Stealing my post a few pages back on refusal speed. If you don't recognize the term, I refer you to ground school. I will agree with the idea of stopping in the instance when V1 and Vr are "split" IF you know you can stop in the TODA and have the brake energy available. However, few civil planes have refusal speed charts or, for that matter, any relevant performance charts. In my old C-5 engineers computed about 50 entries in the take-off data sheet, including Vmca, Vmcg, take-off ground run (all 4 running) gradients, refusal speed, brake energy, climb capability on 4, 3, and 2 engines. A bit anal,but if you knew performance, good stuff. You cannot eyeball, in high performance airplanes, the take-off. The Force is with Luke, not you.
Would I abort after V1, yes, if the plane was uncontrollable (flight control problem) or suffered an extreme failure, say an engine explosion. If an engine fire lite came on as I went thru V1 and accelerating-NO. We're not trained that way, it is not briefed that way and the briefing is where critical decisions are made, not thundering down the runway making it up as one goes along.
For example, an old friend had a severe tire failure taking out most a bogey on a 707, after V1 and airplane stopped accelerating, stuck short of Vr. All went for brief swim in SFO bay. Two different friends have taken different C-5s airborne after bird strikes during rotation, one with 200,000 pounds of Class A explosives on-board). Both came around and landed under control with no damage. Aborts would have certainly overrun the available runway, the take-offs were that close and they lost one engine and significant thrust on the one other. A CO DC-10 did something similar in EWR and landed.
If you want a better idea, consider this: review the data available, using a runway analysis, determine the heaviest weight acceptable for the runway, IF the V1 for that weight equals or exceeds Vr for the planned take-off weight; set V1 equal to Vr. Yes, you have "unbalanced" the field length, not operating IAW with the training and FAA certification, and the insurers might disown you, but I'm guessing it will at least provide a logical justification for your operation. A few giggles, too.
At an airline I worked for, SSG, your mode of work was called, "in business for yourself".
PS: if you dare bring up the recent C-5 accident, the response is: THEY OPERATED LIKE YOU WANT TO--Unbriefed, uncoordinated, and poor technique under stress. The plane was perfectly flyable, IF they flew as trained by the book.
Mutt: I agree-few civil planes have the charts available for what is needed.