Well you've certainly taken every shot at me available. I full and well realize when I break a side cover it's my fault, but damn me for ever complaining about the design! Thank God we got 16VGTIDave to come along and rub it in! How would I ever realize it was my fault?
I'm sorry you feel that way. It wasn't my goal to make you feel inferior. I just happened to take offense when you were so aggressive with your criticism of your Maxim, as it reflects on mine and every other Maxim.
Granted maybe I was a bit out of line, but you don't seem to miss an opportunity to point out every damn wrong thing I might do.
I've also offered advice, encouraged, and complimented you and your bike. Please don't forget that.
My point was just that I know of a LOT of people using Standard Mobile One in wet clutch bikes and I know Mobile One standard will not make a clutch slip, regardless of it not being designed for bikes specifically. I've now personally confirmed it; after over 300 miles of hard riding though just about every possible condition my clutch and tranny never operated smoother. I suspect that Mobile One standard would be able to pass the motorcycle standards test, but why would they even bother when they offer motorcycle specific products at a higher cost?
Sure, and a lot of people use Slick50 and other such additives. That doesn't make it 'right'. If it works for you and others, long term, that is terrific. But I've heard enough testimonials in my life to know that they are all worth about the same. As a retired Aircraft Tech I can't bring myself to use an oil that isn't certified appropriately, or to encourage it. Especially when there are other products available that meet specifications.
I'm also sure that automotive Mobil 1 would pass MOST of the tests to achieve MA certification. Except for the addition of the friction modifiers that will effect a wet clutch, and the extreme pressure lubricants for the transmission that aren't in the auto blend.
Why they charge so much more for the motorcycle specific oil is easy to answer: They have to formulate the additive package (R&D), blend it with the base stock, test it (a couple years in the real world as well as lab tests), certify it (about $50K US each time for each test), patent it, produce it, package it, distribute it, and market it. Since it is a low volume product, all these costs have to be carried by the low sales volume. This is why it costs twice what the automotive oil does. Simple economics.
Now, I apologize for my attitude this morning. I was out of line, and it really doesn't matter whether it feels like you love to find flaw in my posts or not, it is not an excuse and maybe that's only my perception. Having a bit of a high stress day for a day off, and out of line is out of line and nobody else's behavior excuses it, so again, I am sorry for being snappy.
Apology accepted, thanks. And I'm sorry as well. My intent was and is not to attack you. I don't know you and have no reason to want to harm you in any fashion (I'm a Canadian, eh!). I just want to do what I can to make sure that this forum continues to be a reliable and valuable resource for everyone who does a search and finds info here, today and in the future. Since I have little else to offer other than knowledge and experience, if that means taking the time to contradict something that you or someone else has written, that is the burden I've chosen to bear. It is my way of paying back everyone who has made this forum such a valuable resource, and my attempt to keep it valuable.
