Is it okay to use STP oil treatment?
Vincent
motorbike. Not realising how much to pour into
the engine, I mixed 443ml into 1.8 litres of engine
oil.
Then I also realized that the oil level is way over
the oil needle (what will happen). I continue riding
anyway for about 50km.
The next day, I drained out all the oil and fill up with
new oil, again this time, I used the oil treatment.
(1.8 litres engine oil to about 200ml of treatment)
Please advise on the use of oil treatment, and does
it help,
Riding the bike with oil level over the limit?
Michael Timberwoof Roeder
<sme...@post1.com> wrote:
Oil treatments are basicaly the same additives that lubricating oils
already contain. They may mess up the action of the existing additives, or
they may do nothing at all. I would not use them.
It is a bad idea to run any engine with the oil above the "Full" line. You
could cause it to burst some oil seals and start leaking all over the
place.
If I were you I'd drain the oil, put in a new filter, and put in the
correct amount of fresh oil.
(By the way, oil treatments suck as Slick 50 which use teflon are complete
and utter trash. DuPont does not certify teflon for use in engine oils.
They tried to stop selling it to engine-gunk makers, but got sued and
lost. They cannot legally control what people do with their products.
[Which ought to protect the makers of fertilizer used in bombs.] Anyway,
if something is supposed to bond to your engine parts, how can you control
where it bonds? It ends up clogging small oil orifices and your oil
filter. And you've seen those engines that they run without oil? They
never show you the bearings afterwards. And so what if racers use the
additives. They rebuild their engines after every race. You can't afford
to rebuild your engine every couple of weeks.)
--
Michael Roeder; mroeder at best dot com; http://www.best.com/~mroeder
Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie), 1998 BMW R1100GS rider,
and not your ordinary noncomformist.
Spam Reading Offer: http://www.best.com/~mroeder/spamoff.html
jimbo
Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
>
> > Yesterday, I bought this STP oil treatment for my
> > motorbike....
>
> (By the way, oil treatments suck as Slick 50 which use teflon are complete
> and utter trash. .....
Surely Slick 50 would be bad news for bikes with wet clutches.
But I've been told that some molybdenum based stuff is good for oil, gearbox
oil, even forks.
Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
PS brilliant Vtwin page:
http://www.best.com/~mroeder/motorcycle/vTwinBalance.html
Luzerne Ave
Simon Atkinson wrote in message <35f510fe...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:44:02 +1000, in uk.rec.motorcycles, jimbo
><nospam...@i.am> scribed article <35F107E2...@i.am> and said:
>
>>
>>Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
>>
>>> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
>>> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yesterday, I bought this STP oil treatment for my
>>> > motorbike....
>>>
>>> (By the way, oil treatments suck as Slick 50 which use teflon are
complete
>>> and utter trash. .....
>>
>>Surely Slick 50 would be bad news for bikes with wet clutches.
>>But I've been told that some molybdenum based stuff is good for oil,
gearbox
>>oil, even forks.
>>Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
>
>optimum blend of many chemicals in their oils. Why do you think you can
>improve on that for a fiver?
>--
>Simon J Atkinson
I agree.
Before putting additives into your bike you may want to look at:
http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~rblander/snake_oil.txt
www.ftc.gov/WWW/opa/9707/slick.htm
www.cyberauto.com/info//snakeoil.htm
www.rconcepts.com/beard/dragnet/drag/oilinfo.html
Then draw your own conclusions.
STP is probably the in the most benign category.
--
Luzerne Avenue - around the corner from
" Emily's - Home Of The Cold Wave ! " Spring 1945
Hskg85
If it's a 'wet clutch' the answer is NO. You're making the oil 'slicker' with
STP & such products. Can you say 'slipping clutch'?
SpEeDmEtAl
4-stroke engine.
So does it mean... what's (oil + STP oil) is very
bad for my engine?
--
SpeedMetal
KTM Duke 400cc
Hskg85 <hsk...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809051216...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: You didn't say what bike. If your bike has a 'dry clutch' should be no
:
AFM #237
wrote:
>My bike is the KTM Duke 400cc with the LC4
>4-stroke engine.
>
>So does it mean... what's (oil + STP oil) is very
>bad for my engine?
Yup, thick and gooey STP is what you dump in the motor to
quiet it down and stop it smoking before you sell it to some
unsuspecting fool. If the motor needed straight 60 weight, they'd
have told you to use it.
No Knowledge, No Education,
No Experience, No Understanding,
No Appreciation, No Way.
I've Got Two Attitudes. If You Don't Like This One,
I Can Guarantee You Ain't Gonna Like The Other One.
Joe Facer AFM #237
"If you take the green flag,
then you have to take everything else.
That's racing".
C.L. Ford
TedJ101
(Hskg85) writes:
>If it's a 'wet clutch' the answer is NO. You're making the oil 'slicker' with
>STP & such products. Can you say 'slipping clutch'?
STP is simply a viscocity enhancer. (I had it tested by my oil sponsor back
when I raced cars to see what it was... It was a very pure product which the
lab identified as "a viscosity enhancer similar to STP". FWIW, they didn't
find it a bad product at all and certainly didn't think it would hurt anything.
It consists of additives similar to what the majors use to enhance viscosity
in multi-viscosity oils (i.e. 10W-30, 20W-50)... (They said, if you want more
viscosity than is provided by our 30 wt racing oil (what they were recommending
for our cars at the time), why not just use our 50 wt. They did note, however,
that at operating temperature the difference between 50 wt and 30 wt is so
small that it wouldn't show up on an oil pressure guage. That's why they
recommended the 30 wt for our race cars.)
Just thought this might be of interest....
<<TED>>
Dick Winningstad
<35f510fe...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:44:02 +1000, in uk.rec.motorcycles, jimbo
> <nospam...@i.am> scribed article <35F107E2...@i.am> and said:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
> >
> >> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
> >> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>
> >Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
>
> Yes. The oil makers spend millions of pounds researching how to get the
> optimum blend of many chemicals in their oils. Why do you think you can
> improve on that for a fiver?
> --
> Simon J Atkinson
While I tend to agree with your conclusion (additives are not any
improvement), your reasoning is wrong it seems to me.
Applying this logic, you should be running a completely stock bike too
since the manufacturers have spent millions developing their products for
the market.
Are you running a stock bike?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Gamache
Atkinson) wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:44:02 +1000, in uk.rec.motorcycles, jimbo
><nospam...@i.am> scribed article <35F107E2...@i.am> and said:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
>>
>>> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
>>> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yesterday, I bought this STP oil treatment for my
>>> > motorbike....
>>>
>>> (By the way, oil treatments suck as Slick 50 which use teflon are complete
>>> and utter trash. .....
>>
>>Surely Slick 50 would be bad news for bikes with wet clutches.
>>But I've been told that some molybdenum based stuff is good for oil, gearbox
>>oil, even forks.
>>Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
>
>Yes. The oil makers spend millions of pounds researching how to get the
>optimum blend of many chemicals in their oils. Why do you think you can
>improve on that for a fiver?
Hey, congratulations, Simon. You were almost civil in this post. There
may be hope for you yet.
--
Larry Gamache
1982 Yamaha Seca 650
DoD #2066
To reply, remove the xyz from my address.
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."
-James Dean-
Neil Murray
The world's petrochemical industries spend billions on developing new
lubricating oils.
Some dork markets a whizzo product which claims that a billion quid's
worth of R&D can be dramatically improved for one pound ninety-nine. And
another dork buys it.
For Christ's sake - these magnets in the fuel lines, oil additives, pep
pills for petrol, weird vacuum and spring devices that you splice into
the throttle cable, mileage ingredients, whatever - are all a load of
shite. At best you're throwing money away. At worst you're damaging an
engine.
The only things that might be relevant are octane boosters, under
certain conditions.
Oh - and over-filling an engine with oil (unless you *really* overdo it)
is unlikely to blow oil seals. It's more likely to result in the excess
oil blown out of the crankcase breather and/or into the airbox, and then
inhaled into he engine making for a nice smokey exhaust.
--
Neil 750S S GT750 CB400F CD175
The Older Gentleman
BOF #30 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1
Rambling free
Mick "The Merciless" Quigley
http://home.earthlink.net/~jamesdavis/TIP043.html
there are other similar articles (eg. one called 'Snake Oil - Is That
Additive Really A Negative?') comes to mind, but this is the best I could
find at short notice.
Eugene Templet
in Louisiana. Since lube oil isn't much good without additives, an oil
manufacturer puts a certain "additives package" in his lubricant. The Oil
man (Exxon) sells the package to an equipment manufacturer (John Deer). The
equipment manufacturer then recommends your service intervals. If you
follow the equipment manufacturers recommendations and use "his" oil, you
shouldn't have any lubrications related problems. How many of us use "their
oil"? It's expensive. Know why? The additives they use are expensive.
But they also promote long equipment life.
A dispersant suspends particles in the oil, the wear protectors
(succsinimides I think) adhere to metal parts (You should run your engine
for 20 minutes after you change the oil, unless you want to "wear protect"
your oil pan), dithiophosphates(zincs) corrosion inhibitors, anti-foamants
etc.. The key being that most of these additives last about 3 months and
should be replaced (they are used up). If you do this there is no need for
you to use additional additives. As long as you use the lubricant
recommended by the manufacturer.
My own vehicles get Slick 50 every 50,000 miles. The day after I treated my
16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
(starting) so much faster in the morning.
One thing I don't do is change the oil viscosity. I always stay within the
manufacturers range.
Hope this helps,
Sky King
Neil Murray
So why not just buy decent oil to begin with?
>
> My own vehicles get Slick 50 every 50,000 miles. The day after I treated my
> 16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
> (starting) so much faster in the morning.
Or it could be because it's now summer....
>
> One thing I don't do is change the oil viscosity. I always stay within the
> manufacturers range.
Right on
Matthew Cull
<etem...@cmq.com> writes
>My own vehicles get Slick 50 every 50,000 miles. The day after I treated my
>16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
>(starting) so much faster in the morning.
>Sky King
Your Mum and Dad should have named you Wan it would have saved a lot of
trouble and cross postings.
--
Matt - Dorset.
OT #4. TSTF2. AWA #3. TGMCC #8. UKMC #9.
It only takes two-strokes to get me excited.
Eugene Templet
Neil Murray wrote in message
<1deyilo.1q1...@host5-99-47-241.btinternet.com>...
The day after I treated my
>> 16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
>> (starting) so much faster in the morning.
>
work pretty good for a young girl to notice. That was my point. I sure
notice the difference. Like I said in the post there is no reason to add
additives to your oil if you use the good stuff, but it's up to you. I have
199,000 miles on my truck, my daughter has 160,000 miles on her Laser, and
my son has 140,000 miles on his thunderbird (V8)...Ford that is. All the
vehicles have been using slick 50 at 50,000 mile intervals. I'll take a
chance with that $16 bucks.
See Ya,
Eugene Templet
Matthew Cull wrote in message ...
>Your Mum and Dad should have named you Wan it would have saved a lot of
>trouble and cross postings.
>
KB
<lem...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Simon Atkinson <si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><35f510fe...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:44:02 +1000, in uk.rec.motorcycles, jimbo
>> <nospam...@i.am> scribed article <35F107E2...@i.am> and said:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
>> >> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>
>
>> >Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
>>
>> Yes. The oil makers spend millions of pounds researching how to get the
>> optimum blend of many chemicals in their oils. Why do you think you can
>> improve on that for a fiver?
>> --
>> Simon J Atkinson
>
>While I tend to agree with your conclusion (additives are not any
>improvement), your reasoning is wrong it seems to me.
>Applying this logic, you should be running a completely stock bike too
>since the manufacturers have spent millions developing their products for
>the market.
>Are you running a stock bike?
>
Although you sound correct, I doubt that the bike co's really do spend
millions developing new designs and bikes, because of the revenues
involved with individual products. However this is not true for the
oil industry, revenues/profit margins are v.high even for individual
products, and these products have to be exactly right.
Cheers
KB
KB
(Neil Murray) wrote:
>(snip)
>The world's petrochemical industries spend billions on developing new
>lubricating oils.
>
>Some dork markets a whizzo product which claims that a billion quid's
>worth of R&D can be dramatically improved for one pound ninety-nine. And
>another dork buys it.
>
>For Christ's sake - these magnets in the fuel lines, oil additives, pep
>pills for petrol, weird vacuum and spring devices that you splice into
>the throttle cable, mileage ingredients, whatever - are all a load of
>shite. At best you're throwing money away. At worst you're damaging an
>engine.
>
>The only things that might be relevant are octane boosters, under
>certain conditions.
Hmmmm, agreed, what about detergents, I use detergent additives in my
Diesel Car just before is MOT, the impact this has on emmisions is
significant to move a Fail to a Pass. I have never considered if this
does any harm the the engine. (And no its not an old banger)
>
>Oh - and over-filling an engine with oil (unless you *really* overdo it)
>is unlikely to blow oil seals. It's more likely to result in the excess
>oil blown out of the crankcase breather and/or into the airbox, and then
>inhaled into he engine making for a nice smokey exhaust.
>
What,MeDT?
225 slant six in my 1970 dodge van spun a bearing. Oil starvation.
Ever since then I've called STP "Stops Truck Permanently".
Buy good oil and change it now and then.
Blake M
> (snip)
>
> So why not just buy decent oil to begin with?
Snip
> > One thing I don't do is change the oil viscosity. I always stay within the
> > manufacturers range.
> Right on
Why I dont?
> --
> Neil 750S S GT750 CB400F CD175
Because we all know that good sythentic oil is too slippery to use in wet
clutches!!!!
You add it in and your bike will stand still from the loss of friction between the
plates......
ZZZZzzZZZZzzzZZZZ ->
(the sound of a rapidly pulled fishing line off of a fly casting rig)
What will i land today?
Blake
1998 Tiger BRG runs with Mobil 1 15-50 and doesnt move an inch.
The plates are to slick now....... ;-)
"Captn' I canna send you more power...Eiye, The toilets have backed up into the
warp drive again."
--
CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT.
(When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults....)
http://www.tiac.net/users/blakem/
My Email address is altered due to the prevalence of bulk Email senders.
To send me mail remove the *'s before the TIAC.NET.
james...@usa.net
> My own vehicles get Slick 50 every 50,000 miles. The day after I treated my
> 16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
> (starting) so much faster in the morning.
Alright, if you want to use that type of logic, read on:
Last year I decided to try Slick 50 in my 85 S-10, 2.8L V6 with 90,000 miles.
3 days later it started smoking. A couple more days and I could hear a
knocking. A week after that and it was time for a rebuild.
Coincidence? I think not! I learned my lesson the hard way (as usual <g> )
>
> One thing I don't do is change the oil viscosity. I always stay within the
> manufacturers range.
Most manufacturers recommend an oil change every 7500 miles, do you follow
that as well?
>
> Hope this helps,
Nope.
>
> Sky King
Is this because you're head is always in the clouds???
James
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Dick Winningstad
> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 21:16:15 GMT, in uk.rec.motorcycles, "Dick
> Winningstad" <lem...@teleport.com> scribed article
> <01bdd913$5b89b780$a6accacc@default> and said:
>
> >Simon Atkinson <si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> ><35f510fe...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 19:44:02 +1000, in uk.rec.motorcycles, jimbo
> >> <nospam...@i.am> scribed article <35F107E2...@i.am> and said:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Michael Timberwoof Roeder wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <01bdd87e$6aa94900$e36818d2@vinsanne>, "Vincent"
> >> >> <sme...@post1.com> wrote:
> >
> ><<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>
> >
> >> >Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
> >>
> >> Yes. The oil makers spend millions of pounds researching how to get
the
> >> optimum blend of many chemicals in their oils. Why do you think you
can
> >> improve on that for a fiver?
> >> --
> >> Simon J Atkinson
> >
> >While I tend to agree with your conclusion (additives are not any
> >improvement), your reasoning is wrong it seems to me.
> >Applying this logic, you should be running a completely stock bike too
> >since the manufacturers have spent millions developing their products
for
> >the market.
> >Are you running a stock bike?
>
> Yes. Next. And don't quote sigs, there's a good chap.
> --
> Simon J Atkinson
I am impressed. My bike has different brand tires from stock, lighter
mufflers, jet kit, and suspension mods. If you are keeping your bike
absolutely stock, then your logic works in your world. However in most
other's worlds....
Simon Batey
<blakem*@*tiac.net> writes
>What will i land today?
Blakes 7......
--
GSXR1100, Z1R.
PS The GS550 (83) is now for sale...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon - South Wales
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eugene Templet
james...@usa.net wrote in message <6t0vh1$4be$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>3 days later it started smoking
>
year old...girl...noticed the difference in the sound of her starter turning
the engine over in her car. That, to me, is significant. I noticed the
same thing when I did my truck and didn't mention it to anyone. I think
that's pretty good.
Back to the Chevy and the rebuild. I don't see how adding additives to your
engine oil could cause a malfunction...I'm not being terse. I don't believe
their products boast about engine cleaning in their additives. So why would
you need a rebuild, just because of the Slick 50. There must have been
contributing factors. It's only lube oil additives. Do you think it
plugged up your oil filter? Did your oil filter cause the failure?
Did you write to slick 50 and tell them what happened. I find these
companies are very helpful. I sent a sample of some oil particles(so I
thought) to Castrol for analysis. When I got my reply I was very impressed.
The will tell you everything that is in that oil and tell you what problems
you are having with your engine. It's really cool.
As a final point on this matter...I'll stick with this. All you really need
is good quality oil, change it and your filter regularly and there will
never be any reason for you to add additives.
Slick One
Eugene Templet
>> >> >Are ALL additives 'complete & utter trash?'
>> >>
>> >> Yes. The oil makers spend millions of pounds
>
researching the performance of their additives. The plant I work at is
building a $80 million Hi- density polybutane plant addition. This is
supposed to be required for the next generation oil additives and we need
this to remain competitive. They negociated for a couple of years with
another manufacturer just to get the technology. In this business if you
snooze you lose.
Sky King
Paul Friday
>Most manufacturers recommend an oil change every 7500 miles, do you follow
>that as well?
I change the oil every 1,000 miles on the old nail. Nothing fancy, just
three litres of 20W50. It doesn't have a proper oil filter, just a
strainer to keep loose bolts and broken gear teeth out of the oil pump.
Fresh oil seems to me to be the easiest form of maintenance.
-----------
Paul Friday
To email, remove the junk from the address.
RobW
wrote:
>Back to the Chevy and the rebuild. I don't see how adding additives to your
>engine oil could cause a malfunction...I'm not being terse. I don't believe
>their products boast about engine cleaning in their additives. So why would
>you need a rebuild, just because of the Slick 50. There must have been
>contributing factors. It's only lube oil additives. Do you think it
>plugged up your oil filter? Did your oil filter cause the failure?
I seem to remember reading something about this. I think it was that
these additives contained a resin to hold the teflon to metal
surfaces, and that it was possible for this resin to actually plug a
oil filter. Don't recall the specifics, but I generally veiw these
"wonder products" with scepticism, especially if they're on an
infomercial. I do know better than to put them in anything with a wet
clutch (hey Randy, how's that clutch in the F2)... :-0
MX Tuner
>>Back to the Chevy and the rebuild. I don't see how adding additives to your
>>engine oil could cause a malfunction...I'm not being terse. I don't believe
>>their products boast about engine cleaning in their additives. So why would
>>you need a rebuild, just because of the Slick 50. There must have been
>>contributing factors. It's only lube oil additives. Do you think it
>>plugged up your oil filter? Did your oil filter cause the failure?
> I seem to remember reading something about this. I think it was that
>these additives contained a resin to hold the teflon to metal
>surfaces, and that it was possible for this resin to actually plug a
>oil filter.
Yeah, it was discovered that the Teflon particles are big enough to do
more damage than good. Anyone who publically endorses Teflon additives
is just showing their ignorance.
MX Tuner
MX Tuner
>I endorse slick 50, as Rob mentioned I put it in my CBR and now it is
>much SAFER cause the clutch slips enough to keep it in a "safe" range.
Not too good at throttle control, huh?
>A report has been submitted to Ralph Nadar and Henry Waxman.
And I didn't receive a copy? Who's responsible here?
>Hows about them beans, Tuner?
Thanks but I don't like beans. Sorta bland and unexciting, like a
Bridgestone dirt bike.
MX Tuner
Neil Murray
> On Sat, 5 Sep 1998 22:56:11 +0100, neil.an...@btinternet.com
> (Neil Murray) wrote:
>
> >(snip)
> >The world's petrochemical industries spend billions on developing new
> >lubricating oils.
> >
> >Some dork markets a whizzo product which claims that a billion quid's
> >worth of R&D can be dramatically improved for one pound ninety-nine. And
> >another dork buys it.
> >
> >For Christ's sake - these magnets in the fuel lines, oil additives, pep
> >pills for petrol, weird vacuum and spring devices that you splice into
> >the throttle cable, mileage ingredients, whatever - are all a load of
> >shite. At best you're throwing money away. At worst you're damaging an
> >engine.
> >
> >The only things that might be relevant are octane boosters, under
> >certain conditions.
>
> Hmmmm, agreed, what about detergents, I use detergent additives in my
> Diesel Car just before is MOT, the impact this has on emmisions is
> significant to move a Fail to a Pass. I have never considered if this
> does any harm the the engine. (And no its not an old banger)
>
Can you buy detergents just as additives?
(Image of dork pouring Bold into the oil filler)
--
Neil 750S S GT750 CB400F CD175
Jay C
>Yeah, it was discovered that the Teflon particles are big enough to do
>more damage than good. Anyone who publically endorses Teflon additives
>is just showing their ignorance.
I dunno - I've been using a Teflon-based additive on a few mechanical
marital aids (the best dispense with the batteries and use two-stroke
motors). I wholeheartedly endorse the products.
Rick Baartman
>>>>> wrote the following on Sat, 05 Sep 1998 21:16:15 GMT
Dick> While I tend to agree with your conclusion (additives are not any
Dick> improvement), your reasoning is wrong it seems to me. Applying
Dick> this logic, you should be running a completely stock bike too since
Dick> the manufacturers have spent millions developing their products for
Dick> the market. Are you running a stock bike?
Huh? This is a reductio ad absurdem? The logic you hold up to ridicule is
in fact impeccable. You changed jetting and mufflers? 10 to 1 you worsened
performance/reliability/civility over stock.
--
rick baartman
Darcy Brockbank
All of this assumes that the manufacturer is aiming for the ideal bike.
They are not.
They are aiming to match up the best possible bike with the lowest
possible cost. Depending on the manufacturer and the model, the
marketing department may decide that the segment it is aimed at
wants a lower cost motorcycle, so some high performance
modifications/parts/techniques become too expensive to make their
way in.
Look at the KLX300 for example. Cheap suspension, footpegs, and some
have frame problems. But, bang for the buck wise its the best way to
spend your fourstroke dollars.
Furthermore, none of the above factors in economy of scale. A large
manufacturer of part X will have the edge on price over the small
manufacturer, so is better able to bid for and win business from the
motorcycle manufacturers, even though the small guy might have better
parts.
The motorcycle you get from the manufacturer is the "LEAST GOOD BIKE"
they can make and still compete or win business in the marketplace.
Else, their processes are inefficient.
Case in point: years and years of "crappy" four strokes until Yamaha
ruined it for everyone ('cept themselves ;-). People just thought that
four strokes were as good as they could be, and were just not MX
capable... because the manufacturers are building the best bikes
they can, etc. Not true. Marketing makes these decisions.
Give the engineers the funding, and the flexibility to make what
they can, and they'll turn the world upside down every year.
--
"All riiight. Flaaame on! Ow ow ow ow ow! Flame off! Flame off!" - Dexter
Subscribe to the Kawasaki owner's mailing list by sending email to
majo...@hasc.com with the words 'subscribe kawasaki' on the first line of
the message. [Ob.Motorcycle.List.98.Ducati.Monster.900.97.Stroker.KLX.331]
Adrian Harris
ALL my buddies here in the UK who have used Slick 50 (in many
different types of situations) are really pleased with it !
Most of us are in the garage trade working on bikes and cars for the
last 30 years.
We are all sceptical about new products and dont trust them untill
they have proved themselves a few times (and more).
I personally have had astonishingly good results many times using it
and I have to say I endorse slick 50 whole heartidly. But I always use
the correct type for the job.
anyway I look forward to reading more about it, and I hope that what
your posting is not 'hearsay' or bad guesswork!
Keep riding guys - lifes short
Adrian
E-mail : adr...@biker.force9.net
Web Page : http://homepages.force9.net/biker
http://www.biker.force9.co.uk
GoFast
adhere to the clutch plates, and you'll be needing a clutch overhaul. use
good oil, and change it on a regular basis.
--
Russ B
VDTRA 250am #1c....at least for the rest of the season!!!!
Eugene Templet <etem...@cmq.com> wrote in article
<6sv06j$bbg$1...@nntp.gulfsouth.verio.net>...
<snip>>
> My own vehicles get Slick 50 every 50,000 miles. The day after I treated
my
> 16 year old daughter's car, she asked me why her engine turns over
> (starting) so much faster in the morning.
>
> One thing I don't do is change the oil viscosity. I always stay within
the
> manufacturers range.
>
Dick Winningstad
<j41zpms...@alph04.triumf.ca>...
> >>>>> "Dick" == Dick Winningstad <lem...@teleport.com>
> >>>>> wrote the following on Sat, 05 Sep 1998 21:16:15 GMT
>
> Dick> While I tend to agree with your conclusion (additives are not any
> Dick> improvement), your reasoning is wrong it seems to me. Applying
> Dick> this logic, you should be running a completely stock bike too
since
> Dick> the manufacturers have spent millions developing their products
for
> Dick> the market. Are you running a stock bike?
>
> Huh? This is a reductio ad absurdem? The logic you hold up to ridicule is
> in fact impeccable. You changed jetting and mufflers? 10 to 1 you
worsened
> performance/reliability/civility over stock.
>
Your statement while possible is not a 10:1 sure thing in my experience. As
to my logic, I will stand by it. My suspension mods, and jetting/muffler
changes have improved the performance of the bike.
Geoff Hansford
Simon Atkinson wrote in message
<SNIP>
>You still haven't had a visit from the clue monster about sigs have you?
>
>The secret is to buy the bike you want. Not to buy a different one and
>have to change it.
Simon just because you either can not, will not or choose not to modify your
bike is no reason to run down those who choose to do so. It would be a much
less interesting world without all those modified bikes and trick specials.
I for one wanted a bike I couldn't quite buy (since no one made one). That
is why I modified my 97 Bandit 1200 (ABS version) with race tech suspension
bits front and rear, pipe, filter and I'm not yet finished.
Geoff Hansford
Suzuki Bandit 1200 ABS (Doolan)
IRC Nick Geoff_San
mandrake
I put some PTFE based product in my Honda XL250 about 15 years ago and had
no clutch problems. The treatment appears to affect metal on oil on metal
surfaces only.
Comments???
mandrake
John Conran
E-mail: conran...@bhp.com.au
"Very funny Scottie, now beam down my pants!"
"Lots of Japanese AND old British two stroke bikes in my garage"
Carpe Diem
<6taqg8$kq...@atbhp.corpmel.bhp.com.au>...
Being a nerdy didn'tknowanybetter wannabee at the time, I put STP in my '72
CB750 and the clutch went away immediately. Ya don't *need* any of that
*miracle* additive crap. Simply pour in the recommended amount of Mobil 1
every 3k, install a Fram, and head for that "long and lonesome highway,
East of Omaha........."
andy the pugh
> I put some PTFE based product in my Honda XL250 about 15 years ago and had
> no clutch problems. The treatment appears to affect metal on oil on metal
> surfaces only.
The treatment _claims_ to effect metal on oil on metal surfaces only. To
actually do so would be a very clever thing indeed.
--
ap
GoFast
clutch after the teflon. I replaced a couple of clutches this summer that
the owners put teflon in the crankcases. One was an old Honda VF700, the
other was a newer 4-wheeler. The teflon stick to whatever it touches.
> I put some PTFE based product in my Honda XL250 about 15 years ago and
had
> no clutch problems. The treatment appears to affect metal on oil on metal
> surfaces only.
>
Uwe Hale
> anyway I look forward to reading more about it, and I hope that what
> your posting is not 'hearsay' or bad guesswork!
>
Then here are some pages that someone had mentioned earlier in this thread.
http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~rblander/snake_oil.txt
http://www.ftc.gov/WWW/opa/9707/slick.htm
http://www.cyberauto.com/info//snakeoil.htm
http://www.rconcepts.com/beard/dragnet/drag/oilinfo.html
Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR
Thanks to: Team LCS, www.lcsracing.com | MX South, m...@pipeline.com
Original post by Uwe Hale Copyright (c) 1998, All rights reserved
RobW
Harris) wrote:
>I personally have had astonishingly good results many times using it
>and I have to say I endorse slick 50 whole heartidly. But I always use
>the correct type for the job.
There's more than one type?
Rickey Robinson
get. Current tunes Kenny Wayne Sheppard Band, Trouble is...............cd.
Rickey Robinson
contains graphite(A dry lubricant ,an abrasive when mixed with water..)
Randy wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 04:06:40 GMT, mxt...@mindspring.com (MX Tuner)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yeah, it was discovered that the Teflon particles are big enough to do
> >more damage than good. Anyone who publically endorses Teflon additives
> >is just showing their ignorance.
> >
> >MX Tuner
>
> I endorse slick 50, as Rob mentioned I put it in my CBR and now it is
> much SAFER cause the clutch slips enough to keep it in a "safe" range.
> A report has been submitted to Ralph Nadar and Henry Waxman.
Erik Astrup
Harris) wrote:
>ALL my buddies here in the UK who have used Slick 50 (in many
>different types of situations) are really pleased with it !
"Please with it". What does this mean?
>We are all sceptical about new products and dont trust them untill
>they have proved themselves a few times (and more).
>I personally have had astonishingly good results many times using it
>and I have to say I endorse slick 50 whole heartidly. But I always use
>the correct type for the job.
So what exactly is it that makes this stuff sooooooo great. Oh,
have a read of what the US Federal Trade Commission thinks about
it.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/9607/slick.htm
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** I'm not an expert, but I play one on the Internet **
Erik Astrup
1995 Triumph Tiger - 1994 CBR-600F - 1993 TDM850
Team Iguana Racing (Ret?)
http://www.mother.com/~eastrup/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------