R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Nitro Off-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-13-2010, 01:21 AM   #31
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,615
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Hey Monty,

No worries, I'm not concerned if people have bad things to say just curious about what your thoughts were. Being in the industry I think that we should almost be held to a higher standard in the information that we dissiminate than the average poster. Frankly some of the posts I see on threads make me think that people have either been drinking the coolaid or were victims of 1970's CIA braiwashing experiments lol! I've been watching this thread to see if someone was actualy going to offer some constructive information or if it was going to be the typical "I use this so it's the best, but I've never tried anything else" type of thread.

In any case regarding your observation as far as protection I'm assuming that you are not refering to not needing to use after run oil with Byrons, because as an engine guy I'm going to have to say that everyone should always use after run oil in an engine no matter what fuel they use. If you are refering to overal protection of our fuel versus theirs than I'm going to have to say that I'm really surprised. Without getting into too much detail I've tested lubricants from the same supplier and got far superior results from the ones we ended up using which is why we went with those even though they cost significantly more.

Realisticly though to be able to make a judgement on the protective capabilites of a lubricant package you have to do what we did and test several engines to the point of failure back to back using only one type of fuel/oil mixture the entire life of each test batch of engines. Needless to say this is an expensive proposition unless you get a bunch of engines for free from some one or actualy make them ;-) In any case even under full on racing conditions guys like Kortz and Bradley are regularly getting 8-9 gallons out of a P/S which would indicte that our lube package seems to be working well.

What did you notice about run times between the fuels that you ran?

Regards,

Ron
Werks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 02:15 AM   #32
Tech Elite
 
merdith6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brazoria, TX
Posts: 2,350
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Wink you always tell it

Quote:
Originally Posted by houston View Post
i have ran many gallons/types of fuel including yours ron

the two best fuels for power on the market IMO are odonnell and werks

the best package as far as lubrication/power/engine protection is byrons

I have not one thing bad to say about anything your doing Ron but look at the big picture , it speaks for itself


the newer fuels are geared more towards power than engine protection so i recommend using after run oil after your done with your engine for the day .
rbmods after run oil is an excellent product


and i will agree with your comments about back to back differences you posted in another thread
I have noticed that new fuels claim more power, but use less oil. Like 9 percent. That can't be good. I switched from power master that also makes traxxas fuel, been running it for years with 25 percent 12 percent oil, but when I tried Byrons in the last month with 11 percent oil, 25 percentI was suprised it made more power with plenty of oil and seemed to burn cleaner. It was really cold outside and I had to fatten the top a bit, but But that's the cold talkin. I need to run it in warmer conditions to really tell the story, but for now it just seemed more powerful. I did take apart a friends engine who runs byrons and it was like new inside. No carbon or signs of wear, it was a p5. I'm a skeptic of change but byrons has been on a rampage in the last 5 years. People want to see good availability and with a large production that can help consitency between gallons, and honestly, Monty has been proven to know his stuff. I like the way he thinks, he likes p5's Novarossi, and if he likes byrons it probably is the best fuel.
__________________
Mad Dog drives a Mugen MBX-7, Novarossi engines, Clockwork Racing, Futaba radio, AKA/Proline Tires
merdith6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 09:48 AM   #33
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,615
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merdith6 View Post
I have noticed that new fuels claim more power, but use less oil. Like 9 percent. That can't be good. I switched from power master that also makes traxxas fuel, been running it for years with 25 percent 12 percent oil, but when I tried Byrons in the last month with 11 percent oil, 25 percentI was suprised it made more power with plenty of oil and seemed to burn cleaner. It was really cold outside and I had to fatten the top a bit, but But that's the cold talkin. I need to run it in warmer conditions to really tell the story, but for now it just seemed more powerful. I did take apart a friends engine who runs byrons and it was like new inside. No carbon or signs of wear, it was a p5. I'm a skeptic of change but byrons has been on a rampage in the last 5 years. People want to see good availability and with a large production that can help consitency between gallons, and honestly, Monty has been proven to know his stuff. I like the way he thinks, he likes p5's Novarossi, and if he likes byrons it probably is the best fuel.
I'm going to take a second to address your post and please understand that I'm not knocking anything that you say, I'm simply going to address things from an open mind set (meaning one with no pre-conceived notions about what is best and what is not or what works and what does not). Also please understand that when I write this I'm not Joe Schmoe the local hobby shop know it all that gets all of his info from reading RC Driver and acts like he's the word of god. I've been in the business for quite a while and in addition to making engines and fuel I have been fortunate enough to work with some of the best engine guys in the business.

You state:

a) I have noticed that new fuels claim more power, but use less oil. Like 9 percent. That can't be good.

Why not??? Back in the days engine companies recommended a minimum of 14% oil in their fuels. They did this because the quality of oils available at that time were frankly not so great. With time comes advances in technology, this also applies to lubricants. The lubricants that are available today are far superior to anything that was available 10 years ago. So.. my mind set is that there are two ways to make fuel, you can use a lot of cheap oil or you can use a little bit of good oil. Which do you think is better and provides better results especialy if we are talking about a racing fuel?

b) I switched from power master that also makes traxxas fuel, been running it for years.

This is not correct, Powermaster has not been making their fuel for a couple of years already. They switched manufacturers a few years ago and the fuel formulation changed.

c) been running it for years with 25 percent 12 percent oil, but when I tried Byrons in the last month with 11 percent oil, 25 percentI was suprised it made more power with plenty of oil and seemed to burn cleaner.

This is partially explained by the lower oil content because less oil equals more methanol in the fuel mixture which results in cooler temperatures due to the heat absorbtion of methanol when it is vaporized inside of the engine. This is also has a bit to do with the lubrication package that Byrons uses which is in my personal opinion superior to those used by the company that currently makes the other fuel that you ran. Less friction again equals lower temperatures.

d) It was really cold outside and I had to fatten the top a bit, but But that's the cold talkin. I need to run it in warmer conditions to really tell the story, but for now it just seemed more powerful.

You are completely correct, you do need to run it in similar conditions to actually be able to tell if there is any difference at all. If you run one fuel in 100 degree weather and the other in 40 degree weather you have absolutely zero usable data to make any type of informed decision, that is not testing. I would actually recommend that when fuel testing you run things back to back. This is in my opinion one of the only ways to see if there is really a difference in performance.

e) I did take apart a friends engine who runs byrons and it was like new inside. No carbon or signs of wear, it was a p5.

No carbon and having a clean inside simply means that a fuel has a good detergent package. People don't understand this stuff but we all actually have additives in our fuels. These can and most often do include detergents, dispersants & anti oxidants (these three deal with keeping the insides clean, rust fee and breaking up carbon deposits specifically) in addition to certain ones that improve the lubricant properties which I'm not going to get into.

f) I'm a skeptic of change but byrons has been on a rampage in the last 5 years.

They have a solid distribution channel in place because of their market share in plane fuel which greatly helps this. I will also say that they make a solid, good quality product. Please keep in mind that this is not something that I'm debating, I'm debating about certain performance characteristics from a racing stand point.

g) People want to see good availability and with a large production that can help consitency between gallons,

I agree about the good availability, that is critical. The statement about a large production that can help consistency between gallons I would say is probably an assumption unless you work there or have seen them do a fuel blend. When we were really active in the fuel market we were blending in 2000 gallon batches. Is this a large production that helps consistency between gallons? I probably would not make that statement. The thing that dictates consistency is the system that you use and how you measure the components used in the fuel blend not the size of the production. If that was the case there are companies larger than either of the ones being discussed here and then we should assume that their product is more consistent simply because of that, something that I would not be comfortable stating. Again I'm not saying that anyone does or does not make a good product, (because they do) all that I'm saying is that people should be careful making assumptions.

h) Monty has been proven to know his stuff. I like the way he thinks, he likes p5's Novarossi, and if he likes byrons it probably is the best fuel.

I don't know anything about Monty other that what I see him post on here and he seems to be a nice and knowledgeable guy. Having said that though to assume because some one likes P5 Novarossi's and likes a specific fuel type it is automatically the best falls in drinking coolaid category that I mentioned in another post above lol! And to be clear again I'm not knocking Monty or anything that he or anyone else does. All that I'm saying is that assuming that something is good or the best because a person, driver, company or team says so is not a smart thing.

I've always believed in thinking outside the box and doing things differently. Every time some one say that you can't do something a certain way my first response is why not. Try thinking outside of the box about things. When people do this it is usually when the largest gains/advances are made and I would go so far as to say this is the whole reason that our company even exists.

To give you some examples back in the days I was just a driver that got tired of never being able to get the stuff that I wanted. So I found a way to get it by importing it my self, something that everyone told me I could not do. Then I started importing engines and way back in the days when touring cars were the ticket and 3 port .12's were the only thing around I started looking at the on-road .21's and their designs and worked with a company to develop the first 5 port .12 engine, something everyone said you can not do. This eventual lead to the development of the outlaw touring class with ROAR and everyone else making multi port .12's lol.

Later when I was working with Picco we wanted to make a new engine for the T-Maxx ( back when it came stock with a .15 small block engine and a lot of drivers were putting in .21 big block conversion kits). My idea was to make a small block .21 engine, something that everyone said could not be done (and in this case they were right lol) but what we did come up with was the medium block engine design in the form of the P2 .21 engine. This was a completely new thing and if you look around today everyone makes a medium block drop in engine for the T-Maxx and Revo. Heck if you have owned a Revo or T-Maxx with and it had a 3.0 or 3.3. engine in it stock, now you know where the idea for that came from.

To get a little more recent you say that you run a P5, does it have a lightened cooling head on it? You will probably notice that most racing engines do nowadays. We were the first engine company to do this stock on our engines with the release of our B7 series back in 05/06. Back then people said it was too expensive to do on production engines etc, I did it anyways and now everyone is doing it, go figure. I'm not even going to get started with pushing the envelope with fuel in 04/05 or the "you can't make a high quality low cost racing engine" statements because I think you can guess where I went with those too lol!

The point that I'm trying to make (and I'm not trying to toot my own horn) is that advances are made by doing things differently and thinking outside the box. Assuming that something is the best or staying with the status quo ends up with the blind leading the blind. There are a ton of good products on the market made by a slew of companies and each and every one of them can be improved upon (including our own). This is what keep things fresh and keeps the industry advancing. To see this recently just look at what the release of the Losi 8ight did to the buggy market. We as companies and especially you as the consumer are all better off because of these type of things. It's called progress, savor it ;-)

Regards,

Ron
Werks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 02:27 PM   #34
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 609
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I have to agree with Ron's statement about the newer oil being of better quality . My son & i use to race MX but now race r/c since he had a major injury & i have gotten too old & prob . too brittle LOL . 10 years ago we ran oil ratio at 32: 1 , but as oil improved the last 2 stroke engine we ran was at a ratio of 40: 1 Some people that weren't as hard on the throttle ran 50: 1 . The newer oil's have better lubricating properties for sure . I haven't tried werks fuel as it's not available in my area . I run Byron's & have been pleased with it .
romax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 07:11 PM   #35
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 779
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Send a message via Yahoo to windellmc
Default

Back when the Gen 2 Byron's came out everyone here ran it. That summer we all had a lot of engine bearing problems. Then everyone switched to different fuels and the bearing problems stopped. I personally think the OD fuel protects the bearings and p/s better than anything else. I think it gets worse mileage and is a little less snappy than the Byron's and Sidewinder though. Rocket Science is another good fuel I used to run, but it is nearly impossible to get around here. I have also heard good things about the Werks fuel but there again it is not easy to get here without paying hazmat fees.
__________________
MP9 tki4
Truggy?
windellmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 10:49 PM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net