I stated above that the T&Ds were never tested on the dyno or the track. The engine was dynoed with the Hughes rockers and I purchased the T&Ds afterwards.

I measured the T&Ds and the Hughes as described above. I have a high level of confidence that my measurements are accurate given the context in which they were taken, from the repeatability of the #s, and the fact that the CAD simulations Mike Beachel ran only varied from my data by .002-.003" max lift.

The response I got from Sheldon at T&D was that they over-ratio their rockers; even my soft spring measurements showed this was not the case for my rockers. There's no geometry issue and no flex issue, it's what they measured.

Cab Burge didn't go into details, but mentioned seeing something similar with a single-shaft system he checked. Andy said T&D made a mistake where his 1.70 rockers measured 1.65 loaded; seems like they have made this mistake more than once. Regardless, there is a lack of consistency somewhere.

I asked my question because I wanted to know if what I found was typical of others' experiences. The answer appears to be "it depends."

You don't like my findings or disagree with my methods? No problem. However, coming up with your own -- rather than simply pi$$ing on mine -- would add more value.