Popular Science on synthetic vs mineral oils

[Motorbreath]

This is rubbish. On what basis do you presume that mineral oil can fill in the 'huge tolerances' on older engines -and infer that synthetic oils cannot? Engines do not 'drink oil' due to large tolerances anyway -it's usually wear, not the standard tolerance being bigger.
These 'huge tolerances' are imaginary anyway, if you check the tolerances on the mains, big/small ends and cam bearings on a YZF1000 you will find they are comparable with the tolerances on modern engines.
Fortunately for your brainless mechanic, modern 'mineral oils' are mostly well up to spec for our engines and for most people are perfectly good enough. Obviously if you spend time on track days or like to use all your machines performance a higher spec semi-synth would be better.
All oils are mineral by the way,  synthetic oils are simply chemically engineered mineral oils altered to perform better and more consistantly.

Yamaha's 1002cc engine burns oil. It's a fact. You can say you know an Exup or an Ace who doesn't. Also you can say you know somebody who won at the lottery.

Repsol makes a 25w60 oil for high mileage car engines: high viscosity oils doesn't goes so easily. High viscosity oils are mineral, there is no point of making high viscosity synths since that is already covered. But you cannot make a good for racing 0w30 mineral oil. Synths fill the gap.

There is nothing brainless of using a SG or SJ oil despite it is synth or not, in a bike designed for SE(1971) like ours. Even the 2012 R1 works on SG(1987).

[quote author=Simon.Pieman link=topic=10674.msg113042#msg113042 date=1384362840]
All oils are mineral by the way,  synthetic oils are simply chemically engineered mineral oils altered to perform better and more consistantly.

I don't think this is always the case.
[/quote]

That's like saying we are made of food and beer