Bearing Banter

[satinghostrider]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yes, there have been a few cases of main bearing failure. I posted pictures of an engine with damaged main bearings and damaged crankshaft; but that engine didn't actually fail (yet). Here's the first one that I know of (main bearing failure):
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379712

Yup that was my engine. At that time, I did warn everyone about SCing the 08 cars and insisting that there was an issue with the bearings on the earlier MY models. No one believed. My engine was running fine when I had the problem but I knew there was an issue as I had a strange ticking noise. I tore the engine down at my own cost and realised heavy scuffing on the bearings. I got it fixed with Calico coated bearings at that time. Worked great!

I am quite sure my motor would have seized subsequently with more damage had I run it longer. And I am glad I did not. I managed to reuse my crank with some minor balancing and replaced my rods with Carillo. Pistons I went custom to match the sleeving done on the engine.

P.S - My motor was not supercharged. Purely NA when I had this problem.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, what a utterly weak point...

You don't need to use the word theory, your matter of fact style when presenting this speculation provides the implication for you. Reread your own post I replied to! Please tell me that it does not sound like it is a foregone and certain conclusion as to what the exact cause of all of the bearing related failures is. Once you disagree with this observation you can get back to accusing me a chest beating.

You seem obsessed with the scientific definition of "theory" and seem to think it's the only definition that exists. But there's a more common definition that most people use. I will continue to use the much more common definition that is used by many "orders of magnitude" more people than your scientific definition. That's just something you'll need to come to terms with.

PS. El Mariachi responded right above me. Don't forget it this time.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You seem obsessed with the scientific definition of "theory" and seem to think it's the only definition that exists. But there's a more common definition that most people use. I will continue to use the much more common definition that is used by many "orders of magnitude" more people than your scientific definition. That's just something you'll need to come to terms with.

Weak sauce again. If nothing else works change the definition of a word with a crystal clear meaning and completely avoid my criticism not dependent on the word choice itself but based on your assuredness about cause and effect.

Originally Posted by regular guy

PS. El Mariachi responded right above me. Don't forget it this time.

Great and he found a working solution that uses bearings with decreased clearance. Wow what strong evidence that clearances (nominal or with unfavorable tolerance stack and/or combined with 10W-60 oil) are the issue. Even worse weak sauce...

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Weak sauce again. If nothing else works change the definition of a word with a crystal clear meaning and completely avoid my criticism not dependent on the word choice itself but based on your assuredness about cause and effect.

Nope, my definition is far more accepted by far more people than yours. My definition is the language that most people use -- people looking for simple explanations -- common people -- people on this forum -- my target audience. In case you're confused, this is right out of the dictionary:

Theory:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Great and he found a working solution that uses bearings with decreased clearance. Wow what strong evidence that clearances (nominal or with unfavorable tolerance stack and/or combined with 10W-60 oil) are the issue. Even worse weak sauce...

Yet you switched oil yourself, and call my theory the best explanation thus far...and you're still arguing in violent agreement. Go figure.

[X5-User]

[satinghostrider]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Nope, my definition is far more accepted by far more people than yours. My definition is the language that most people use -- people looking for simple explanations -- common people -- people on this forum -- my target audience. In case you're confused, this is right out of the dictionary:

Theory:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Yet you switched oil yourself, and call my theory the best explanation thus far...and you're still arguing in violent agreement. Go figure.

Regarding the oil, I am sure running it thinner during colder climates would help reduce some wear and tear. In Singapore, we don't have this problem because its generally warm and humid all year around. I just stick to the stock Castrol 10W-60.

But on the earlier models as well, I have been informed that even the oil pumps were changed at around the same time the bearings were changed via different part numbers. I have no evidence of this unfortunately but it would make perfect sense that BMW did change the pumps to provide for more top lubrication and/or decreased tolerance with the new bearings if they did.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by elmariachi

Regarding the oil, I am sure running it thinner during colder climates would help reduce some wear and tear. In Singapore, we don't have this problem because its generally warm and humid all year around. I just stick to the stock Castrol 10W-60.

But on the earlier models as well, I have been informed that even the oil pumps were changed at around the same time the bearings were changed via different part numbers. I have no evidence of this unfortunately but it would make perfect sense that BMW did change the pumps to provide for more top lubrication and/or decreased tolerance with the new bearings if they did.

Thanks for the tip on the oil pump. I looked up the part number and here's what I could find.

Oil Pump: 11417838311 shows production from June 2007 to present. No change.
Scavenge Pump: 11417838312 also shows production from June 2007 to present. No change.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Nope, my definition is far more accepted by far more people than yours. My definition is the language that most people use -- people looking for simple explanations -- common people -- people on this forum -- my target audience. In case you're confused, this is right out of the dictionary:

Theory:
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

What most do is not always right. Especially when speaking about a matter of engineering and science, precision in language is of the utmost importance. Perhaps this matter is not one of science and engineering, maybe it's just about a backyard mechanic? Go ahead be sloppy, encourage others to. It still doesn't make you have good diction nor give you anything close to a theory. Furthermore you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your hypothesis has not been the subject of one iota of experimentation and thus it isn't a theory, even by your not so strong definition. Again, it is only one very small step past speculation and you continue to present it as a known fact.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Yet you switched oil yourself, and call my theory the best explanation thus far...and you're still arguing in violent agreement. Go figure.

I continue to puzzle at how you can't see the consistency of my view and actions. What decision I made personally for my oil is largely irrelevant. It is the small step past speculation (the known fact of the inverse relationship of flow rate with viscosity at constant pressure) which gives you a hypothesis. Similarly this engineering FACT leads to a sensible, relatively risk free, risk reduction approach. If your hypothesis is wrong the oil change very likely won't hurt. If you hypothesis is correct the oil change may help. There's simply more upside than downside.

Again this doesn't really make your idea one iota more of a theory and you should stop presenting it as such.

[gatorfast]

Seriously, I have to agree with Regular Guy on this one...theory/hypothesis...who the hell cares? We are just a bunch of people talking on a car forum, not a science research forum. I think all of us understand what each other saying just fine. This nitpicking of every syllable really detracts from the overall discussion.

[kawasaki00]

Yawn, here we go again

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Seriously, I have to agree with Regular Guy on this one...theory/hypothesis...who the hell cares? We are just a bunch of people talking on a car forum, not a science research forum. I think all of us understand what each other saying just fine. This nitpicking of every syllable really detracts from the overall discussion.

At least someone else agrees with my opinion on this. It is like a big competition where Swamp has to prove he is smarter than everyone else.

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Yawn, here we go again

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

At least someone else agrees with my opinion on this. It is like a big competition where Swamp has to prove he is smarter than everyone else.

And notice his very selective choice of subjects and targets. If he were truly interested in technical accuracy, then he would apply the same standards to all posters (within the subjects he critiques). But he doesn't, and in fact he has completely different standards for different posters within the same topic and within the same thread. I've pointed out this inconsistency and selective targeting many times. It's exactly as BMRLVR says above, and he only does this to prove he is smarter than everybody else -- and that means he only does this with people who he thinks can give him some intellectual stimulation or people who threaten his self-believed hegemony of technical knowledge. He leaves everybody else alone. And he wonders why people call him a troll?

[happos2]

Wonder how many pages this thread will get to regarding the oil viscosity / make-up discussion?

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

What most do is not always right. Especially when speaking about a matter of engineering and science, precision in language is of the utmost importance. Perhaps this matter is not one of science and engineering, maybe it's just about a backyard mechanic? Go ahead be sloppy, encourage others to. It still doesn't make you have good diction nor give you anything close to a theory. Furthermore you can't have your cake and eat it too. Your hypothesis has not been the subject of one iota of experimentation and thus it isn't a theory, even by your not so strong definition. Again, it is only one very small step past speculation and you continue to present it as a known fact.

The dictionary definition I posted would be a good place to start. You seem to be making the argument that you're right and the dictionary is wrong. LMAO. You have a very bad habit of turning a subject away from the obvious meaning and into something you want them to be just so you can argue. BTW, I loved the section highlighted above when talking about diction.

I continue to puzzle at how you can't see the consistency of my view and actions. What decision I made personally for my oil is largely irrelevant. It is the small step past speculation (the known fact of the inverse relationship of flow rate with viscosity at constant pressure) which gives you a hypothesis. Similarly this engineering FACT leads to a sensible, relatively risk free, risk reduction approach. If your hypothesis is wrong the oil change very likely won't hurt. If you hypothesis is correct the oil change may help. There's simply more upside than downside.

There's quite a bit of irony to see you complain about people not understanding the consistency of your views, when you're completely inconsistent in who and what you "correct" on the same subject matter and within the same thread. If you want people to see your consistency then you need to be consistent.

Again this doesn't really make your idea one iota more of a theory and you should stop presenting it as such.

Once again you are trying to turn a subject from something it isn't...into something you want it to be just so you can have something to argue with. We got that swamp...everybody gets that.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

And notice his very selective choice of subjects and targets. If he were truly interested in technical accuracy, then he would apply the same standards to all posters (within the subjects he critiques). But he doesn't, and in fact he has completely different standards for different posters within the same topic and within the same thread. I've pointed out this inconsistency and selective targeting many times. It's exactly as BMRLVR says above, and he only does this to prove he is smarter than everybody else -- and that means he only does this with people who he thinks can give him some intellectual stimulation or people who threaten his self-believed hegemony of technical knowledge. He leaves everybody else alone. And he wonders why people call him a troll?

Again argument ad absurdum. Because I have particular interest in some topics and not others and occasionally find incorrect or objectionable materials then I am somehow obligated to take the exact same approach on all topics and all parts of such discussions? Nonesense, no one who posts here operates in this 100% "consistent" fashion, no one.

When folks misrepresent big issues, relevant to me and my interest, I can take up selective debates as I wish, thank you very much.

There isn't really anything beyond an wildly incorrect belief that any potential bearing issue with the S65 is fully understood with certainty. You continue to present it as such and I feel strongly that it isn't the case. Thus I will continue to offer an appropriately toned down interpretation consistent with the complete lack of testing or verification.

Originally Posted by regular guy

The dictionary definition I posted would be a good place to start. You seem to be making the argument that you're right and the dictionary is wrong. LMAO. You have a very bad habit of turning a subject away from the obvious meaning and into something you want them to be just so you can argue. BTW, I loved the section highlighted above when talking about diction.

Really, dictionary, pictionary. This is a matter of science/technology/engineering and in that particular context there is a 100% clear distinction between fact, theory and hypothesis. I think you actually know this.

How many times does it need repeating. NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, not one shred. Not of the cause nor of measurements that support the idea of wide enough tolerances to cause an issue, nor of the effects of an attempted correction. You are one step ahead of speculation and although weak, it is, as I've stated prior probably the best thing we have going. It still doesn't make it right and you are so absolutely positively certain you are right. Perhaps you can be open enough to realize that one can be right for the wrong reason and that's generally quite bad.

Originally Posted by regular guy

There's quite a bit of irony to see you complain about people not understanding the consistency of your views, when you're completely inconsistent in who and what you "correct" on the same subject matter and within the same thread. If you want people to see your consistency then you need to be consistent.

Hmmm, the points of engagement determine correctness? What a twisted point of view. The material posted provides it's own level of correctness, nothing else. Sorry you feel picked on. I'm entirely consistent.

This isn't a bit about who is smarter than whom and it's not a contest or just something fun to poke a stick at you. In fact, your matter of fact style in the post that started this discussion point to exactly the same thing you criticize me of - You're the smart guy and you know all the answers.

It is, in my evaluation, a very important topic and as such it should be treated with the same intellectual care that you put into your measurements and other investigations. Don't spoil that good work on the slippery slope of certainty.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

Yawn, here we go again

Don't like the discussion butt out, it is so simple... Why the contradiction and gluttony?

[Killerfish2012]

Having read through this thread, I can see that there is some trolling going on. Not mentioning names. However, I would like to remind folks that a troll is a sexually frustrated male, that joins a discussion, derails it, and turns the focus on himself. Recognize this, and avoid the feedback mechanism.

[happos2]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Don't like the discussion butt out, it is so simple... Why the contradiction and gluttony?

Becasue Forum.

Dang...I still like Because Racecar better. Oh well...just wanted to try it.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Don't like the discussion butt out, it is so simple... Why the contradiction and gluttony?

I am sorry were you saying something. I wasnt really concerned

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again argument ad absurdum. Because I have particular interest in some topics and not others and occasionally find incorrect or objectionable materials then I am somehow obligated to take the exact same approach on all topics and all parts of such discussions? Nonesense, no one who posts here operates in this 100% "consistent" fashion, no one.

When folks misrepresent big issues, relevant to me and my interest, I can take up selective debates as I wish, thank you very much.

There isn't really anything beyond an wildly incorrect belief that any potential bearing issue with the S65 is fully understood with certainty. You continue to present it as such and I feel strongly that it isn't the case. Thus I will continue to offer an appropriately toned down interpretation consistent with the complete lack of testing or verification.



Really, dictionary, pictionary. This is a matter of science/technology/engineering and in that particular context there is a 100% clear distinction between fact, theory and hypothesis. I think you actually know this.

How many times does it need repeating. NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, not one shred. Not of the cause nor of measurements that support the idea of wide enough tolerances to cause an issue, nor of the effects of an attempted correction. You are one step ahead of speculation and although weak, it is, as I've stated prior probably the best thing we have going. It still doesn't make it right and you are so absolutely positively certain you are right. Perhaps you can be open enough to realize that one can be right for the wrong reason and that's generally quite bad.



Hmmm, the points of engagement determine correctness? What a twisted point of view. The material posted provides it's own level of correctness, nothing else. Sorry you feel picked on. I'm entirely consistent.

This isn't a bit about who is smarter than whom and it's not a contest or just something fun to poke a stick at you. In fact, your matter of fact style in the post that started this discussion point to exactly the same thing you criticize me of - You're the smart guy and you know all the answers.

It is, in my evaluation, a very important topic and as such it should be treated with the same intellectual care that you put into your measurements and other investigations. Don't spoil that good work on the slippery slope of certainty.

I love the hubris of a guy who says the dictionary is wrong, but he is right.

Nothing misrepresents an issue faster than taking what somebody says out of context, removing parts of what they say before offering a rebuttal, or inventing your own meaning to what they say and attributing your rebuttal to a discussion that never occurred. Those are your your habitual posting patterns with respect to my comments.

Everything else you said is just "blah, blah, blah..." just more of the same chest-beating nonsense.

[okusa]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Nothing misrepresents an issue faster than taking what somebody says out of context, removing parts of what they say before offering a rebuttal, or inventing your own meaning to what they say and attributing your rebuttal to a discussion that never occurred. Those are your your habitual posting patterns with respect to my comments.

Because sociopath.

Just wanted to try that too. Definitely not as good as because racecar.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by regular guy

I love the hubris of a guy who says the dictionary is wrong, but he is right.

It really doesn't matter if that particular definition applies to our discussion or not. I firmly say it isn't the best definition but isn't all wrong either. But it is largely irrelevant to me being right and you being wrong. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, PERIOD. That was YOUR bloody definition. Oh well, keep grasping at straws...

Originally Posted by regular guy

Nothing misrepresents an issue faster than taking what somebody says out of context, removing parts of what they say before offering a rebuttal, or inventing your own meaning to what they say and attributing your rebuttal to a discussion that never occurred. Those are your your habitual posting patterns with respect to my comments.

Well I guess holding your feet to the fire is uncomfortable. If you want to speak something meaningful instead of meta-post drivel bring the specifics. There is so much interpretation in this drivel I can barely stomach it. If you want to make a point rather than flap you lips provide:

-What was out of context in this debate?
-How did I invent my own meaning? Because your dictionary definition does not fit the appropriate context of this discussion? Again see my first point just above.
-What did I remove from what you said?
-How is my rebuttal based on a discussion that did not occur.

Keep it in this thread.

DRIVEL, unbelievable, nothing but drivel.

Originally Posted by regular guy

Everything else you said is just "blah, blah, blah..." just more of the same chest-beating nonsense.

Yeah, when you can't win just resort to complete mischaracterizations. You can say it as many times as you like, there is no chest beating. I'm being factual, clear and I've made my point. All while remaining rather calm and collected and I haven't resorting to an insults.

This whole debate here in this thread is simple. You present your hypothesis as something firm, known and factual. It isn't. There is nothing really left to discuss.