If I may offer some thoughts ... .. .(a) the manufacturer prescribes recommended rotation practice and one probably ought not to vary from this without a compelling reason .. much harder to explain the accident away. In general, the intention is to schedule Vr such that, . .. .(i) with a V1 failure and . .(ii) at the nominated pitch rate and. .(iii) using the nominated technique. .. .the aircraft will achieve somewhere in the vicinity of V2 at screen.. .. .(b) if one is concerned about windshear, surely it is better to delay rather than to interrupt rotation for reasons of predictable rotation distance and tail clearance. Others have highlighted this concern above.. .. .(c) many aircraft with a low tail will experience a very noticeable ground effect reduction in tail lift during the rotation. In such cases the rotation becomes a manipulative artform if it is to be performed smoothly. . .. .(d) the 737-800 has, I believe, an intentional stab trim mistrim schedule to increase the apparent control loads during rotation to reduce the risk of excessive pitch rate and tailstrike. Certainly I understand that one operator discovered that, by trimming a little more noseup, the rotation was much easier. When queried, Boeing suggested that this was not a very good idea.. .. .(e) the rotation is a skill like any other .. it is learnt and an appropriate level of skill achieved. .. .(f) if one is scheduling an overspeed or improved performance takeoff, then the story is the same as for a minV2 schedule - there is no "delay" in rotation, the rotation speed schedule is quite intentionally increased to achieve an improved OEI second segment climb gradient.. .. .My main concern in reading this post is in regard to SOPs .. don't we adopt SOPs precisely to strive for a repeatable, reliable outcome ? Do it yourself techniques and procedures may have a place in some areas of aviation .. but, in scheduled operation ?