Pass, friend.
References to V1/Vr ratios depend on the AFM presentation. Whether one uses this terminology or V1 as a separate number is immaterial.
The upper end is 1.00 (ie V1 = Vr) and the lower generally Vmcg limited or for any other reasons which may fall out of the certification analyses.
Reference to "pushing" the ratio up is my slack terminology. In general, the higher V1 helps out for closer in obstacles, and the lower V1 for shorter runways especially with declared clearway and no significant obstacle problems ... Depending on the particular aerodrome circumstances, there will be some usable range of ratios and you pick whichever suits your particular agenda.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that turboprops have a greater problem. Due to the larger V2/VCL split with the jets, the third segment is often a big hassle. On the props the small speed increment makes the escape procedure design a bit easier.
Using RTOW V2 instead of the minimum speed for the actual weight makes good sense up to, say, V2min plus 20-30 knots as the climb gradient will be improved and the obstacle clearances have been based on the higher weight data. One caveat, though, is that any turning escape paths may be turn radius critical, so one needs to know what the operations engineering strategy was .. and this ought to be clearly stated in the procedure.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 30 June 2001).]