Even if a non-syn filter would bypass a small percentage of time more often that a syn-media filter under very limited conditions, I would ask someone to show definitive proof (real data please, not conjecture and opinion) that it actually makes a hoots worth of difference to the engine in terms of wear that actually affects the longevity of the engine.
Think about this from a pragmatic view, guys.
The bypass events represent a super-small fraction of total operation time. Let's make up a number; maybe .00005%? It obviously would depend upon many issues that we cannot nail down because they would be situation dependent. But Jim Allen's testing shows that this is typical ONLY when high revs are met with cold sump temps, and he had to force that condition to happen as a means of testing; it's not "normal" by any means. So how often does bypass REALLY happen? Practically never, regardless of the media type.
And, just because a filter goes into bypass does NOT mean the floodgates of Hades have opened and there would be a bazillion particles just salivating to destroy your engine that would OTHERWISE have been stopped at the media. Think about this ... if it is your presumption that a bypass event will lead to a massive migration of particulate past the valve, then that infers there is a HEAVY population of particulate in that size that would otherwise be caught if the bypass had not openend. So, if the bypass does NOT open, then would not the media become saturated and blind off in very short order by default? See the irony here? If your theory is that the media is under constant heavy barrage such that a bypass event would assure a huge onslaught of particulate pummeling, then by default the non-bypass time would just blind off the media in short order, and you'd be right back into full bypass all the time! The reality is that while I would certainly agree that particulate is always present, it's not like there is a storm cloud hanging around the bypass valve like hoodlums at the pool hall.
Here's the reality of how this works:
1) filter media (regardless of construction) has way more capacity than most of you would believe
2) filter bypass event represent a super-tiny fraction of total operation time
3) sump system particulate loading is not nearly as heavy as you'd think, to a manner that a bypass event would assure damage, or the media would blind off super early in the otherwise reasonable expected lifecycle
As some of you know, I ran a FL400S for 15k miles on one dino oil 15k mile OCI and got totally "normal" wear results with no heavy sludging, etc. No syn media, no super-capacity over-sized filter, etc. My point is that once you reach a reasonable level of performance, "more" (efficiency, flow, capacity) simply means diddly squat to real world wear results. What you might see in lab filter data does not always equate to tangible results in the real world under normal use.
Between the VERY small amount of time a filter might be in bypass, and the very limited amount of particulate available at that time of bypass, this is a WAY overblown topic. So while some of you might be able to come up with some lab data, I ask that you show direct, tangible proof that it actually equates to any difference in real world wear and equipment longevity under typical operating conditions, please. Please direct me to a credible study that shows any of this makes a difference in real world applications for normal folks.