Not yet.

Hello everyone,

Been thinking of doing something similar to this for some time, and it looks like now is the time. Should be enlightening. Hopefully it will be a fun thread we can all learn from.

The subject has been broached (not just recently) in several other threads, so I thought it needed a place of it's own. It's dedicated to a discussion of any misconceptions, or any misstatements made by me or anyone else.

Serious comment/constructive criticism is encouraged, humor is welcome, flames or cheap shots are not. In the rare (:lol:) case of a humorous cheap shot, it needs to be funny.

The only requirement is, a quote of the statement in question.

I do recognize the possibility that there is no interest in persuing those subjects, but I don't believe everyone here has completely understood all my posts and had no questions. I also see that many people do not realize the value of asking questions and how much knowledge the answers might contain.

Further, many would rather not ask, for fear of appearing stupid, dumb, or some other form of unintelligent. Makes no sense to me. If one doesn't ask, how can he/she learn? Is it a stupid question because one is not an expert? I ask questions to gain knowledge. Sometimes, I ask because I'm interested but know nothing about the subject. Sometimes I ask to better understand the statement or the thought behind it and/or to promote the discussion.

My answers to serious questions are, very rarely, anything but dead serious. Among the exceptions were when I was asked about my age. Yogis442 said I was a teenager, and I would never dispute anything he said. OK, he didn't say that exactly, but we all knew what he meant.

On the outside chance anyone is actually interested, this link might be of help.

On a lighter note:
There is one obvious error that shows up in many of my posts. Subject was addressed twice that I know about, but it has never been discussed.

Regards, Norm

what?!? Ohhhh your talking about how Norm is short for Normal....and yer not...

just kiddin... i honestly have no idea what your talkin about...obvious errors???

i got one fer ya...

in the infamus roller rocker thread..."higher ratio rockers do not increase duration" is only partially correct...
(I had fergot about this myself at the time)
but measuring duration at the valve...seat to seat duration is the same...however duration at any given (valve) lift point will increase by a small margin...
ie .1 inch valve lift the high ratio rocker reaches it faster than the low ratio rocker...

this may have been what gave rise that "higher ratio rockers give you more duration..." crap....

it still gives more area under the curve...but is really just a bandage for needing a cam with the proper profiles...

I dont know i just figured i'd post that...

not un abnormal, James

Hi Turbocharged400sbc, all


The statement is correct.


Agreed.

While using the actual, advertised, @.050, and @200 figures will give a good idea of the actual profile, none of those numbers will change the actual cam duration.

If the statement was "higher ratio rockers increase valve duration at .200" lift", it would have been correct. The question then, would be: How much increase in flow/velocity can we expect from that extra duration compared to the same increase in cam duration?


Exactly, the result of someone talking s**t about something they don't understand.


Given, that neither will show much without at least some headwork. More bang for the buck will come from the cam, no contest. I understand some are interested in the rockers for emissions reasons. A purpose ground cam is still the better choice by far.

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=47536

Posted the link in that other thread. All there is so far, is more of the same from u no hoo. Sadly, it doesn't look like we'll see anything of value.


It's still there and should be obvious to all TOC members.

Regards, Norm