Very nice work Mike!
Seems like I remember a certain genius member calling your product "snake oil" and saying that your attention to detail on rocker geometry offers no benefit, I wonder what his view would be on this specific application.

At least that is the newer castings with the extra material above the intake ports. I ended up using PAC 1326 valve springs with thinner valve spring locators (I think 0.030") that PAC milled for us, plus the +0.100" PAC Ti retainers, standard locks, and lash caps. Using the max wedge rocker shaft blocks we just set the shaft height where it looked OK, but it would have been nice to have the offset like shown here.

I have some photos, but need to figure how to post them?

and I still do thank you very much, this is an excellent thread and has nothing to do with what you described genius. why anyone would want to go through this is beyond me. they missed the boat on the design imo. great thread Mike this is what we need not some holier than thou attitude.

You didn't mention it , so I am guessing it isn't an issue , but I got curious.
Push rod clearance ?
Moving better than 1/4 " upward coupled with the offset has to have changed things there.
yea ? nay ?

very good work!!!!!

I just re-read the tech write-ups on your website for about the 10th time, and feel like I am finally getting a handle on what you're saying.
If I'm right, then with a cam (lift) change, won't the fulcrum point on the rocker need to be re-calculated and corrected since the perpendicularity will be at a different point?

and I still do thank you very much, this is an excellent thread and has nothing to do with what you described genius.

It was a lot of work, but they were for an 8 sec., 10.5 tire car. The builder wanted the best that the customer could afford.

I'd be willing to bet yours are still off a good bit, even at 1.900", but like Jeremiah's Victors with Hughes rockers, it should be a lot less work. It just doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on good parts, and then not have them set up correctly.

Nothing to do with it? Oh really? Please do explain!
What Mike does is correct rocker arm GEOMETRY by relocating the rocker shaft to a position where it needs to be while accounting for certain variables i.e. installed valve stem height, rocker arm fulcrum length, net valve lift, and I'm sure several other things... The machined rocker shaft saddles in the head are not a "one location fits all" nor do all rocker arms have the same fulcrum length, whether he gets there by making new shaft stands or making shaft relocation kits the goal and end result is the same! While in this case the stackup of all these variables was obviously extreme, just bolting a shaft rocker system to the stands in the head will be less than ideal, way too many variables for the shaft location to be correct.
Comprende Pythagoras??

Yep, all the same fulcrum lengths...

... after seeing this I would not consider a victor head. why anyone would want to is beyond me if they are all like that.

lol how did you that pic that was after chasing sixpackgut around all day I believe. I know what he does and have no problem with it. the problem is when he first came on here there was some claim to adding horse power by a simple correction. and my offer still stands just like the one with our newly found carb guru. you make claim back it up. I will still wager that he can correct mine from where they are now and you would see little gain if any. I set mine up just like have done for nearly 40 years and I get more than my fair share of passes. I know the geometry is off it's always been off. long before correction part were available.

Hey, they're no more effed up than my MP Stages were!