MotoTribology

Members
  • Content count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

180 Excellent

About MotoTribology

  • Rank
    TT Bronze Member

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Interests
    Riding, spectating and lubricants.

Recent Profile Visitors

638 profile views
  1. I would think it was the one he used while winning his own championships.
  2. To be honest with you, I don't really know. From the little information I can find on the product, it looks like it might be suitable for those bearings, and if it is, then I would expect it to hold up to any temperature you subject it to. However, I don't know if they put anything in there that is specific for brake calipers that would make it unsuitable for bearings. I would not expect it to be an issue, but the best bet is to ask Permatex to confirm it would be ok.
  3. The dropping point varies on the type of grease, not necessarily the NLGI grade. Lithium, aluminum, calcium sulfonate, etc. all have different dropping points. Grease complexes have even higher dropping points than their simple counterparts. Clay based greases have the highest dropping point as far I can can remember, but usually a lithium or aluminum complex have dropping points above 500F.
  4. If it is rated for wet clutch compliance (JASO MA, MA1 or MA2) it will be fine.
  5. I can't recall percentages off the top of my head, but in my experience the 60% requirement is not totally necessary. A 60% moly grease is basically an assembly grease like I mentioned in the article above. So an assembly lubricant or an anti-seize grease from another company with high moly content should serve your purpose well even if it does have less moly than the 60% of the specific Honda product. I think they actually specified that it just had to have more than 40% moly. So I think the number is pretty flexible as long as the performance is there. For the deep water exposure, just make sure it is waterproof and I would recommend at least NLGI 2 thickness to keep out the water.
  6. I've made a good habit of ignoring your lies and slander. However, since you are now accusing me of violating a copyright, I suppose I'd prefer readers of my content see that addressed rather than keep myself happy by avoiding responding to an internet troll. You may want to at least read the articles when you, knowingly, falsely accuse someone of plagiarizing. The article you are referring to is significantly different than the one I wrote. There are certainly similar topics covered since they are both articles about the technical aspects of the basic concepts regarding lubricating grease, but the actual content in the articles is quite divergent from one another. If you are referring to the consistency chart, those comparisons have been around for a long time. I believe they were first published here: Rudnick, Leslie R. (2005). Synthetics, Mineral Oils, and Bio-Based Lubricants: Chemistry and Technology (Chemical Industries). CRC. p. 468. But as far as I know, industry people, such as myself, have been making those comparisons for decades as an easily understood way to describe grease thickness. So I would very much doubt that anyone has any rightful claim to those comparisons including myself. I do hope you'll take the time to read content in the future with the open-mindedness to gain knowledge rather than automatically harassing the author with untrue claims. And if you see something truly inaccurate about my writings, I will gladly accept criticism and be happy to discuss it and correct mistakes I have made. Otherwise I would appreciate it if you stopped. I don't suspect it will happen since I've made this request plenty of times both publicly and privately, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to make the request again. Otherwise I do hope the moderators eventually do take action pursuant of Guideline #2: https://www.thumpertalk.com/guidelines/ that you constantly violate.
  7. I try not to promote any one brand over another, but I'll bend my rules a bit here. This application is perfect for a multipurpose grease. I also like the aluminum complex for this because of its waterproof characteristics, but a lithium complex grease could perform very well too if it is formulated well. The moly is good, but it is likely a bit overkill for linkages unless youa re doing some very extreme riding. The Schaeffer's product boasts a four ball EP result of 315 kgs and a timken load of 60 lbs which are both perfectly fine results, but certainly not unmatched. If you are happy with the Schaeffer's product and are getting good results, I would be the last person to suggest you change to something else. If for some reason you are unhappy with that product and want to switch, just about every lube manufacturer makes a multipurpose NLGI 2 grease. To narrow your search down you can focus on aluminum complex greases and to widen your choices, you can ignore the moly content and instead focus on the performance. If the grease you are looking at provides adequate surface protection despite not containing moly, it should be a candidate for you. Here's a list of potential candidates from companies that are widely available. These are in alphabetical order and are in no way a ranked list. Sorry about that, but some people around here like to pretend that I promote particular brands even though to my knowledge I never have. Bel-Ray Waterproof Grease Ipone Waterproof Grease Royal Purple Ultra-Performance Grease This is just from a very brief search of aluminum complex greases marketed for motorcycles. I'm sure there are plenty more out there. If it were me in your place, I wouldn't worry about the moly content and focus on the moisture resistance and wear prevention characteristics. If you have trouble finding data on a product you are considering, I always advocate calling or emailing the manufacturer and asking them your questions directly.
  8. Yes greases like that are fairly common enough that pretty much everyone makes something similar with regards to the basics (NLGI 2, EP or anti-wear performance) Some companies only deal with synthetics while others use non-synthetics only and others have a mixture of offerings, but either way someone will have what you need if that is the grease being recommended.
  9. Haha! I feel my artwork leaves something to be desired, but I'm glad it got the concept across. No a grease worker's purpose is actually to stress the oil, so if you were to use it on your oil you are stressing it before it even applying it. It isn't anything too extreme but greases should not separate during storage to require any significant mixing. Some greases are very good at resisting oil separation, but some greases exhibit oil separation on the surface of a grease. When oil does separate on the surface, simply mixing it by hand a little bit until there is no more standing puddles of oil will make it perfectly usable again. No need for anything overly complicated like a grease worker. (I just use a clean screwdriver or my finger)
  10. No, not a petroleum engineer per se. A petroleum engineer typically works in crude refineries or other plants downstream in the refining process. My degree is in chemical engineering, but my current occupation is more along the lines of a chemist. I am a product formulator and do R&D for a company that makes lubricants. My specialty is in powersports and marine products.
  11. There is a lot more to it than just viscosity. The type and quality of additives used make all the difference for transmission performance. Your problems obviously stemmed from using Big Red fluid in a Yamaha. You might as well have thrown some anti-matter in there
  12. Again, Shell Rotella is not registered with JASO and is not on the list: JASO 4T Engine Oil List They claim it to meet the specification and it likely does, but it is not registered with JALOS and does not carry the official specification as many people are led to believe.
  13. Just checked the list and nope, still no Shell products: JASO 4T Engine Oil List Also, I think you mean zinc, not tin. There should be no tin in engine oil. Where exactly are you finding this info? I'd like to see this source and their test data.
  14. Taking a lube manufacturer's word for it is just that. If you trust the manufacturer to be truthful (and in today's world of litigation it's more likely than ever before) the product does likely meet the standards they say. I don't personally use diesel oil for several reasons which I'd rather not get into right now, but that isn't to say I won't try it at some point. The testimonials and data I've seen just leave something to be desired for me. Your issue of the Japanese ratings for a European made bike you shouldn't fret over. The JALOS organisation originally spearheaded it because of how prevalent motorcycles are and how important the motorcycle manufacturers are to their economies, but there is cooperation among manufacturers from all over the globe now and I think just about all of them specify some compliance with JASO specs (at least when a wet clutch is involved). I think that was what you were asking but now that I read it over again I fear I may have missed the point. Feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss it further.
  15. That product is strictly a transmission oil so it isn't suitable for use in a shared sump bike that uses engine oil to lubricate both engine and transmission. What you want for a 4T shared sump is an engine oil that meets the JASO MA, MA1 or MA2 standards for clutch compatibility.