YAMAHA PIB FC, FD oil study
- Thread starter Miles86
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Don't believe a word of it myself. Well not until Gary has carried out all of the tests and shown them to be repeatable.
Really though it shows that a compromise is needed in the makeup of the oil as what is good for one performance indicator is not necessarily so for another.
A bit like everyday life really. Compromise is important, even more so if you happen to be married!
Really though it shows that a compromise is needed in the makeup of the oil as what is good for one performance indicator is not necessarily so for another.
A bit like everyday life really. Compromise is important, even more so if you happen to be married!
That study/paper spells it out pretty clearly
sps3172
ArboristSite Member
Did I read the date correctly? This study was from 2002?
one.man.band
ArboristSite Guru
in december of 2002, when the testing was taking place in the paper above, it was also the same year where JASO added testing for a new 'FD' classification of 2-stroke oils.
1. the paper did not test 'FD' oils, because there were most likely, none on the market yet.
2. the current 'FD' rating is for smokeless oils that undergo more stringent testing than the 'FC' oils in the paper. in order to get an 'FD' rating, the testing is 3 times longer in duration than an 'FC' rated oil.
3. if using a smokeless oil, 'FD' rating is better than a 'FC' (because of #2 above).
4. since the year 2002, yamaha, (who's engineers did the testing), have about 35 total 2-stoke oils that carry a JASO 'FC' or 'FD' rating on the current JASO approved oils list.
5. the paper has outdated itself, even though the info is relevant.
6. the title of this thread is misleading, since no 'FD' oils were actually tested.
7. what the paper does show, is there is actually little difference between a mineral oil and a synthetic side by side as far as lubricity goes in the year 2002.
1. the paper did not test 'FD' oils, because there were most likely, none on the market yet.
2. the current 'FD' rating is for smokeless oils that undergo more stringent testing than the 'FC' oils in the paper. in order to get an 'FD' rating, the testing is 3 times longer in duration than an 'FC' rated oil.
3. if using a smokeless oil, 'FD' rating is better than a 'FC' (because of #2 above).
4. since the year 2002, yamaha, (who's engineers did the testing), have about 35 total 2-stoke oils that carry a JASO 'FC' or 'FD' rating on the current JASO approved oils list.
5. the paper has outdated itself, even though the info is relevant.
6. the title of this thread is misleading, since no 'FD' oils were actually tested.
7. what the paper does show, is there is actually little difference between a mineral oil and a synthetic side by side as far as lubricity goes in the year 2002.
