Jond, are you sure you're not factoring in another variable for the increased wear? Redline, quantitatively (base stock, additives, high temp stability, etc), is a very good oil and ranks favorably in comparision with other oil brands on "paper." So if it caused 300% more wear on your engine, there would have to be an additional (or lack of) component in the oil that they're not disclosing or they're not using the components that they say they are.
It wasn't the most scientific study. I only ran 3,000 miles with redline. I got the results back, freaked out and stopped using it.
I ran tons of samples of various weight Mobile 1 before and after that test through, so I do know what the typical wear should be like and what kind of variance there was(almost none).
The only thing I can think as possible causes is:
A. Maybe Redline has aggressive cleaners that broke loose dirt and maybe after using it long enough it would be better?
B. Maybe I got an old sample of Redline that had been on the shelf for too long?
C. Maybe Redline is simply be made for racing(high G, oil starvation, only a few cold starts per engine rebuild, etc), not for 20 degree cold starts, stop and go. Maybe it's the case that redline is made to keep race engines together for 30,000 miles of racing, but not 300,000 of street driving?
IMO, the main point is two-fold.
1. Don't assume the small players have a magical formula that the huge players don't without doing oil analysis.
The big players spend big money on research and can afford to make small margins on their product.
2. Oil that's great on the race track may be horrible for street.
