that I can go plenty fast without having to rev
the motor. I've always run it at 40:1. The bottom end lasted through more than
8 years of enduros and weekly trail rides. When it was rebuilt last summer,
there was minor wear on the crank bearings according to Jack from LCS. The 200
gets screamed alot more so I'm running it around 32:1. Since I don't want to
track separate gas containers, the YZ is now also running at 32:1.
> I assume you are trying to get the cam on with the chain on the sprocket? Do
> you have an external cam chain tensioner? Can you back it off till you get the
> cam installed?
The tensioner is internal. The manual had me make a block of wood and stick it
in there to keep it from tightening up. I guess it didn't work. I'm going to
try to take the cam off, put the sprocket back on and leverage the cam back into
place. Otherwise I gotta take the whole front of the motor apart to get to the
tensioner. What a way to spend a 3 day weekend.
C5FltEngnr
Be careful that you don't tweak your cam leveraging back into the cam
saddles. It could get $$$ quick.
Oh yeah, and your a weenie too! You were supposed to be doing that last
weekend. Remember the enduro you couldn't make? Oh I can just see the wheels
turning? <VBG>
>he tensioner is internal. The manual had me make a block of wood and stick
>it
>in there to keep it from tightening up. I guess it didn't work. I'm going
>to
>try to take the cam off, put the sprocket back on and leverage the cam back
>into
>place. Otherwise I gotta take the whole front of the motor apart to get to
>the
>tensioner. What a way to spend a 3 day weekend.
>
>
> Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
> http://www.rrdr.org
> http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
>
Mark (aka XC Racer)
Leav Home
>considering going to 24:1 or possibly even 20. I'm less concerned
>with plug fouling and drool than I am with engine life and power
>output.
I run Golden Spectro concentrate in my CR250 at 52:1. I had took the cylinder
off expecting the topend to be beat, but the piston and rings look brand new,
no scratches, marring, or scuffs. There was no carbon build up either,
everything looked awesome, I bet I could have gotten away with that top end
till half way through next season. I think Rich is making people a little
paranoid, no offense, you know more than most people ever will. My bike is
jetted to 52:1. By the look of my top end Golden Spectro concentrate has earned
a good spot in my oil book.
I have never of heard of more oil giving an engine more power. Even the
mechanics with 20+ years of expierence that I work with never heard of this,
and had no idea how more oil would give more power.
-Franky
98 CR250
Uwe Hale
> I have never of heard of more oil giving an engine more power. Even the
> mechanics with 20+ years of expierence that I work with never heard of this,
> and had no idea how more oil would give more power.
>
Well, now y'all know.<G>
Rich Rohrich
Leav Home wrote:
>
<snip>
> I have never of heard of more oil giving an engine more power. Even the
> mechanics with 20+ years of expierence that I work with never heard of this,
> and had no idea how more oil would give more power.
I give up !
Leav Home
Is this an agreement?
-Franky
98 CR250
Scott Aldrich
: I give up !
Please don't Rich. Some of us are listening. If I ever get beyond
my electrical problems, jetting will be next on my list. Actually, I
may work on 4s jetting before I get to the 2s stuff.
Even if I don't say it often enough, I do appreciate what you say
and try to copy and use whatever I can for reference later.
And I really like what you and Eric have done on the web site.
SSmyers102
say.
I just read "Monkey Butt" and rick Sieman was able to run a Can-Am on gun oil
at something like 800:1 for a little while.
Hilarious Story
Rich Rohrich
Leav Home wrote:
>
> >Well, now y'all know.<G>
>
> Is this an agreement?
I think it was more along the lines of someone pointing out your
personel struggle with dementia :-)
Hoyt McKagen
> I run Golden Spectro concentrate in my CR250 at 52:1. I had took the cylinder
> off expecting the topend to be beat, but the piston and rings look brand new,
> no scratches, marring, or scuffs. There was no carbon build up either
A typical layer of carbon is a good thing, as it insulates the working
parts. Since it conserves heat in the working gases, it also improves
power. Refs for that would be Grumpy Jenkins and Gordon Jennings.
> I have never of heard of more oil giving an engine more power. Even the
> mechanics with 20+ years of expierence that I work with never heard of this,
> and had no idea how more oil would give more power.
This is the 'argument of personal increduality' which is much favored by
creationists ... basically it sez 'If I don't understand it, it can't be
understood', and it's a grave logical error.
Fact is more oil up to about 16:1 makes more power because it seals the
pistons and rings better, and beside more push it also makes for cooler
running (less blowby means less skirt heating). The effect has been
observed by many people on dyno tests. Jennings discovered this in the
'60s and I've seen refs right here or on rec. mc.tech from people who
verified it recently. You and your mechanics could stand to do more
reading. And if it were me, I wouldn't go to someone who was that
uninformed for anything.
Best wishes,
Hoyt McKagen
Belfab CNC - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
Rubber balloons kill more young kids than ALL other toys
Rich Rohrich
Leav Home wrote:
<Snip clearly flawed logic on the writer's part >
>
> I learned something today, I think...
Me too Franky.
Give people the best most accurate information you can, then walk away
and try not to give a damn if they take it. Hopefully Hoyt already knows
that <VBG>
Being totally serious, you seem to be saddled with some fundemental
misconceptions about the way engines operate. I suggest you take a look
at "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice Volume 2
Combustion, Fuels, Materials, Design" By C.F. Taylor. It's an excellent
book and I think you'll have a clearer understanding of the points Hoyt
was trying to make. I know you were trying to be clever or funny, but
saying you don't know who Gordon Jennings is in a motorcycle newsgroup
just makes you look like a kind of a dumbass.
Cam Mitchell
>Rich Rohrich (rroh...@interaccess.com) wrote:
>: I give up !
> Please don't Rich. Some of us are listening. If I ever get beyond
>my electrical problems, jetting will be next on my list. Actually, I
>may work on 4s jetting before I get to the 2s stuff.
> Even if I don't say it often enough, I do appreciate what you say
>and try to copy and use whatever I can for reference later.
>And I really like what you and Eric have done on the web site.
Ditto Rich, some of us really appreciate your informative posts. I've
saved a lot of them for future reference. Keep em coming!
If some people don't want to listen, that's their loss.
--
'69 Chevy CC20
'94 KX500 #71, CMA Open C.
Thanks to Racer's Edge Motorsports, Race Tech, Applied Racing.
Leav Home
Ya it was black.
>Fact is more oil up to about 16:1 makes more power because it seals the
>pistons and rings better
Probably, it seems to me that the more oil you have, the longer it would take
to burn. When you go slow it's almost inevitable that your plug will get loaded
up and eventually foul, costing you more money to replace all the spark plugs
that you have to replace. If your bike is jetted correctly, whether it's 16:1
or 60:1, it doesn't seem like a rich mixture or a lean mixture would matter. If
your running a rich mixture your bike should be jetted to slow the amount of
oil/gas coming into the cylinder so your motor can keep up and the plug does
not foul. If your running a lean gas/oil mixture than your jetted to compensate
for the higher temperatures and must allow more gas/oil to flow. It seems to me
that no matter what your gas/oil ratio is your motor has an optimal mixture
that it needs to be run at to maximize burning and lubricating effiency.
>and beside more push it also makes for cooler
>running (less blowby means less skirt heating)
I was under the impression that gas cools much better than oil. If you blow a
radiator hose when your out on a trail ride the best thing to do is turn on
your choke. More oil does not mean cooler operating temperatures.
>The effect has been
>observed by many people on dyno tests.
Damn, that kind of shuts down my argument. I totally forgot that dyno tests run
temperatures to.
>You and your mechanics could stand to do more
>reading. And if it were me, I wouldn't go to someone who was that
>uninformed for anything.
Ok, be a little more harsh, I'll tell them that they're failures.
Actually I work in an outdoor power equipment repair shop. Most outdoor power
equipment motors are air cooled, they rely on gasoline to do a good percentage
of the cooling. We run a 50:1 gas/oil mixture in all the 2 cycle motors that
come through, we don't go any richer with the oil because more oil does not
improve cooling, or so I was under the impretion that it didn't.
I actually don't really know what I'm talking about, but I'll have to remember
this guy named Jennings. I'll do a little reading on this myself, I'm not sure
if I believe Jennings. I have never heard of him, I guess I don't get out much.
>And if it were me, I wouldn't go to someone who was that
>uninformed for anything.
Uninformed? These guys are pretty good, I bet you wouldn't come to us, we see a
good bunch of meatheads and you don't sound like one of them. There are a
certain group of people that come to an outdoor power equipment repair shop to
get that stuff fixed. Outdoor power equipment motors are so generic it's makes
me sick. Go start your own repair shop, nerd. <G>
I learned something today, I think...
-Franky
98 CR250
Leav Home
>If some people don't want to listen, that's their loss.
Oh I'm listening, him and some other smart guys are beating up on me. I've have
learned that you learn a good deal trying to argue with the smart guys. It's
good for me:) I suffer from dementia also, please excuse me.
-Franky
98 CR250
Hoyt McKagen
> Probably, it seems to me that the more oil you have, the longer it would take
> to burn.
People argue this point all the time but when your entire burn is
over in .0002 sec it's not a big thing.
>When you go slow it's almost inevitable that your plug will get loaded
> up and eventually foul, costing you more money to replace all the spark plugs
> that you have to replace.
Wrong. Plug fouling is mostly related to extra richness in burning mix.
The oil doesn't burn, contributes little or no carbon.
>If your bike is jetted correctly, whether it's 16:1
> or 60:1, it doesn't seem like a rich mixture or a lean mixture would matter.
Yer losing me...
If
> your running a rich mixture your bike should be jetted to slow the amount of
> oil/gas coming into the cylinder so your motor can keep up and the plug does
> not foul. If your running a lean gas/oil mixture than your jetted to compensate
> for the higher temperatures and must allow more gas/oil to flow. It seems to me
> that no matter what your gas/oil ratio is your motor has an optimal mixture
> that it needs to be run at to maximize burning and lubricating effiency.
Most of the above is 100% crazy as stated.
> I was under the impression that gas cools much better than oil. If you blow a
> radiator hose when your out on a trail ride the best thing to do is turn on
> your choke. More oil does not mean cooler operating temperatures.
It absolutely does, because the oil is the medium though which heat is
trasnferred to the cyl from piston.
I've never blown a hose on the trail, am always afraid of getting coolant
in my mustache.
> >You and your mechanics could stand to do more
> >reading. And if it were me, I wouldn't go to someone who was that
> >uninformed for anything.
>
> Ok, be a little more harsh, I'll tell them that they're failures.
Just do it!!
> I actually don't really know what I'm talking about,
How can you tell??
> Uninformed? These guys are pretty good, I bet you wouldn't come to us, we see a
> good bunch of meatheads and you don't sound like one of them.
I'm not, I know what I know and I don't know what I don't.
> me sick. Go start your own repair shop, nerd. <G>
I did, see the tagline. Works for me. Have a good day.
Jay C
>
> Being totally serious, you seem to be saddled with some fundemental
> misconceptions about the way engines operate. I suggest you take a look
> at "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice Volume 2
> Combustion, Fuels, Materials, Design" By C.F. Taylor. It's an excellent
> book and I think you'll have a clearer understanding of the points Hoyt
> was trying to make. I know you were trying to be clever or funny, but
> saying you don't know who Gordon Jennings is in a motorcycle newsgroup
> just makes you look like a kind of a dumbass.
FYI: LeavHome is only 16 y/o. BTW, ignorance is bliss (Jennings who??).
Jay
Leav Home
>
>How can you tell??
Because I threw words down as I was typing, and had nothing to back me. It was
my own BS, I knew it was wrong, because I knew it wasn't right. I just had to
get Hoyt back. <G> I guess I am a dumbass, I don't know who Jennings is, after
16 years someone can already come to that conclusion for me? Holy shit you guys
are good <G>.
>I did, see the tagline. Works for me. Have a good day.
>
There's another kick in the face, whoops.
Best wishes,
-Franky
98 CR250
Rich Rohrich
Jay C wrote:
>
> FYI: LeavHome is only 16 y/o. BTW, ignorance is bliss (Jennings who??).
Then this must be nirvana <VBG>
Miscellaneous,Etc.
Rich Rohrich wrote:
> Leav Home wrote:
> <Snip clearly flawed logic on the writer's part >
> >
> <<snip good book recomendation>>>
> . I know you were trying to be clever or funny, but
> saying you don't know who Gordon Jennings is in a motorcycle newsgroup
> just makes you look like a kind of a dumbass.
>
> --
> Rich Rohrich
> Applied Fluid Dynamics
> rroh...@interaccess.com
Well, that dumbass ain't alone. I'll have to go find out who Gordon Jennings
is/was now. Guess I've been reading the wrong stuff.
Since we're giving book reviews here, try "The Perfect Storm" by Sebastian
Junger. way off subject but great non-fiction.
Dean H.
oh, shucks, I already look like a kind of dumbass and now I gotta top it off
with:
1978 dt175e
1970 cb175k4
Miscellaneous,Etc.
Miscellaneous,Etc. wrote:
> Well, that dumbass ain't alone. I'll have to go find out who Gordon Jennings
> is/was now.
Well, I 'm now somewhat less of a dumbass, I guess.
here's a piece of Gordon Jennings' for you spodes
http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=6
Feeling sore and old after 15.5 miles (3.5 hours) of black diamond woods. Ride
report pending.
> Dean H.
>
> 1978 dt175e
> 1970 cb175k4
Uwe Hale
Miscellaneous,Etc. <dhy...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:37DD260D...@snet.net...
> here's a piece of Gordon Jennings' for you spodes
>
> http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=6
>
Wow, what a cool site. Just spent lunch reading lots of good articles.
I've always wondered about the effects on crankcase volume in 2 strokes. I
ran across this by Kevin Cameron
http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=339
And a link to the index at:
http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/list.idc?passin=13
might be a useful addition to the RMD webpage.
Uwe
Ken James
http://community.webtv.net/JamesWyoming/American
DirtCrashr
No kidding!! A website with Jennings...
>http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=339
AND Kevin Cameron?!! Awesome! What a goldmine!
And finally, even an engine report on Sheryl's 3-liter v-8 BMW...
DirtCrashr - '97xr400
Rich Rohrich
"Miscellaneous,Etc." wrote:
> > Well, that dumbass ain't alone. I'll have to go find out who Gordon Jennings
> > is/was now.
I think maybe you guys missed the point, that little kid (or anyone
else) isn't a dumb-ass for not knowing who Gordon Jennings is, he's a
dumb-ass for holding it up as some sort of badge of honor to ignorance
:-)
But you guys finding www.wheelbase.com makes the whole thing worthwhile
I guess. Tons of great Kevin Cameron and Gordon Jennings stuff out
there. It's a shame Wheelbase never took off as a concept. It would be
cool if they would continue to update it, but there doesn't seem to be
any real motivation to do it.
Rowdy
>
> Wow, what a cool site. Just spent lunch reading lots of good articles.
>
> ran across this by Kevin Cameron
>
> http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=339
>
> And a link to the index at:
> http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/list.idc?passin=13
> might be a useful addition to the RMD webpage.
Uwe, did you notice that the two stroke scavenging article
(message.idc?passin=339) doesn't show on the list (list.idc?passin=13) but on
(list.idc?passin=20)?
Did you find a way to search the articles database?
I did play with the URLs a bit, but it is a uncomfortable way of location
information.
Rowdy, lost in cyber space
WRZ400F
Muroc
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Uwe Hale
> Did you find a way to search the articles database?
No.
> I did play with the URLs a bit, but it is a uncomfortable way of location
> information.
>
The titles could be more descriptive. I just went through them
sequentially. It is a hassle if you're trying to find something specific.
Uwe Hale - 99 GasGas EC200, 89 YZ250
http://www.rrdr.org
http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
Wesley Grass
|>
|>
|>
|> The titles could be more descriptive. I just went through them
|> sequentially.
|>
|>
--
Then you MUST have seen the article that claimed 219 psi BMEP for a developed
Harley XR, right <VBG>
Wes (loves to be a smart ass)
David Jones
>
>> here's a piece of Gordon Jennings' for you spodes
>>
>> http://www.sandiego.com/scripts/wheelbase/message.idc?passin=6
>>
>
<snip URLs)
>might be a useful addition to the RMD webpage.
Duly noted and done. Created a new category "Technical Articles" at:
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~djones/#Tech
>Uwe