Agreed, and when it comes to motor oil there is virtually no real- world data available because almost no testing has been done. Ever, by anyone or any entity with one exception- Consumer Reports.
The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.
I have some background in tribology and my own personal opinion is that reciprocating engines simply do not put enough demand on oil to allow superior oils to show their superior properties. Modern synthetic oils perform admirably in turbine engines but provide, in my opinion based on some study, no benefits at the speeds and per unit area forces that piston engines can generate. Another way to put that is to say that the very worst oil available is really quite excellent and will perform extremely well in anything virtually any private citizen can afford to put a license plate on.
But back to the testing: even actual tests are easily misinterpreted or miss- represented. A standard four- ball tribology test seems to be a great way to test various oils and greases..... until bleach is poured onto the balls and the test results skyrocket. Does that mean that we should all be using Clorox in our crankcases? Nope, it is just the result of an extreme pressure (EP) package, chlorine, being taken out of context (no actual oil).
So I use the oil that allows the bike to shift better- that way the engine gets lubricated and I get a little benefit myself 'cause I am the one doing the shifting.
Brian
What is REALLY interesting is that the "test procedure" on the thread is not discussed in the least.
If you have ever read any SAE or API o ASTM test specs, they are VERY detailed, and VERY specific.
No details == complete BS
<snip>
saxman