I think that there can be some type of
qualitative feature applied here, but not a
quantitative feature.
Certainly shift feel is important to most of us, but often it's more a function of the design of the tranny, drum, and clutch plate(s) than the oil. The lube might be able to intensify a sensation, but I don't know that it could create one.
To put a funny, non-related perspective on it, it reminds me of the old joke Bill Cosby told in the "Himself" video. To paraphrase: "Alcohol does not change your personality, it intensifies it. Yeah, but what if you're a jerk?"
Shift feel is very subjective; even the same bike won't feel the same way to two different people, as we all have prejudices and preferences.
Further, many don't stop to think that, in a wet-clutch design, thicker oils with greater friction holding capability can actually be a detriment. After all, the clutch plates are supposed to seperate when you pull the lever, to allow the dis-similar shaft speeds to be equalized by the syncro's. Thick oils that cling to everything actually make it harder to shift, because the clutch plates will not release as easily. And yet, many times we hear people blame the tranny gears or shift drum, when the lube is the culprit. Our desires can be at odds; we want a thick oil to withstand the gear-to-gear contact, but yet we need a thin oil to release easily and quickly.
I would never simply choose a lube because if "felt" better. But I cannot deny that there are applications where one product does provide a more desireable effect over another. The question becomes this; where does the shift feel rank in importantance compared to wear protection, cooling capability, cleaning effects, etc? How do you rate a subjective emotion in regard to objective data?
Hence, the incredibly complex and diverse world of lubricants ...
