Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734136
01/18/20 12:15 PM
01/18/20 12:15 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174
PA.
|
Hey don’t blame me because you own a fat car. Lmao 😂. What's the tin can weigh, anyway? I was wondering if we switched engines whose car would pick up and whose would slow down. I’ll just say I’m a racer that races almost every week (7 months a year) at the track for the last 46 years or so. I have never raced a car that weights more than 3200 pounds as I want to go as fast as I can, on a budget, with zero tricks on fancy gadgets. It would be stupid for me to race a FAT car and I never will. If you want to line up, let’s go. Are you afraid to admit how light your car is??? I’ve mentioned it several times over the years. 2880 with me in it. At one time it was 2550 with my son driving, fiberglass doors, and a few other items I changed out to make it more oldman friendly. If you want to go big block against big block that can be arranged too. Wh me the last time you even ran a car at the track. I hope this build makes it off the dyno alive for you.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2734158
01/18/20 12:38 PM
01/18/20 12:38 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,041 Mt Morris Michigan
mopar dave
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,041
Mt Morris Michigan
|
Over all those T&D's I sold you worked pretty good on my pump gas 408 with a half ass tune. 10.38@131 in my 3300# car off a foot brake.
Last edited by mopar dave; 01/18/20 12:52 PM.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734161
01/18/20 12:42 PM
01/18/20 12:42 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174
PA.
|
This thread has officially derailed... I'm good. P.S. Jeezus, PBR, you are soooooo easy to bait. Lol. You didn’t bait me. I’ve been shutting guys up for years.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: mopar dave]
#2734192
01/18/20 01:36 PM
01/18/20 01:36 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,195 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,195
Bend,OR USA
|
On or off the motor the only way I know of to measure actual valve lift is with a dial indictor on the retainers, that is IF you know the cam lobe lift so you can do the math on the ratios. I use zero lash when checking valve lift, you can do it either way though with or without the lash Cam timing at the valve you need the lash your going to use Don't forget that all the cam timing and valve lift specs are based on the lobe , not at the valve retainers except for the gross lift
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 01/18/20 08:19 PM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734199
01/18/20 01:45 PM
01/18/20 01:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,680 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,680
Wichita
|
The Mental Mastubation Nationals! Spell Check on Aisle 1, please! They say you go blind from it, so that's my excuse! Fiksed.
'63 Dodge 330 11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs. 10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fbs63]
#2734200
01/18/20 01:54 PM
01/18/20 01:54 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734207
01/18/20 02:07 PM
01/18/20 02:07 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174
PA.
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket. Most of us are street n strip or bracket guys. I worry more about durability than I do about a well made product costing me .020 cam lift. I could Dick around with an engine forever making it perfect on the engine stand but I would rather be out having fun at the track. I’ll pick up more being on the track tuning than I lost from cam lift.
Last edited by pittsburghracer; 01/18/20 02:08 PM.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734210
01/18/20 02:11 PM
01/18/20 02:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio?
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2734321
01/18/20 09:21 PM
01/18/20 09:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio? You'd be surprised. It does take much. And, once you load the rocker I doesn't change worth more load up to the point of failure.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2734322
01/18/20 09:24 PM
01/18/20 09:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
So after all of this measuring , losing, gaining lift I ask. What was the difference at the track? Or was it never track tested? Doug This exactly! All I'm saying is with the shaft spaced up and over like that there is NO way it stays still. ONLY way I would ever correct geometry would be to mill the stands off and make new ones that TOTALLY surround the shaft. W2's were a good example. I would bet some of your lift loss is from flex in the studs. So it's ok to make a rocker with a said 1.6 ratio but it's not 1.6? That's what i call JUNK. As Brad posted above even T&D will tell you ALL rockers FLEX. Every. Single. Brand. Always. Of the rocker is designed correctly, that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. T&D screwed up. That's just a simple fact. The other simple fact is what happens under load now? The rocker was already down on ratio, and now you load it and put some RPM to it. You lose even more ratio. Why settle for something made incorrectly? Chrysler people just awe me with what they tolerate from the aftermarket. Most of us are street n strip or bracket guys. I worry more about durability than I do about a well made product costing me .020 cam lift. I could Dick around with an engine forever making it perfect on the engine stand but I would rather be out having fun at the track. I’ll pick up more being on the track tuning than I lost from cam lift. I agree 100%. That doesn't change the fact the rocker wasn't built correctly. I have no doubt the rocker would have functioned. I want what I pay for. If ou follow that line of thinking, the rocker could measure 1.55 ratio, or less and been ok. At what point do you send the junk back?
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734607
01/19/20 07:08 PM
01/19/20 07:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,050 Shelby Twp. Mi
HardcoreB
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,050
Shelby Twp. Mi
|
that rocker will be over the nominal ratio so that under LOAD the rocker will have the nominal ratio. At what load does the rocker go from too much ratio to the “correct” ratio? You'd be surprised. It does take much. And, once you load the rocker I doesn't change worth more load up to the point of failure. This is consistent with my findings....I assumed a typo and you meant DOESN'T take much. I don't remember the exact number but it was around 400lbs to full system deflection which was about .027" loss. (difference between checking spring and real spring on a TD shaft system 7/16'' pushrods) typically the TD that I have checked were as described by design with about .02 'extra' ratio. However the shaft system I am speaking of above is LABELED/STAMPED 1.5 and it measures nearer 1.6 unloaded. Because of the placement angle of the adjuster running the longest pushrod possible increases the ratio slightly as well. The paired-rocker system deflection was about the same amount of lift loss as well.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734805
01/20/20 10:17 AM
01/20/20 10:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
|
OP
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate.
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: BradH]
#2734866
01/20/20 12:34 PM
01/20/20 12:34 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457 Washington
madscientist
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,457
Washington
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate. I get that. Again, my question is how far off can the be before they are junk and you send them back? I have a set of Chinese rockers. They are 1.6 ratio. I forget what they are unloaded, but loaded, they are exactly 1.6. If PRW can hit the mark, I'd expect companies with a much higher price point to beat least as good. To me, that is junk. It's nice T&D offered to take them back. They were not correct. They were made defective. That means junk to me.
Just because you think it won't make it true. Horsepower is KING. To dispute this is stupid. C. Alston
|
|
|
Re: T&D rocker ratio loss when loaded
[Re: madscientist]
#2734886
01/20/20 01:16 PM
01/20/20 01:16 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,174
PA.
|
At what point do you send the junk back? Just to be clear, they were (are) not "junk". The ratio measurements were the only thing I was looking to validate. I get that. Again, my question is how far off can the be before they are junk and you send them back? I have a set of Chinese rockers. They are 1.6 ratio. I forget what they are unloaded, but loaded, they are exactly 1.6. If PRW can hit the mark, I'd expect companies with a much higher price point to beat least as good. To me, that is junk. It's nice T&D offered to take them back. They were not correct. They were made defective. That means junk to me. For all we know was the rocker ratio off, or the guy checking it??? Was it set at zero lash exactly or was there a fudge factor. Hmmmm
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
|
|