If the lash cap will spin freely on some of the valves and not on others means the top of the valves are either different sizes or worn, mushroomed, correct?
If they are mushroomed take a good flat fine mill file or a good quality honing stone and get rid of the mushroom so all the lash caps fit freely on all the valves
I use lash caps to prevent damage to the valve tips, not to correct the geometry of the rocker arms to valve tip contact patterns
If the rocker arm contact tip is not contacting the center of the valve tip and sweeping across the tip properly you need a better fitting set of rocker arms, correct
Years ago I bought a bunch of W2 steel and aluminum stands to be able to mill the rocker arm stands off of BB heads and use the W2 stands to correct the height and location of the single shaft rocker arm available back then.
I ended up hearing about Rocker Arm Specials (before using the W2 stands) who will correct the rocker arm location and tip contact problems with bushings and relocating the adjuster positions and relocating the rocker arm tip contact location on the original ductile iron rocker arms we use to use.
Later on I started buying new aluminum roller rocker arms from Crane and Harland Sharp, I was thrilled that the Harland Sharps didn't need fixing on the their roller tip contact patterns to the stock valves on the stock iron heads like the other brand after market rocker arms did
Mopar use to hold drag racing seminars back before they went bankrupt in 1980, they recommended a rocker arm contact pattern to the valves on all of their Mopar V8 motors of starting on the inner third of the valve tip when the valve was closed and having the rocker arm tip slide across the center of the valve stem to the outer third of the valve tip, basically around .100 wide, before trying to correct it
I continue to use that as my guide on rocker arm tip to valve stem geometry
I have one of my drag race motors with a set of Jesel paired shaft rocker arm set up on a set of Indy 440-1 heads
My next high effort motor has a set of B1-MC heads with the original single shaft 1.7 ratio rocker arm set up, that set up will be discarded in favor of either a T&D paired shaft ductile iron rocker arm with 1.7 ratio set up or the same set up from Jesel.
Those kits are adjustable on the stand heights to get the best contact pattern on the valve tips to the valve stems
They are not cheap though
EDITED,It is good that someone like Mike at B3RE has taken the time and effort to make a adapter kit that allows guys to use it to fix the stock stuff so it works better with any rocker arms

Cab,

I'm not trying to marginalize your accomplishments or experiences, and I don't want, or have the time, to get into a cat fight over this subject. But, 1980? We have full bodied bracket cars these days running faster than ProStock cars did in 1980. Almost 20 years after that, in 1999, Chrysler Race Engineering MANDATED that their NASCAR teams use the valvetrain geometry I use today. It's not a new concept. If everything today was done like 1980, we would still have 1980 results. If you are holding true to 1980's technology, then you can't use -1 heads, or B1MC heads for a build, because I don't believe they existed in 1980. If I'm wrong about that, I stand corrected, because a historian I'm not. I highly doubt Jesel or T&D had paired rocker systems at that time for heads that likely didn't exist.

If anyone one understands the concept of geometry from a true mathematical perspective, they know that a centered pattern has nothing to do with the mechanical functions of the valvetrain. After all, the only purpose of a rocker arm is to transfer the cam lobe information to open the valve at a specified ratio. It, by nature, is an inefficient design, but not having the geometry correct makes it that much more inefficient, as well as unstable.

Another point, if the lash caps are protecting the valve tips from damage, they should not be mushrooming or wearing. The fact is, a lash cap, especially with a very wide sweep, will ever so slightly rock back and forth across the valve tip and cause that erosion or mushrooming to occur. It would have to be a press fit for that to not happen. In instances where a lash cap is mandatory, ie small stem diameters or titanium valves w/o hard tips, having a tight, narrow sweep helps the valves live longer from the minimized rocking. This is also an instance where having the pattern perfectly centered is critical. Without a cap, it has no rocking and centering is not as important.

From an engineering perspective, none of the off the shelf roller rockers have proper design geometry, and certainly can not be simply bolted on the head and go. Harlan Sharp rockers are actually one of the most egregious examples, and I avoid them if possible. Any motor worth spending money on good parts, is worth an equally good custom rocker to correct the compromises in design of the off the shelf stuff.

The paired rocker systems you mentioned are indeed expensive, but the expense doesn't stop there. They have to be pushrod oiled, or spray bar oiled, which is going to involve additional parts and machining. That's why I focus on the single shaft system, to keep the costs in check for guys who don't want or need to go through the extra effort. Which begs the question, if it's ok to buy a paired system and ADJUST it, why is it so far fetched to adjust a single shaft system? I once had a guy working on a small block street motor tell me "It doesn't have to have geometry as good as a Jesel", and my answer was "Why not?". If you can get geometry as good as a Jesel with a budget rocker, seriously, why wouldn't you?

Cab, I'm just trying to help people not have valvetrain issues and failures. If the way you build your stuff works for you, I wish you well. But, if someone doesn't think my solution is viable, I'm all ears. I don't know everything, but I know logic when I see it, and I haven't heard a logical argument yet on why my valvetrain solution is wrong. But, technology changes. Maybe I'll find something better one day. If I do, you can bet I'll be all over it.

Some of us old dog take longer to learn new stuff, some don't
Dominic loves your kit he used
Your correct on the parts available today versus what was available back when I started drag racing and trying go faster with the NHRA stocker cars
The stroker 400 motor I have in my car now has the Jesel paired shaft system on the used heads I bought for it, they are 1.55 ratio, not what I would have bought new. This motor rotates over by hand a bunch differently on the engine stand than any other motor I've assemble with similar valve spring pressures.
Its to bad the Mopar drag group didn't mention the problems and solutions on the single shaft systems in the 1978/1979 seminars when Bob Glidden was racing the W2 motors for them
I am looking forward to making the all new B1-MC with a good rocker arm set up on it to see how much more power it will make compared to the first B1 headed motor I made with a set of Harland Sharp 1.65 ratio single shaft system on it

It's all good, Cab. I had to spend a lot of money for a formal education to get out of the box I had put myself into.

I believe they were pretty tight lipped back then about what they did with Glidden's ProStock motor. Or, it's possible they didn't know what they know now. I do know even Mopar didn't like to admit something they had no control over. Since every engine is different, the geometry requirements will be different between them, and that is something no manufacturer can account for, the engine builder has to do it. But, they still want to sell parts, so they have to make it sound like they have it all figured out and you can just bolt stuff together. Every engine builder knows that isn't true. If that were the case, there would be no professional engine builders, and anyone could buy an engine kit, slam it all together, and it would be perfect.

The Jesel system you have is telling you something. If the motor turns over more freely, and everything else is pretty much the same, then the valve train is binding or experiencing more friction in the non Jesel motor. It's something to think about. Good luck with the B1 motor. I hope you see a big improvement!

My comment wasn't based on the OD of the spring being larger than the retainer; the retainers are shifted over to one side of the springs (inconsistent overhang around the perimeter of the retainer) which tells me the retainer fit is really sloppy on that spring.

It could be. I just can't tell for sure from the pic. Definitely should be snug, if it isn't now.

I caught an approaching and nearly catastrophic failure of my valvetrain on my 493" RB a few years back during a routine inspection of my valvetrain. All my exhaust roller bearings in my T&D rockers were at some stage of being completely blown out. It was a mystery for a few weeks as to how that could be occurring only on my exhaust rockers.

I contacted Dwayne Porter, and he quickly deduced that my intake pushrods were being dampened by ever so lightly touching the intake port castings on my Indy EZ heads. He also reviewed my original dyno sheet and pinpointed the rpm at which my valve springs lost control of my valve train at about 5800rpm. I had been running a hydraulic roller, and Dwayne found that the root cause of my dilemma was that the valve spring installed height was slightly incorrect resulting in lower than recommended seat pressure and that the springs had also lost some tension.

Dwayne went through my heads cleaned up some epoxy work on the intake port ceilings (non-Max Wedge port openings) and changed all my hard parts. He also discussed the limits of the hydraulic roller lifters available to Mopar, which lead me to switching to a solid roller cam and spring set for my combination. I went with the non-needle bearing Isky rollers. While I was at it, Dwayne helped me with the calculations to swap out my 12.2 to 1, flat top Ross pistons for a weight matched set of reverse dome 10.2 to 1 Ross pistons. The things only weigh 528grams, so it was at the limit of Ross to pull off the fresh set, but they nailed it.


I then contacted Mike at B# Racing and had him review my valve train geometry. Mike sent me a kit and ordered me a set of custom T&D roller rockers. I also upgraded to an upsized set of Manton Stage 5 set of 7/16's " pushrods.

Now that the motor has been all back together and running for over a year now, I can say that an entire magnitude of vibrational harmonics is gone from this new build. It runs and rev's so much smoother than any thing I have ever run before. It's astonishing how much harmonic vibration has been eliminated from this motor.

I can only speculate that since the only thing that has been altered aside from an exact same weight piston is the valve train set-up, geometry correction and components. It is actually pretty amazing how much smoother the motor rev's. Food for thought.

I'm glad you posted pictures. That's a bunch of correction. That's how far off you were and it's NOT your fault. I blame all the people who fight about correct geometry at every turn. They talk about how their [censored] has been running for years and how they've always done it blah blah blah. Correct is correct. I'm glad Porter helped you out. He doesn't miss much.


I can tell you that my personal junk has about that much correction. I was stunned. I knew it was wrong, but that's a long ways off. I'd bet lots of money there are way more out there that are wrong than heads that are correct. And it's a damn shame people put up with this [censored].

I like T&D but they will tell you the same thing...there stuff is bolt on and will work. Any time the rocker shaft placement is fixed, you can bet it's most likely wrong. Statistically it has to be wrong way more than its correct.

I'm glad you caught it all before you had a serious problem.