Scooterjunkie,

There are some on this forum that absolutely swear by this, and some that will tell you it is 100% wrong. This is a recipe for a very long, nasty, dragged out fight. There are two very important things I've learned from participating in this forum, 1.) How tenaciously people will stick to their opinions. 2.) Since it is an anonimous forum, some people get downright nasty if you disagree with what they have chosen to believe.

You've asked for input and opinions, and you rightly stated "I guess I won't know unless..." so here's a few respectful questions regarding this "new" method.

Read the article very thoroughly, it pertains to RACING engines for the most part.

Can we send this guy an email, and ask about long-term effects? How many daily street use motorcycle engines does he have with say 80,000 miles?

How many of our fellow forum riders who have subscribed to this method have long-term (80 to 100 K) engines to illustrate the benefits?

Believers always say "... and it runs great!" Assuming you are breaking in one bike at a time, compared to what?

He contradicts himself later in the article by saying only 80% of the break-in works his way, the final 20% takes a longer time. Huh? Where is he getting these figures.

How long has this guy been in business? He looks to be about 30 or so. Not that there is anything wrong with youth, but how did a person get so much experience in such a short career?

Note that at the end of the article, he lists how everyone else in the world is incorrect on all known engine related subject matter. and he has all the NEW answers. Sounds like a self-proclaimed genius. Red Flag. I would be a little sceptical.

Now, having said all that - this is my opinion, as I have no objective, scientific data, or three side-by-side test bikes with one as control to utilise. I have not collected data long-term, or over a varied basis. Therefore my opinion is subjective, and open to debate, which I heartily welcome. I absolutley love new technologies and methods, and have a 35 year engineering and research background, so this type of debate is what I live for.

Having used the "other" method, handed down from my father, he and I have run numerous street - not racing - cars up to 350K without engine rebuilds necessary (the bodies rusted out before the mechanicals failed)... (the cars, not ours!), and bikes up to 45K before selling privately, and to my knowledge the two bikes are still running. Long term overall maintenance and care are equally important to the break in methodology.

I am trained by profession to gather all the facts and data before making a calculated recommendation. A tried and true method is what I call 3/5. If 3 out of 5 subject related objective endeavors reach the same conclusion, you may have something to begin researching. If there are too many variables, and too many disagreements in methodology, then you are wasting valuable resources and should abort the project. So far I see one.

My summary - be skeptical, ask necessary questions. Nothing at all wrong with new ideas, but this is pretty unorthidox, so tread extremely carefully. Give self-proclaimed "experts" a wide path. When it comes to technology, learn the distinct difference between Objective and Subjective response. One is black and white fact, the other is speculative opinion. Technology is based upon proven, factual results.

In the end, you decide.

Most of all - have fun. Technology can be our friend... or foe.

__________________
Bob

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".