More details re the above CAD diagrams for Hughes 1.6 BB rockers measurements taken w/ soft checking spring:

B - Std shaft location "low pivot geo"
- Sweep: 085” & centered
- T&D cup adjuster w/ 9.575" OAL pushrod
- 1st half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .348 = 1.629
- 2nd half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .332 = 1.554
- OA ratio = .680 / .4272 = 1.592; ratio change = -.075

D- B3RE shaft relocation for mid-lift geo at net .650"
- Sweep: 045” & slightly inboard of centered
- T&D cup adjuster w/ 9.795" OAL pushrod
- 1st half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .339 = 1.587
- 2nd half cam lift (.2136) / valve lift .328 = 1.536
- OA ratio = .667 / .4272 = 1.561; ratio change = -.051

Estimated loaded ratio loss at peak lift based on prior measurements w/ 600# open load springs: ~ .05

'A' OA estimated loaded ratio ~ 1.54
'B' OA estimated loaded ratio ~ 1.51

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In case anyone reads this the wrong way, I'm NOT "blaming" Hughes for this. Hughes' rockers were made for years by Probe Industries, and this is the same basic design that Probe had before Hughes started selling their rockers. When Probe quit -- or sold off -- its rocker business, I believe Hughes picked up Probe's tooling, etc., and has continued to make them using the same design.

Could Hughes redesign their rockers? Sure, if Dave & Co. thinks it's a problem. I'm guessing he doesn't, so they'll likely stay the same. I've run 'em successfully on a couple of builds, but I didn't understand the nature of their ratio / geometry "quirks" until I did all of my before & after checks w/ the B3RE kit.