I'm quite serious.
But I am not questioning the *merits* I keep saying I have one and like it. People like GreenAmigo say it goes beyond dyno and they can feel the difference.

I am questioning when people say there are zero tradeoffs. ChaseSpeed is agreeing/disagreeing with me at the same time--I don't see how you can change cams and get more power without affecting longevity, fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. He agrees with that. So...end of story. The only thing I'd disagree with him on is the "Cam Testing." They might test for power/torque over RPM, but they don't put them in 20 engines and run them for 150k miles to test them for longevity. (Side note: It's not personal and I don't know your age.)

If you're going to say there are only gains and no drawbacks/negative effects, then I'm asking for actual proof. That seems to wind people up. "They make things and people buy them" is not proof that something has zero drawbacks. See the MAF resistor (and how someone asks about it every few months). People will buy anything--even pet rocks. Millions get spent on "magic pills" you get in your e-mail, despite news article after news article they don't work.

ChaseSpeed said it best, if not the most clearly. There are tradeoffs, usually in the power/torque curve, but I'll also bet in emissions. This might be important if you're close to the line and living in California.

A great example is Honda's VFR750 engine. It was a classic in it's day, and still a great engine. They tweaked it for more low-end torqe, at a cost of high-end torque/hp. Now it's a great cruiser engine. Speaking of proof, here's dyno run results: