We at myoilshop/Racer Parts Wholesale asked Red Line Oil to give us some specific information in response to some of the postings regarding testing of Red Line Oil. We put the information up here so everyone can share their response. We appreciate the chance to present the information.

Jack Borsos
General Manager
Racer Parts Wholesale

Below is the response from Red Line in its' entirety:

Skip:[/align]
[/align]I am the Manager of Product Development at Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation and have held that position for 20 years. I would like to clarify some of the analyses that have been posted in the forum you moderate. I have many issues to discuss here and hope that you don't take offense to my criticism. I am not angry with you and I realize that you have been advised by oil analysts which may not completely understand certain differences which are characteristic of Red Line.[/align]
[/align]Perhaps the greatest issue I have is an analysis of 2007 FXSTD; 6500 miles. This one is easy. That is not Red Line Oil. I have been in charge of all formulations for the past 20 years, and that formulation has never been created in our manufacturing plant. It could not have been put into a Red Line bottle. We typically have greater than 500ppm Molybdenum and little or no magnesium in our lubricants. At least once a year, I get an analysis back from an analytical lab which is not what I sent. Samples can get switched in analysis. Samples can get put in the wrong container when sampling, and products can get in the wrong bike during installation. What I can guarantee is that the analysis posted is not Red Line.[/align]
[/align]Then this wrong analysis causes the chemist to be "Blown away" at the lack of consistency of Red Line. I would appreciate a reassessment of that statement in light of this knowledge.[/align]
[/align]I also take issue with his statement that Red Line is an inferior basestock with a pretty good additive package. His only reason to doubt the superiority of the Red Line basestock is because of the oxidation number of 106. That is an erroneous number. Red Line contains a significant amount of synthetic esters which have very great thermal and oxidation stability. Those esters absorb at the same wavelength as organic acids, which are a result of oxidation. What he is seeing is not oxidation, which he simply assumes, but the absorbance of the ester in the FTIR testing. His assessment is wrong and thus his comments about the inferiority of Red Line's base stock are wrong. He must use the same product unused as a baseline to do a differential IR scan. Even with that, differences in evaporation of various components during use will cause differences in the FTIR scan to make oxidation very difficult to measure using FTIR when esters are present. If oxidation is occuring, acids will be created and they will neutralize the TBN. If there is significant TBN, then there cannot be significant oxidation. TBN can also be depleted by NOx, but that is another wrinkle, but it can be said that if there is still TBN, then significant oxidation did not occur.[/align]
[/align]Another analysis to discuss is the 2007 FXSTD 6,600 miles.[/align]
[/align][i]The viscosity of the product has nothing to do with water being emulsified and more-or-less bonded with the oil. This lubricant is in physical terminology "thixotropic" and has a high apparent viscosity under certain testing. The water may be from condensation, but more likely from a very good hosing down. This water would be evaporated during high-temperature service. His assessment that t

 

[sm=jawdrop.gif][sm=insomnia.gif][sm=icon_quiet.gif] [sm=popcorn.gif]

Thanks for posting. I wonder if some of those UOA had some "residual" of another brand of oil left in the crankcase when analyzed and it "skewed" the results. Roy certainly seems confident in his reply, which I can understand, but convinced nonetheless in his claims.

 

LOL, Redline is good stuff, period. Other guy (analyst) probably got his info off an now infamous, "White Paper". Oh wait, they don't test Redline when they do their "White Paper". Ever wonder why?[sm=bustedsign.gif]

EZ(easy Bear, I'm just f'n wif ya)

 

Well when I saw those UOA's with the comments I figured somebody was just oil bashing.....Redline is a fine product and I get consistent performance in my street driver FXDLI. The shockproof heavy gear oil really makes my 6 speed smooth out and there is almost no metal on the magnet which is my test when I change my oil. Same with the MTL in the primary as I don't get that clutch drag lurching in the cold weather that I get with other oils. So, I am a big Redline fan.

 

Interesting. I'm the "Skip" in the e-mail. I'm also the one who compiled and posted the UOAs of the Redline oils. I'm a little disconcerted that someone sent me an e-mail and didn't tell me the whole story. I was not aware that it came as a result of a third party asking for clarification. I have no problem with that, but it would've been a little more up-front for one of the parties to let me know.

I replied to the e-mail requesting permission to include it with the UOAs in question. As that was Friday evening I did not expect an immediate reply. I will wait until I receive specific permission from the e-mail's author before tacking it onto the UOA posts.

The Redline UOAs were sent to meby a forum member. I have no reason to doubt anything he told me concerning these UOAs. I can assure all that there was no "oil bashing" going on.The memberhad his oil analyzed and got some quite surprising results. He was looking for answers, as anyone would've done had they received those results.

The purpose of posting the UOAs is so others can form at least asomewhat educated opinion of an oil rather than simply takingsomeone's word that it's the greatest thing in lubrication since spitting in the palm. If strange results show up, thenI hope to hear from those with more experience as to what might cause those results. That's how we all learn.

EZ2Rider, the "analyst" was a chemist in a lab that specializes in analyzing lubricants. Whether the analyses were good or not is obviously open for debate. We'll never know for sure because the small samples taken forthe UOAs no longer exist.

A UOA is a good indication of the health of a particular engine, and also of the oil in that engine,at a particular point in time. But what a UOA shows for one person's bike isn't necessarily going to be the same for another person's. Certain things should be relatively the same given an identical oil. But there will always be differences. Some of these differences will exist only because any analysis is not perfect.

Here's a good example: I drew two fueloil samples,one after the other, andwithin a minute in time. These two samples were sent to my company's lab for analyses. The analyses were for BTU content,specific gravity, andsulfur content. When the results came back, they weren't the same, but they were within accepted tolerances. Another time a sample was contaminated. How and when were never determined, but a discussion among the chemists, the operators responsible for drawing the sample, and me resulted in better QC procedures to prevent a future occurrence. There was no finger-pointing, just the idea that we needed to learn from the incident.

I'd like to hope that we do the same in here. The only reason for this particular forum to exist is so we can share experiences, see what works for different people, and all of us learn from it. (And maybe have some fun at the same time.) If that is not happening, then I'm not doing what I get paid my raisin pie for, and someone else needs to run with the ball.

 

Pococj, seems as if the Redline guy is saying that lab is lacking in its understanding of a Type V synthetic and is interpreting data as if the polymers were the same as in a type IV or other.

He points out the false conclusions drawn because of that and even points out the elements NOT present in Redline. I believe what he has said and would definitely use a different lab or analyist IF I were to test my oil.

Maybe its just me but it DID LOOK like an attempt from some quarter to discredit Redline oils as inferior. As an ex cop, then I begin looking for the whys and whos. Just my nature.

EZ

 

Just a couple of questions here.
Statement made: We typically have greater than 500ppm Molybdenum and little or no magnesium in our lubricants.
Later stated but we have no boron in our oil and usually only 10ppm magnesium
The Deuce had2 ppm moly,964 ppm mag., no boron (like redline claims)
The XL883 had 881 ppm moly, 41 ppm mag., and no boron.But no claim that this wasn't Redline.
The RK Classic 559 ppm moly, 121ppm mag., and 50 (?memory here, check my numbers) ppm boron.

So, we'll have to assume several coincedences here:
1) Whatever was 'really' in the Deuce had less moly than redline, more mag than redline, and also no boron, like redline.
2) The redline in the sporster has 175% more molythan claimed, 4 times more mag than claimed, and no boron, like redline (and again, no claim that this wasn't Redline).
3) The RK Classic had just about what redline claimed for moly, 12 times more mag than redline, and boron, unlike redline. So the boron and about 110 ppm of mag. comes from the other 20% of whatever else was in there, but since the moly is a normal claim, none came from whatever else was in there, or whatever else was in there had no moly.

Curious too about the silicon. Silicon in the engine could be explained by poor air filtration, but what about the silicon in the two transmissions and primary?

Redline takes aim at the chemist who ran the samples, claiming that he, basically, falsely accuses Redline of being, more or less, real crap, and inconsistent, yet the sample that the chemist uses to make those ascertions, is not, according to Redline, their oil. If it's not your oil, why would you concern yourself with it's worth? (Rhetorical question there).

I'm going to rat myself out here, contrary to all good common sense. The Deuce and Sporty are mine. I put the oils in, I took the samples out. I also switched oils, put 2,500 miles on the Deuce and took samples. Poco has those, and this is my authorization for him to post them if he chooses. What I explained to Skip was that I changed absolutely nothing but the oil when I switched. In otherwords, I maintained it the same, rode it the same (HARD), and yes, washed it the same. If and when Skip posts those tests, you'll see drops in silicon and all wear metals, and NO WATER in the transmission (another coincidence).

It would seem that some are suggesting that these uoa's are ficticious plants left here to discredit Redline. If that were the case, why wouldn't the primary and transmission be doctored to make them look as bad?

As with all oil posts, here's my disclaimer: I DON'T WORK FOR ANY OIL COMPANY, AND I AM NOT, NOR WILL I EVER ATTEMPT TO BASH ANY OIL BRAND!!!

I am only posting this to offer my own experiences and findings. I am not, in any way, shape or form,suggesting that anyone do anything different that what works for them. And I am not a participant in any consipiracy to subvert anyone's choice in oil! Even I have to admit, this has gone way past rediculous!
OK, target's on my back, take your shots.

 

Just to add my two cents...

I deal with oil analysis daily with my job as a heavy equipment maintenance manager. They key thing to remember with oil analysis is that you want to create a history for the equipment. We never want to rely on just one sample. The trends that are tracked are the metals left behind such as copper, tin, lead etc. There are a number of other things in the analysis but these are what we consider first.We are looking for an increase in these "wear" metals as an indication of potential engine failure and wear. Of course, other factors come into play here too. I won't get into all that here.

One example:
I get sample back from the lab that shows high silicon and the next sample shows almost zero. After tracking the equipment over several months and samples, we find that the one time high was an abnormal sample and should not be considered.

The next sample shows an increase in glycol over a period of several months. Probably something wrong here and warrants further investigation.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the history of the equipment is what is important. IMHO.

Not trying to say any of us here are incapable of understanding an oil analysis but I do understand that some of us do not have the luxury of dealing with these on a daily basis.
Reading these sample results is an art and there is no substitute for experience.

I hope this educates and not inflames my fellow forum members.

Ed