So what I gather is that's its a variable snake pit
Don't lump me in with your false assumptions. I never said 32:1 is a golden ratio. What I did say was.load and migration time dictate the appropriate ratio. Any oil that won't perform under a variety of ratios is garbage.
I didn't have to test a thing in reference to the above, because someone did with alot better controls than I could muster.. the info is out there.What tests have you done that can be shared with us to substantiate your claims? Thanks.
I might point out the last thread went to heck after the results of the test where questioned AS THEY SHOULD BE.I'd like to say that the AS forum is a learning forum. Hearsay or third party information is not as potent as first hand testing done as best as a contributor can be. We are not all the same or of the same capabilities. However we all seek to find the truths in this topic of oils.
Obviously this isn't mission critical as though our lives count on what perfect ratio or oil gets the job done best, but rather a quest to seek out what appears to each of us to be the Holy Grail. What is right for one may not be right for another, and that's OK.
Those with actual tests they have done themselves by all means POST the results! Nothing like firsthand information of a well intended member to inform all of their opinions and findings. And by taking the time and effort and money to post the results they are deserving of their findings regardless of the agreement of each of us.
Let's all in the Spirit of Learning give respect to those posting their personal results, don't like the results or how the test was run? Post your own. If you don't have your own to post at least be kind not to bash others. Don't have anything nice to say? Don't say!
Just what I think about this whole oil controversy. And until the end of time there will always be controversy over oil.
Bring on your TESTS!! Be Polite. And have fun here on Arborist Site!
I know the answer !!!Again...what have YOU tested personally?
Let me get this straight.. you would have us ignore sciresearch material and instead except some home grown BS test so full of holes it's ridiculous? You can do what you want, but personaly I want to have good information, not misinterpreted crap from a unscientific test.Again...what have YOU tested personally?
What have you tested? Do you have any photographic evidence of how great H1R is?That's not what I asked.
I'm guessing, but I think it would leave a nasty mess.Question ,if you took 16 oz of oil ,put it in a pan ,then burn it ,would it leave ash like on a spark plug ?
Thanks ,makes total sense .I'm guessing, but I think it would leave a nasty mess.
The ash buildup you have on your plug is likely the result of too much calcium and zinc in the formulation for what your doing. Steady and prolonged full throttle is really bad for ash formation too and that's why applications like general aviation oil and outboard motor oil are ashless.
I'm sure you can't too.. Most cant, at least not with the goals of the original test in question.here we go again with Walker. I'm not playing your games. I never said h1r was. I have a lot of videos but no videos of testing oil. There's no way I can even begin to make a test with a critic like you in the crowd. I'm sure I'm not alone with these thoughts.
Enter your email address to join: