PolyDyn Coatings, Rick's 4.56 gears, Anyone else use their products?
12-07-2003, 02:05 PM
#11
Registered User
To all:
Some seem unable to separate knowledgeable criticism from irate blather, or have misread what I posted. . There is just a lot of bunk on the Internet and it needs to be questioned. I am not angry, just intellectually curious. I post what I post not for the believers, but for those who might be duped. I find it pretty sad that I have to defend myself for taking the time to state knowledge I have acquired through study and education and which I share to assist fellow S2K owners. Refute all you want, but spare me the snide comments and anecdotal "proof".
Rick: First, my FTC complaint was about the colloidal miracle engine treatment, not the coating of the gears - read the claims on their own website - if their product can do what it claims, then they should have no problem meeting the FTC's burden of proof - if not they deserve to meet the fate of snake oil salesmen that have proceeded them. I base that on the weight of historical fact: every previous product making the same claims using the same technology has failed to meet the burden of proof. And for those in this thread that put their anecdotal seat of the pants feelings over science, may you forever be lucky. My experience and my training, in auto technology and in audio engineering (where similar junk science is deployed) prevent me from operating in that mode.
The difficulties with my buyinmg into their PTFE opil additives claims are threefold. First, can they demonstrate that a colloidal suspension in oil will burnish into the asperities? Second, can they demonstrate that they have addressed the inherent charge issue (where the grounded PTFE takes on a charge and then tends to attach to itself)? And third, can they demonstrate that the engine, transmission, or differential oils to which they are added will not deplete their dirt suspension additives by vierwing the micropulverized PTFE as an outside agent (i.e. dirt), thereby leaving the engine susceptible to the real dirt it is intended to control (combustion byproducts).
The fact that anyone may have been associated with any company or org (like NASA) and that, therefore, their claims are valid is simply illogical. One does not begat the other. And if you can show me where NASA used PTFE dry coatings in a differential, I am all eyes. Gacy worked for the Democrat Party - does that make him a good daycare worker candidate, or imply that the Democrat Party condones mass murder? Hardly.
Now, I am fully aware of the effects of certain coatings on moving parts - I read Mahle's technical paper delivered at an SAE convention years ago on treating their piston skirts with molybdenum - but that does not mean that I would support an oil additive with gobs of moly in it.
Here are 3 refs to coatings:
http://www.absolutech.com/surface/_downloa...electroless.pdf
http://www.calicocoatings.com/industrial.h...or-TEFLON-63130
http://www.hpcoatings.com/engine_coatings.htm
All refer to DRY coating benefits of PTFE. All three point out that Teflon resists oil coating, not encourages it! PTFE is both oleophobic and hydrophobic. So that refutes PolyDyn's claim. The HP Coating article shows how moly will retain oil (hence the Mahle use on piston skirts) where PTFE does not!
Do you think I make this stuff up just to be a grouch?
Also, did you know that PTFE to PTFE has a high cF (coefficient of friction) than a good oil on steel? It is true. Don't believe me? Call Roy Howell, chief tribologist at Red Line and ask him.
So we have found a number of contradictions in PolyDyn's "science" - so I guess we are left to selectively pick which of their claims is true and which isn't? Or are we to base it on anecdotes from "butt dynos" and other such "science".
Rick: I do not think PTFE coating on the gears will hurt anything, but what is the benefit? Richmond Gears recommends it or do they passively accept it? Do they coat any of their gears? If not, why not? I am off to their website to see what they have to say. Using it as a marketing tool is OK, but based on what benefit to the client? Normal PTFE coatings have a film strength of only about 450 PSI, compared to MoS2 which is about 450,000 PSI.
And finally, what is your knwoledge of the durability of this drycoating? Based on the temperature, RPM, and pressures of a diff, the coating is far less than lifetime. That may be OK for a racing application perhaps. What is not OK is that PTFE dry lubricants are not effective at heat transfer - in fact, they act as insulators.
I cite: http://www.fltuk.com/pdf/Gleitmo.pdf
So, please everyone, read what I wrote, not what you read into what I wrote.
************************************************** *****
Here is something I found on PTFE in oil as it relates to my reference to other oil additives. We also all know what Honda says about them.
FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers
Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.
The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.
In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:
--"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine";
--"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50,000 miles";
--"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."
According to the FTC complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.
The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:
--reduces engine wear;
--reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
--reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
--reduces engine wear at start-up;
--extends the duration of engine life;
--lowers engine temperatures;
--reduces toxic emissions;
--increases gas mileage; and
--increases horsepower.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.
Finally, the complaint challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:
--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;
--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,
--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.
The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.
Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, an analysis to aid public comment and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.
Teflon
Some seem unable to separate knowledgeable criticism from irate blather, or have misread what I posted. . There is just a lot of bunk on the Internet and it needs to be questioned. I am not angry, just intellectually curious. I post what I post not for the believers, but for those who might be duped. I find it pretty sad that I have to defend myself for taking the time to state knowledge I have acquired through study and education and which I share to assist fellow S2K owners. Refute all you want, but spare me the snide comments and anecdotal "proof".
Rick: First, my FTC complaint was about the colloidal miracle engine treatment, not the coating of the gears - read the claims on their own website - if their product can do what it claims, then they should have no problem meeting the FTC's burden of proof - if not they deserve to meet the fate of snake oil salesmen that have proceeded them. I base that on the weight of historical fact: every previous product making the same claims using the same technology has failed to meet the burden of proof. And for those in this thread that put their anecdotal seat of the pants feelings over science, may you forever be lucky. My experience and my training, in auto technology and in audio engineering (where similar junk science is deployed) prevent me from operating in that mode.
The difficulties with my buyinmg into their PTFE opil additives claims are threefold. First, can they demonstrate that a colloidal suspension in oil will burnish into the asperities? Second, can they demonstrate that they have addressed the inherent charge issue (where the grounded PTFE takes on a charge and then tends to attach to itself)? And third, can they demonstrate that the engine, transmission, or differential oils to which they are added will not deplete their dirt suspension additives by vierwing the micropulverized PTFE as an outside agent (i.e. dirt), thereby leaving the engine susceptible to the real dirt it is intended to control (combustion byproducts).
The fact that anyone may have been associated with any company or org (like NASA) and that, therefore, their claims are valid is simply illogical. One does not begat the other. And if you can show me where NASA used PTFE dry coatings in a differential, I am all eyes. Gacy worked for the Democrat Party - does that make him a good daycare worker candidate, or imply that the Democrat Party condones mass murder? Hardly.
Now, I am fully aware of the effects of certain coatings on moving parts - I read Mahle's technical paper delivered at an SAE convention years ago on treating their piston skirts with molybdenum - but that does not mean that I would support an oil additive with gobs of moly in it.
Here are 3 refs to coatings:
http://www.absolutech.com/surface/_downloa...electroless.pdf
http://www.calicocoatings.com/industrial.h...or-TEFLON-63130
http://www.hpcoatings.com/engine_coatings.htm
All refer to DRY coating benefits of PTFE. All three point out that Teflon resists oil coating, not encourages it! PTFE is both oleophobic and hydrophobic. So that refutes PolyDyn's claim. The HP Coating article shows how moly will retain oil (hence the Mahle use on piston skirts) where PTFE does not!
Do you think I make this stuff up just to be a grouch?
Also, did you know that PTFE to PTFE has a high cF (coefficient of friction) than a good oil on steel? It is true. Don't believe me? Call Roy Howell, chief tribologist at Red Line and ask him.
So we have found a number of contradictions in PolyDyn's "science" - so I guess we are left to selectively pick which of their claims is true and which isn't? Or are we to base it on anecdotes from "butt dynos" and other such "science".
Rick: I do not think PTFE coating on the gears will hurt anything, but what is the benefit? Richmond Gears recommends it or do they passively accept it? Do they coat any of their gears? If not, why not? I am off to their website to see what they have to say. Using it as a marketing tool is OK, but based on what benefit to the client? Normal PTFE coatings have a film strength of only about 450 PSI, compared to MoS2 which is about 450,000 PSI.
And finally, what is your knwoledge of the durability of this drycoating? Based on the temperature, RPM, and pressures of a diff, the coating is far less than lifetime. That may be OK for a racing application perhaps. What is not OK is that PTFE dry lubricants are not effective at heat transfer - in fact, they act as insulators.
I cite: http://www.fltuk.com/pdf/Gleitmo.pdf
So, please everyone, read what I wrote, not what you read into what I wrote.
************************************************** *****
Here is something I found on PTFE in oil as it relates to my reference to other oil additives. We also all know what Honda says about them.
FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers
Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.
The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.
In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:
--"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine";
--"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50,000 miles";
--"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."
According to the FTC complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.
The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:
--reduces engine wear;
--reduces engine wear by more than 50%;
--reduces engine wear by up to 50%;
--reduces engine wear at start-up;
--extends the duration of engine life;
--lowers engine temperatures;
--reduces toxic emissions;
--increases gas mileage; and
--increases horsepower.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.
Finally, the complaint challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:
--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;
--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,
--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.
The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.
Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, an analysis to aid public comment and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.
Teflon
12-07-2003, 07:28 PM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road Rage, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and facts. I apologize for miss understanding/ misreading your post. You are OK in my book for you are sincerely sharing your knowledge with S2KI readers. I almost hate to ask what you think of Royal Purple oil. Ha Ha.
12-08-2003, 01:18 PM
#14
Registered User
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Honda-S2000VTec
Road Rage, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and facts. I apologize for miss understanding/ misreading your post.
Road Rage, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and facts. I apologize for miss understanding/ misreading your post.
12-09-2003, 09:51 PM
#15
after reading through all of this info, and a lot being over my head due to my ignorance in the engineering field and chemicals etc, but I am on the waiting list for the 4.57, which in no doubt will be great.. but is this an argument or discussion saying that the process they are using to treat the gears is going to cause problems or is it going to be a special type of gear oil needed to be used and thats all.
12-10-2003, 09:02 AM
#16
Registered User
Road Rage is very much like me, passionate about what we believe in. While what we write may seem like ranting and anger at times, we are merely being thorough in our analysis so there can be no question down the road as to where we stand on an issue.
All I can say is this...I agree with road Rage on the technical details 100%. While these coatings MAY provide a benefit, I see no scientific evidence to support it. On the contrary, I see a lot of evidence that supports potential areas for harm (such as PTFE coatings acting as heat insulators).
With that being said, will the gears be offered without this coating? I doubt we'll see any comparison tests between coated/non-coated sets, but having the ability to order with and without for peace of mind might be a good idea.
All I can say is this...I agree with road Rage on the technical details 100%. While these coatings MAY provide a benefit, I see no scientific evidence to support it. On the contrary, I see a lot of evidence that supports potential areas for harm (such as PTFE coatings acting as heat insulators).
With that being said, will the gears be offered without this coating? I doubt we'll see any comparison tests between coated/non-coated sets, but having the ability to order with and without for peace of mind might be a good idea.
12-10-2003, 02:56 PM
#17
Registered User
Thanks, MacGyver. we understand each other completely. Sometimes when info goes against someones livelihood or their preconceptions, it is misunderstood as a personal attack.
As best I can determine, dry gear coating with PTFE can be effective since its insulation effect is offset by a reduction in wear since there is no lubrication to take the hit.
I wrote Richmond Gear's technical dept days ago and asked them if they supported the idea of coating, pointed out a few technical issues I had with it, and asked them for an opinion.
I did not get the courtesy of a reply.
As best I can determine, dry gear coating with PTFE can be effective since its insulation effect is offset by a reduction in wear since there is no lubrication to take the hit.
I wrote Richmond Gear's technical dept days ago and asked them if they supported the idea of coating, pointed out a few technical issues I had with it, and asked them for an opinion.
I did not get the courtesy of a reply.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SSMugen
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
0
09-21-2003 12:42 AM