Have a set of 1.6s on my engine.

Going from SFT to solid roller. Dwayne Porter said to make sure they would handle 600ish lbs open.

Called HS, tech said bodies are good to 1200 lbs open pressure, but, anything over 600 lbs pressure he likes to see extra attention to oil flow to the rockers, or use a rocker with bearings.

Asked the tech if grooving the shaft would be sufficient, he thought it would be a good idea, but would not give a yes or no answer.

Has anyone been running these rockers on a roller cam setup? If so, any insight to how the shafts/ pivot openings are holding up?

Having to buy new rockers and shafts are a deal breaker for my build. I want to go roller, but it seems like the budget is on a steep trajectory. I'm not sure the gains are going to be worth the price.

Any input appreciated.

I ran a flat tappet for years with no problems what so ever. The next engine I bought already had a roller cam with Harland Sharp rockers on it. Lots of maintainence always checking springs and making sure the lifters are still good. I have given this current roller cam its last chance with this season. If I have problems its all going in the trash and will be putting the flat tappet back in. Birdtracker

I took out a roller and put in a solid flat Dwayne spec'd for me. I called Harland 2-3 months ago and asked about spring pressures and the tech told me. No more than 500 lbs of load, he said "although some people do anyway", but they don't recommend it". They designed them around flat tappets and hydraulic rollers. He said they'll probably live awhile with more but for longevity, they'll be a good rocker in the 400-500 lb of spring.

HS are the only rocker on the market that use roller bearings (other than Jesel maybe). I can't think of any brand that bush the rockers. Yet guys run roller cams with other brands of rockers all the time. HS make a good rocker, I wouldn't hesitate to use them with a roller cam. I'd run a really good shaft though and absolutely make sure the top end is getting plenty of oil.

There’s always the option of running a cam that uses a milder profile that could live with less spring.
This could be applied to a SFT as well.

Everything is a trade off on a a street/strip car.

HS makes the bushed rockers exclusively for Mancini Racing. My personal thoughts are they are stronger and better on the street application than the roller type.

Gus

The Mancini rockers are not bushed - they are real good quality though - I have a set of the 1.5's on a solid tappet cam. I will say they are not as beefy as the HS roller rocker

FWIW, the old Crane Golds, which also just ran the aluminum body directly on the shaft, were rated for 600lbs open load.

I've never personally seen a set but this statement surprises me. Seems to me it would have been cost effective to use the same rocker forging and just not put bearings in it !!

Aluminum rockers are generally extrusions

Not looking to start an argument BUT if you look closely at all the rounded edges and shapes of a HS rocker it would involve a ton of machining processes, none of which are evident other than the final bores and tapping. This to me is evidence of forging. Other manufacturers are clearly using extrusions as evidenced by the sharp edges left after machining.

Check their website out.

Extrusions.

A trip through the tumble bath removes those sharp edges.

I did but couldn't find any info like that.

ok
For the record I sell them also but that said, to the original poster. We have them on our own 700 lift roller motors for almost 2 complete seasons of hard bracket racing with no issues to report so far. Would I run them on a BIG roller, no that is either Jesel or T/D. But under 700 lift so far so good. I would also say that the roller rockers are good for 750ish lift. NOW
Randy Jr himself (the big man at Harland Sharp) said he would not suggest them on cams as big as we are running but think of us as the test mules.
Todd

I've been using MP 1.6 rocker arms on a solid roller with 750lbs on the nose for the past 5 seasons. I've been considering the Mancini HS rocker arms too after we had a minor fail at the start of our current season. The fail wasn't the rocker arms fault but the cup on the Comp Cams pushrod split & munched a rocker arm. Since I've had such a good run from the MP rockers, I figured the HS must be better, right? That said I'm thinking maybe they have a 5 year life before I add fresh ones or should I just blow my budget & get the roller versions?

From the Home page, click on the. “ Advantage “ or the image of a bar chart.

In my opinion, ( and I happen to know quite a lot about the design of that particular rocker,long story) , I would stay at the no more than, 600-650# range. Crane Golds ( as noted, they were " designed" for 600#) served a purpose, just as these rockers serve a purpose, but they weren't meant to replace a set of rockers designed for large , or bigger roller cams. Everything has a limit. "Hoping" that a lesser designed product will work for a larger designed application is a flaw in strategy....lol...and there will ALWAYS be a couple applications, where people have done this, and done that, and get away with it. What you DONT hear, is when it fails. No one wants to admit that usually. When it fails, it often takes other valuable components with it. Those stories are often kept silent. So, can you? Sure. Good idea? Perhaps not. For the record, the Harland Rockers ARE extrusions, and then go thru a process of deburring etc, as most extrusions due, to limit stress risers and well, to make them look nicer.

I tested the MRE rocker arms along with HS, RAS, T&D and some others on my 470 engine. I was using a solid roller with roughly 0.700 lift. All of the rocker arms I tested worked just fine on the dyno. They all made roughly the same amount of power for the dyno test. I ended up keeping the T&D rockers for the dyno engine and I put the RAS rockers on my street car. For a big roller cam I recommend the T&D rockers. If you can't afford the good rocker arms then either run a smaller cam or be prepared to replace busted parts down the road. If the roller cam is in the 0.600 range then the less expensive rockers should be okay for a few seasons.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/

And if you read the article closely you'll see that I spent a ton of money on rocker arms, pushrods, dyno testing, etc. and didn't find any power. That was a lot of work for not much to show.

I've seen a 8 HP gain with a 300 RPM increase to peak HP by changing the 3/8 ball and cup .083 Smith Bros. pushrods to a set of Manton 3/8x.120 wall series 3 pushrods. I did this after having one of the Smith Bros pushrods bend and break in the middle of that pushrod due to a visible flaw in the metal at the fail point
I had ordered and paid for 3/8 x .120 wall from Smith Bros and didn't know they had made them from .083 tubing until I took it back to them This was on a roller cam stroker motor that had 250 Lbs. on the seats and right at 700 Lbs. over the nose, the pushrod fail after 10 or 12 pulls at 5600 RPM. It bent the next one to it, #1 intake broke in half, the upper half drop into the lifter bore after the Crower roller lifter broke the tie bar and was thrown out of the lifter bore, the broken piece damage the cam lobe
Sorry for the hijack.
My first bracket motor in my S/P car had a set of Harland Sharp 1.65 single shaft rocker arms on it with 325 Lbs. on the seats and 840 Lbs. over the nose. The Heads were a set of Eddy Victor M.W. ports that came with a set of Hughes 1.6 ratio Cyro treated extruded roller tip rocker arms, the adjusters in them were to soft and ended up failing, coming loose Even after replacing the adjusters with a set of heat treated set from Manton No failures with the Harland Sharp rockers with a lot of runs on them
The current bracket motor in the car has a set of paired shaft Jesels 1.55 ratio, they are working real well

The lengths, ratios, spring rates, etc. for the B/RB have a variable missing that affects whether this information translates into another engine type.
The range of rocker arm angle with a specific lift is most productive when the long (valve side) lever is passing through the mid-range of lift with the lever arm as close to 90° to the stem axis. Duh!
This range is greater when the valve lever arm is relatively short (not directly a component of ratio): the lever points closer to straight up & down at zero and full lift. This also applies a strong thrust vector against the adjuster.
What is safe with a 1.65" rocker (B) is less so with a 1.40" rocker (SBM). If you have different length measurements please post them?