Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Diehl
No matter what anyone does to the valvetrain they not going to be able to exceed max lift. period!
There is no doubt you can gain lift and duration at different points in the curve, but, that's no different than grinding it into the cam.
With that being said, there is NO WAY you are going to be able to open the valve any farther than max lift...and that's what we are talking about here.
Now, without a doubt you can make the engine much happier up top in the rpm range by correcting the valve train geometry and I am not talking about rocker geo. I am talking about the entire valvetrain.
At the end of the day who cares what the valve does when it leaves the seat...as long as it does not open any further than what the spec says is the max. where ever that just happens to happen in the entire curve
|
The argument is kind of like saying that if I use fiberglass fenders, bumpers, hood, trunk lid and doors on a car that look identical to the original and make the car weigh correctly, it doesn't matter.
The issue behind most regulation changes is basically the cost. If you want to add another area of expense to building a competitive car then keep saying it really doesn't matter. The fact is that there are mechanical advantages to be gained by combining rocker arm ratio changes with camshaft design and valve springs that result in more power when the lift at the valve is restricted. If you are seriously comfortable with providing that advantage to certain racers with the resources to leverage the technology then it makes Stock eliminator a little further away from being an entry level venue. And it becomes more difficult for the self-sufficient racer who builds his own stuff to keep up.