Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

I would agree. Not to mention, everybody is talking about the added expense of roller rockers. But just how much has the stamped steel rocker costed everybody that broke them. Because normally when you break a rocker you have other issues as well, especially if you are running the compsite type lifters. I'm sure that a stamped steel rocker has costed more than one person a complete engine. The rocker breaks then the compsite lifter also breaks at the same time due to not being controlled at the cam. Then you have all that junk going through everything. All from a stamped steel rocker. Now its not the rockers fault. They weren't designed to run at 230# on the seat and 600# open pressure at 8000rpms so. What do you do?

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

None taken.

I'll address your points below.

Just because they have cars in our class that do not belong, it doesn't mean we need to make it worse. Doesn't matter what year it is, either, that's no excuse to keep screwing up the class.

I can do things with a roller rocker that cannot be done with a factory rocker. Especially with the advent of CNC machining being common. You can build the rocker to give the correct lift at peak lift and still do all sorts of things to the lift curve. I'm not going to go into that with anyone, I'll just say you should take a look at the old Crane "quick lift" rockers, or what ever they used to call them. There are other things that can be done, I won't let those secrets out either. Let's just say I had a long talk this week with three guys who know way more than I do, and all three agreed. They've got about 120 years experience going fast and setting records between them.

Sure it will, we'll have stockers turning as much or more RPM that Super Stock cars turned 20 years ago. But stockers are limited to heavy pistons and rods, and factory cranks, Super Stock is not.. Sounds like a good recipe for disaster to me. Some engines that can't stand the RPM may fall behind.

Stock is not allowed to have radiators that are not original size for the body, nor to have radiators that are not made of the original material. You can't put an aluminum radiator in a 69 Camaro for example.

Stock is not allowed to have through the firewall roll cage bars.

Stock currently requires original seats, I'm not sure it's a great idea given we're approaching 135 MPH with traditional combinations in fast classes.

Stock has an open valve job rule I already mentioned, not a good idea, but not a reason to add to the escalation.

Stock is not allowed to modify the rear frame other than connecting the roll cage.


The solution to breaking parts is not to keep asking for more aftermarket parts. The solution is to find out how to stop breaking that part. Every combination has limits, when you reach the limits, that's it, either change combinations, or switch to Super Stock. Otherwise, Stock Eliminator will BE Super Stock before long.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Then NHRA needs to have the roller rocker defined with NHRA approved parts. Just like they have now. No custom made rockers. And the rockers need to be approved parts that have not been modified. Just like NHRA approved pistons. And rockers are easy to tech. Easier than pistons.

Look, anybody that is hell bent on finding that extra .001 to .01 is going to find it. Legally or not. That same guy that is the fastest in his class with stock rockers is most likely going to be the fastest in the class with roller rockers.
I'm just encouraging something that will make it less costly & less maintenance for the rest. And if one is happy with their OEM rockers, keep them.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Great post!

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

With CNC machinery, you can make an aluminum roller rocker that looks just like any other aluminum roller rocker, including an "approved" rocker, modify the geometry, mark it and anodize it to look like the approved part, and the only way to find it is not the approved part is with a fixture made to check that specific approved part.

With CNC equipment as common as it now is, it is not even expensive to make the cheated up rockers. The rest of the parts are commonly available.

What do you think the chances of NHRA making or buying checking fixtures for 2 dozen different rocker arms and taking them to every event is? Or the idea that they're going to procure 7 copies of each approved part and haul them around to every race?

The idea that "you can keep your stock style rocker if you want to" doesn't hold a drop of water, not if you want to remain competitive. If the roller rocker raises the operating range of your competition, you have to run that RPM just like he does if you don't want to get beat.

People going fast are not just going to bolt on a set of roller rocker arms and call it a day. This is not "one part, that solves breakage for some people". Rocker arms are one part of a complete valvetrain package. Change rocker arms, and you change camshafts and other parts to go along with the rockers, unless you want to get left behind.

The fast guys will completely reevaluate their cams, springs, valve job, valves, and pushrods, in order to take advantage of the change. So instead of changing a set of rockers at the cost of $300 or so, you're now looking at a new cam, $200 and up, a new valve job that may cost you $1000, new valves that could cost $500, and new springs for $300. Your new roller rockers just went from $300 to at least $2300 if you want to stay competitive.

Yes, roller rocker arms are going to save you money. So long as you just change rocker arms, and you don't care about making the rest of the valvetrain work with them to remain competitive.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

I truely believe that alot of these rule changes in stock from the open duration on the cams to valve jobs to any springs and spring pressures are due to the lack of qualified techs to police these rules. Policing rocker arms is not an issue obviously but I think all the other rules have just lead to this as the week link for now. Which is what you are saying.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Now I'm just trying to learn here. If you just change your stock ratio rocker to a roller rocker of the same ratio why would you want to change cams, valves and valve jobs? I would think the springs should go your way. With the roller rockers being lighter you should gain more controlable spring pressure for the valve, right? Now if you change to a faster ratio rocker then I can see having to change the over all cam lift because your faster ratio rocker just added lift at the valve. But I would think that is not the intent here.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

After I read my post I see that even tho this will not be the intent. This is what you are talking about as far as opening things up for more cheating. A faster ratio rocker will get to max lift faster which is like adding more duration, maybe? Which is why you would also be changing springs with the cam. But I still have not figured out why you would change valves and valve jobs:cool: "Thinkin' thinkin' thinkin' and I aint even got a bucket on my head":D

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Well, that is part of what I'm saying. They've kept opening the rules and escalating the cost over the years until Stock Eliminator is already far beyond the intent and spirit of the class.

Policing rocker arms will become an issue as soon as you allow aftermarket roller rocker arms in the class. The question will be whether or not NHRA bothers to address the issue fully and completely. For the answer to that, look at how limited tech inspection has become at the vast majority of NHRA events.

I'm really not going to go in to who it was I talked to, nor the changes possible with roller rocker arms. I'll just say that it absolutely will drive the RPM range up, again, and they will create breakage that is not now happening, whether it will be valvetrain breakage or other failures due to higher RPM ranges depends on several factors, and the combination being considered. It also will certainly drive the cost to remain competitive much higher than a simple set of $300 roller rocker arms and possibly a new set of $100 rocker arm studs.

Let's just make this plain and simple. A racer has reached the point where he is breaking rocker arms, and can no longer continue to increase the RPM range he runs and the valvespring pressure required to run there. So he's reached a limit. Give him roller rocker arms. Now, do you really think he's not going to go get a new set of valvesprings , turn another 1000 RPM, and start looking at what he needs to do in order to get more duration in his camshaft in order to turn even more RPM? Of course he's going to make all of those changes, if he wants to go fast and be competitive.

A real racer will always push the limits. Replace the part that breaks, and he'll go find a way to break even more parts. The new replacement part will always create the need for new parts to go with it, and the opportunity to buy new parts to take advantage of the latest rule change.

Every time you allow something like this, it creates the need to spend even more money for other parts to go with it, and further increases the operating range and parts breakage.

Just look at what has happened to Super Stock. We're now running 9,000 RPM, with belt drives, shaft rockers, huge roller lifters, valve springs with 1000 pounds open pressure and 400 pounds seat pressure, titanium retainers, massive camshafts with as much as 0.900" lift at the valve, and all sorts of other parts that were seen only in Pro Stock and Competition Eliminator just 20 years ago. Most of that was brought on by allowing ported an polished heads, because NHRA did not want to be bothered with stopping them. Is that where we want to take Stock Eliminator?

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

All very good points. You've personally have taken me from wanting roller rockers in stock to not so much. I guess we'll have to wait for the NHRA rule book to know which way to go here.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Kris,
I'm going to try to address as many of your questions in this post as possible, given the constraints of a bulletin board, and the need to not tell everyone everything.

Rocker arm weight is not critical, stock rockers are not heavy, rocker weight in Stock has little to do with valvesprings. It is not the weight of roller rocker arms that will allow higher RPM, an aftermarket roller rocker arm will most often be considerably heavier than the stock part, especially if the stock part is stamped steel, regardless of whether the aftermarket rocker arm is stainless steel or aluminum. For valvesprings and RPM range, rocker arm weight is only important from the center of the stud or shaft toward the valve, what the other half weighs is practically irrelevant.

Again, we have a racer, he can turn X000 RPM, to go higher, he needs more valvespring, and he'll break rocker arms anyway, even without more valvespring. Turning another 1000 RPM will allow him to go faster. Give him roller rocker arms. Now, he can go turn 1000 more RPM, and find out what breaks next. In order to make HP 1000 RPM higher, he needs a new camshaft with more duration or more lobe separation angle or both, since he is lift limited. So, now he's bought new rocker arms, new pushrods to go with them, to keep his lift correct, new valvesprings to turn more RPM, and a new cam to make HP at a higher RPM.

Again, go search and find the principles behind the Crane "quick lift" rockers they sold a few years back. I'll give you a quick hint. The idea behind those rocker arms was you could change the ratio of the rocker arm at low lift, where the valve opens and closes, without changing the ratio at maximum lift (where NHRA measures lift and determines rocker ratio in Stock, by the way) so that you could make significant changes to your camshaft profile at the valve, without altering maximum lift, so you did not have to worry about changing valvesprings, or possibly having to cut the top of the valve guides, etc.

All I'm going to say about valves and valve jobs is that when you change the amount of time, percentage wise, that you spend at certain amounts of valve lift, then you need to change the valve job, and maybe the valve, to take advantage of that change. Remember, we no longer have a real valve job rule in Stock Eliminator, you can run any angle you want, as many angles as you want, the only limit is how far the valve job goes into the bowl of the port and the chamber of the head.

People keep talking about the cost savings this will bring. They ignore the other parts that will get changed. Those parts cost money, too. They ignore the increase in RPM, that will cost money, too. This is not going to make Stock Eliminator one dollar cheaper. This is in fact going to allow people with a lot of money to spend more money with more expensive engine builders who can do more testing to better take advantage of the new rule. This will not bring the "have nots" closer to the "haves", it will only serve to further widen that gap.

So far, we have only addressed the costs inside the engine, with regards to the ability to turn more RPM. That ignores headers and collectors. That ignores torque converters. It ignores transmission ratios. It ignores rear end ratios.

A Stock Eliminator engine is all about the combination and the complete package. A Stock Eliminator car is exactly the same. When you change a rule on one critical part, that rule and that part have effects on the entire car. In Stock Eliminator, it is NEVER about just one part.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Kris, to be quite honest, at first glance, roller rocker arms looked like a decent solution to me as well. However, I learned many years ago, at great cost, to look very carefully at rule changes, and be extremely suspicious of rule changes intended to "save racers money". At least 99 times out of 100, rules that supposedly "save racers money", end up costing them a fortune either right then, or not far down the road.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Alan, I agree with all your analysis about the deterioration of the spirit of Stock Eliminator, but using the "quick lift" Crane rockers as a point of "evils" associated with roller rockers is not totally a valid argument. The principles of physics that are designed into the Crane rockers can also be incorporated into stamped rocker arms, and the additional low lift increase can be built into the cam lobe profile.

The addition of roller rocker arms into the current mix of contradictory rules in Stock Eliminator is probably of little consequence other than helping a few applications be more reliable.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Once again, I'm going to be offering an opinion in an area that I shouldn't... but that's OK... as long as it makes people laugh.
Right now, isn't pretty much anybody running fast, running the absolute most duration in their cam that they can, due of course to piston-to-valve clearance ????? To me, the guidelines on pistons will ALWAYS set the limit there... and as long as NHRA keeps the piston monitored, more duration just isn't in the cards. That, I think, is good. Seperates us from Super Stock.
So.... roller rockers, in one way or another, brining about another 1000 RPM ?... even 500 ?
Can't see it.
Perhaps a couple hundred, but unlikely in the form of a completely altered torque curve.
For me, just providing reliability when buzzing that last 300-400 RPM over the shift point, when passing through the traps.
A LITTLE piece of mind at 120+ MPH !

Alan... as usual, a little over my head ! HEE HEE !
Though, I DO know exactly what you're talking about with the "variable ratio" rocker arm. INGENIOUS, if you ask me !
Money has always seperated the real players from people like me. I'm OK with that.

BTW... Have I ever mentioned that EVERY TIME I read this message board, I learn something ..... ? !

great place !

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Thank you ,Alan, could not have been expressed any clearer in layman terms.------------John

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Dwight, you're absolutely correct, it is possible to make a stamped rocker arm like the Crane, but it would require someone making a very expensive set of dies to stamp it with, and owning a press. You can make an aluminum rocker like the Crane with any good 4 axis CNC machine, maybe even with a 3 axis.

Yes, you can put that low lift aggressiveness in a cam profile, provided you are not already on the edge of the rocker face.

I disagree, there's a lot you can do when you take the stock rocker arm out of the equation.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

I wonder what the real fast guys that have to deal with rocker issues have to say on the subject. Specifically big block Chevy guys. I know a lot of them check these rockers religiously and do have to deal with breakage from time to time. Curious.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Actually Aubrey, we (read rectangle port big block Chevy racers) are not running all the duration that will fit in the engine, honestly, I don't think that many people are running every bit of duration that will fit. That's all I will say about that, but we can get more cam in the engine, so can many others.

Again if you accept the premise that you need "x" amount of spring pressure to turn "y" RPM, but you cannot run "x" valve spring with stock rockers, your rockers, for what ever reason, will only take "n" valvespring pressure, then yes, roller rocker arms will lead to a significant increase in RPM.

Also, let's just say that if you could go faster turning more RPM, but you need more valvespring pressure and a better rocker arm, you can change the lobe profile so that the valve opens just a bit slower just before TDC on the intake, and make the lobe faster elsewhere. With a really stout valvespring, you can slam the exhaust valve shut faster, only slowing it down slightly in the last 5-10 degrees before it seats.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Using GM rocker arms, we have acually broken 3 rocker arms in 5 years, found probably 8 more cracked. Rocker arms are not a problem for us, but we only run a few races a year.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Like I said...those that want every .001 to .01 will do what needs to be done. The rest, those that obviously will never find the true potential of their combination, just want reliability.

Case in point...I see a LOT of stick racers that could go .20 to .30 quicker with more refined clutches and if not more refined clutches, then more refined tuning. And I'm not here to bash one brand or another, nor I am I hear bashing one racer over another racers clutch driving / tuning abilities. But you see clutch racers that go "all out" looking for every .01 (I would be in that category) and others that give up two tenths or more because the feel they would rather give up ET performance for what they perceive as reliability and repeatability for rounds. And some just don't believe that ET decrease is possible so they don't even explore. Is this any different than the rocker arm debate? In the end, you will have those that want it all and those that just want to get by and have fun. There's a LOT of Stock racers that are just there to have fun and their idea of fun is not breaking parts and not looking for every .001 with cubic dollars.

And I can't say how many but I know there are many out there running roller rockers with hopes they never get caught. Think about that. Racers are willing to risk a one year suspension for a flagrant rules violation. I believe this guys are after reliability and rounds more than anything else.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Cracked is broken. Thats 11 broken rocker arms in five years and you have raced "a few" races a year. If that was two races a year, that would be ten races in five years. That's .9 broken rockers per race.
I remember one year Scott Pearson could only afford to race two national events. He won them both. True he races SS/JA but there are many Stock racers like yourself that can't afford to attend many races. Sure would suck if you broke a rocker in a final round! Even first round breakage would cost you a lot of money.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

A few? :D

How many Division 2 races did you and Brenda skip this year Bill? We didn't make the tour this year, we'll be back next year.



We have never broken a rocker arm, not in 6 years, although this year was real short. We've broken one 7/16" rocker stud, the poly lock killed the entire engine, including the block. We have only run near 500 passes on one set of rockers, and maybe 300 passes on the other set. No, we ain't as fast as some, but we haven't lost too many heads up races, we've got 2-3 class wins, and we usually go a few rounds fairly often. It may not be a rocket, but it ain't a slug, either.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

How about the shaft type rocker guys..................

Jesel or T&D......

Take your pick

No potential performance gain.......Give me a break

Bob

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

It's my understanding that the shaft type rockers are not legal for stock.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

so who makes a roller rocker that is shaftless?

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

The better question is:

Why would you want a roller rocker that is shaftless?

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Stud mounted rockers are what I was told and that jessel or t&d rockers are not legal. I think you all know what i meant.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

So now, does it have to be a certain mfg or is any mfg legal, for the stud mount rocker?

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

News flash !! Some engine's come with a shaft from the start ! Some Ford
FE and some GM and Dodge and the list goes on .

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

I was wondering when someone would finally point that out !
I'm a Chevy guy... pre 73 that is. No shafts there. However, to my knowledge, don't most Mopars of that earlier era, have shaft rockers ?
I'm sure it's safe to assume that the new rule will at least madate that the engine has to possess the original rocker configuration.
Does that mean that the shaft-rocker engines will have an advantage ?
perhaps a little
That's the way it is.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

The IHRA rule is no T&D or Jessel type system at all. If its a stud type OEM mounted rocker system then it has to stay that way. No conversions!!! If is an OEM shaft rocker system then shaft rockers are OK on combos that use them from the OEM such as the FE Ford, 273-360 Mopars, 361-440 Mopars and Hemis and others.
No trick set ups and must maintain OEM rocker ratios only. No under cut cam lobes with non OEM rocker ratios. No Jomar type girdles at all.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

What in the world do you use for a roller rocker on a 409? When I played with those things, the Ford 351 Cleveland rocker arm was pretty close, so was the Chevy 6-250-292 etc. type of rocker arm.Just curious what you do for those.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Greg... BBC standard BBC 1.7 ratio ( factory W block is 1.75... but there's nothing in that ratio that handles this abuse ! ). Let's me use the BBC 7/16" stud. Cam has net lift at the valve, of .496" -.500". It all works.
Also, Crane has always had their P/N 15750 gold aluminum rocker for the W engine ( 3/8" stud )... it too, is 1.7 ratio.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

So, has anyone seen this in writing, i know Greg says Chris at Comp Cams has, but has anyone seen the rule laid out?:confused:

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Right now,I would be more concerned about what Charley Downing posted:




Now all the news from SEMA. New carmaro looks great MPR did a great job like always.

New Stk rule changes on the table for 2012

64 car fields for ss and stk at all nationals but Indy.
For stock only 1980 and newer cars only.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Surely you don't believe Charlie's BS.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

No,but it is entertaining.

And I suppose the manufacturers would want to get rid of the older cars,since most of them win the National events.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

The manufacturers want to see their NEW cars win National events. They dont give a "Flying you know what" about the old cars. I hope Charlie is wrong or pulling everyones leg but NHRA has pulled this stunt before in 1972 and got away with it.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Kind of makes you wonder, if the new COPO comes with roller rockers already? This possibly being the reason for the suggested rule change? Wouldn't that be a nit in the soup for the CJ and DP bashers, lol.

Re: Roller Rockers in Stock
 

Interesting letter to the Editor that was in a 1970 Dragster that I bought at a swap meet today.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...r/dragnews.jpg