[Bill Edgeworth]

Jeff;
In my opinion it was very unjust that you got tossed for what was written on the rocker arm. As Allan mentioned valve train geometry is a very misunderstood thing and just because they say 1.65 on them does not mean they are that ratio on your engine. In many (most) cases when you are running longer than stock length valves you can never achieve the advertised ratio of the rocker unless you run an extremely long pushrod and totally mess up your geometry.
For those that are not familiar with the circumstances that cause this let me explain; many engines like Jeff’s Mopar engines or my Pontiac stuff have converging angles between the valves and rocker studs or pedestals in the case of the Mopar engines. So when you run a longer valve than stock the distance from the pivot point of the rocker to valve tip decreases effectively reducing the rocker ratio. So with longer valves those rockers with 1.65 written on them may not even be 1.6.
I believe the reason the factory designed them this way is to reduce side loading on the studs at maximum lift (maximum valve spring pressure)
So this is just a couple of the issues you have to consider when figuring out your spring/valve/retainer combination.
I’m betting when they tossed Jeff they did not check his rocker ratio they based their decision on what was written on the rocker arm???
Aubrey; If you look at what I have said there is more of an issue with how we use the arms compared to conditions under which their ratio was calculated than a tolerance issue.