Quote Originally Posted by rosebelle View Post
Peter, fellow Australian, don't you realize that our vehicles are under less stress than most of the "up and over" world. Something to do with not having to contend with gravity, I've been told before. Our issues are around requiring stickier tyres to stop us from falling off the earth, aren't they

Thanks for your detail, I'm still asking for actual figures (% of Spyders) where normal (old fashioned?) revs have been used to cause significant failures/premature wear - I was not initially arguing the "against" the higher revving argument. But I see things creep into people's opinion that may be questionable/illogical.

The point is made, and accepted, that driving in an optimal rev range produces the best power but economy not necessarily so, and what does fuel economy have to do with the subject anyway?
Silly examples that don't support the argument:
I've heard aeroplane engines need to rev. on this thread: what 2700rpm is high?
You have written not to "lug" truck engines at 600 rpm. Who does that?
How does trucks running at 1200 - 2400rpm equate to faster running engines? For a few examples.

Often I hear the implied stupid argument that an engine uses the least amount of fuel at the highest torque or power revolutions. Laws of Physics suggest otherwise.

Not trying to be too picky but "modern cars refuse to select their highest gears" is not universal at all. The ones that I have come across all do go to the top gear quickly. Yes they have learned behaviour controlling gear changes, based on load/throttle position etc, but that is to maintain adequate power, and control emissions.
You mentioned 4WD I've had quite a few, just looking at a new Prado (top popular 4WD) to replace the wife's. It is offered with 6 speed (2 overdrives), the 4th gear no different to past 5 speed model, strongly suggesting the designers are targeting economy.
My Mitsubishi Challenger switches to top very quickly, adding a "chip" has created more power and torque but the engine spends even more time at low revs, and with improved economy. No discernible extra wear. Reading 4WD mags , the Internet and Forums don't suggest revving engines at all, on my readings. First 4WD bought new 1983, probably driven 0ne million Kms in them. My various F100/Bronco's clearly ran most efficiently at low low revs (did probably 400,000 Km's in those (bullet proof). I can go on. You did not mention marine engines - tell me about these modern engines! ha
.

Tesla? isn't "don't have any other gear choices at all" because they are electric?

Maybe I haven't learnt the hard way yet. But the last fifty years of extensive driving numerous types of engine things does not support the argument "revving is better", if I am now to argue the "against" case.

I'm not saying that you should "lug" an engine at all. Sensible driving of course (I understand what has been said and there is some truth in it all).

Evidence on Spyders, other than anecdotal please.
You logic seems to use common sense, but one thing that could enter the equation. There has been no mention of how the computer controls the fuel map and timing. could be very possible that excess rich or lean situations can occur the way it is set up. Note, that I have zero idea how it is set up. I do know that running for long times either rich or lean and or retarded or advanced timing can certainly lead to issues. As the rider, We do not have the necessary sensors and gauges to assess those conditions and must assume that keeping it in the suggested power band will have the engine run at its best efficiency either for power, economy or both. I know this is my first post and I am a NOOBIE to this forum and a Spyder owner, but I have had a career in aviation as a mechanic and Aircraft inspector. Those engines have most of that work done by the pilot through RPM control and manual mixture control and to some extent engine cooling, so it is much different.