The problem with this any and such discussion

On this subject is pretty simple and pretty consistent across discussion - there is a very intellectually ambiguous back and forth between quantitative rigour and qualitative looseness.

Nothing is ever quantitatively define - lubricity of the lubricant at any given age, quantity concentration.

What constitutes acceptable wear. What ARE the raw wear characteristics of un lubricated metals / materials used?

One of my other passions is high performance STREET cars (which means cars that can't practically have their engines rebuilt after every trip)

People deductively and inductively dance around the very same issues, and even overlapping related ones (with horological applications) - motors and gears and shocks and suspension parts seizing due to unuse vs wear and tear through use and how to mitigate through lubrication and how long and what viscosities etc etc

This aint proprietary to mechanical watches.

Same problems in the discussions too. When customers paid for their own servicing rec was generally 5k. When BMW paid for it (free maintenance) it suddenly went to 10-12k. And of course Jiffy Lube recommends 3k.

And most such discussions didn't even take into account improvements in lubricants and tribology like synthetics and...

If SOMEONE would come forth and define the parameters there might be some really meaningful progress in topical discussions!

jm2c

TM

"A Purist does not believe in gilt by association. Respect, AND disdain, have to be earned..."