Cal Tonsley
Well-Known Member
Thanks for addressing the “down under thing” Mike, love your advice and work!
Rocker Arm help
- Thread starter Archeryguy02
- Start date
-
B3RE,
I never misstated ANYTHING that S. Yunick said. PROVE IT by reproducing the thread. You are now resorting to lying by making that statement, no other way to say it.
Apparently you did not bother to read your own link. If you had, you should have noticed that the description of the roller tip movement MIRRORS what I said in the last paragraph of post #47. Another poster in post #46 also agrees the Mancini rockers are too long, as I stated in post 47. The problem then becomes what can the OP do if he wants to use the M rockers; my statements/recommendations come from that starting point. There was another important statement in that link on rocker geometry: 'opinions vary'. You offered NOTHING as to a fix for the OPs problem except criticism of what I said.
And now that you have used this thread to do a hit-an-run attack on me to 'get even' because I criticised some of your writings [ apparently you can never be wrong, but I must be ]. Now you are going to run away & hide because you are 'too busy'. Not too busy to attack me. Well pal, I will NOT be running away. I still believe what I have posted in this thread is 1000% correct & I see nobody has offered an alternate view to you or that idiot Rat Bastid.
For the record: My name is Geoff. When I joined this forum, Geoff was taken so I had to make up a name.
I never misstated ANYTHING that S. Yunick said. PROVE IT by reproducing the thread. You are now resorting to lying by making that statement, no other way to say it.
Apparently you did not bother to read your own link. If you had, you should have noticed that the description of the roller tip movement MIRRORS what I said in the last paragraph of post #47. Another poster in post #46 also agrees the Mancini rockers are too long, as I stated in post 47. The problem then becomes what can the OP do if he wants to use the M rockers; my statements/recommendations come from that starting point. There was another important statement in that link on rocker geometry: 'opinions vary'. You offered NOTHING as to a fix for the OPs problem except criticism of what I said.
And now that you have used this thread to do a hit-an-run attack on me to 'get even' because I criticised some of your writings [ apparently you can never be wrong, but I must be ]. Now you are going to run away & hide because you are 'too busy'. Not too busy to attack me. Well pal, I will NOT be running away. I still believe what I have posted in this thread is 1000% correct & I see nobody has offered an alternate view to you or that idiot Rat Bastid.
For the record: My name is Geoff. When I joined this forum, Geoff was taken so I had to make up a name.
Rat Bastid,
Tell us about your vast rocker geometry experience that you claim is better than mine. I started in 1969 with a 1380cc Vee twin engine I designed. When did you start?
You are going to block me? Great, can you make that a promise!!
With all of your low rent criticism of me & where I live, it still doesn't change this fact: you are still wrong if you think the rocker in post #1 needs to be raised.
This is YOUR quote from post #41: "The shaft has to go UP & AWAY from the valve for it to be correct."
That would move the roller tip even closer to the valve tip edge on the exh side, when it needs to go in the other direction. 10000000000% wrong.
Notice nobody else has suggested raising the shaft? Hmm. It certainly wouldn't be because you are the sharpest knife in the drawer & got it right...
Tell us about your vast rocker geometry experience that you claim is better than mine. I started in 1969 with a 1380cc Vee twin engine I designed. When did you start?
You are going to block me? Great, can you make that a promise!!
With all of your low rent criticism of me & where I live, it still doesn't change this fact: you are still wrong if you think the rocker in post #1 needs to be raised.
This is YOUR quote from post #41: "The shaft has to go UP & AWAY from the valve for it to be correct."
That would move the roller tip even closer to the valve tip edge on the exh side, when it needs to go in the other direction. 10000000000% wrong.
Notice nobody else has suggested raising the shaft? Hmm. It certainly wouldn't be because you are the sharpest knife in the drawer & got it right...
Cal Tonsley
Well-Known Member
Not looking to wade into a hot discussion and I guess I’m ready to be told I’m wrong but my appreciation of Rats “Up & Away” direction is that this means raise and offset the shaft towards the intake manifold which to me would be the correct approach.
Last edited:
My set went up 0.225 (5.71mm) and then towards the intake 0.100 (2.54mm).
Best photo I have of them installed. Plus a couple photos of the spacers themselves.
Cal Tonsley
Well-Known Member
Here’s some before and after B3 shots from my build
Last edited:
mopowers
Well-Known Member
What heads and rockers are those?
Speed master heads, PRW stainless 1.5 rockers.
Carl.
That works on your set up. But there are important differences between your set up & post #1. Notice the 'angle' on your set up with valve closed. The angle: the angle from a line drawn upwards through the shaft centre & intersecting a line drawn from the valve tip [ contact point of the roller] & the shaft centre. Notice it is greater than 90*; & substantially greater than 90* & that is with a 1/4" spacer. With no spacer [ as installed configuration ], the angle would be even greater.
Now look at post #1. The angle with valve closed is just over 90*; the rocker needs to go down so that [a] the roller tip is better centered & the rocker starts off at a better angle for the start of the lift cycle. Fitting a 1/4" spacer under the shaft might centre up the roller/tip better, but now rocker will be at an extreme angle at max lift; valve lift will be lost also because of the arc it has to swing through. Prod interference is also possible, as I alluded to, earlier in this thread.
That works on your set up. But there are important differences between your set up & post #1. Notice the 'angle' on your set up with valve closed. The angle: the angle from a line drawn upwards through the shaft centre & intersecting a line drawn from the valve tip [ contact point of the roller] & the shaft centre. Notice it is greater than 90*; & substantially greater than 90* & that is with a 1/4" spacer. With no spacer [ as installed configuration ], the angle would be even greater.
Now look at post #1. The angle with valve closed is just over 90*; the rocker needs to go down so that [a] the roller tip is better centered & the rocker starts off at a better angle for the start of the lift cycle. Fitting a 1/4" spacer under the shaft might centre up the roller/tip better, but now rocker will be at an extreme angle at max lift; valve lift will be lost also because of the arc it has to swing through. Prod interference is also possible, as I alluded to, earlier in this thread.
lead69
hopeless car junkie
, as Harry would say, "a mans got to know his limitations"
Jeremiah (jd)
Well-Known Member
Lol what a thread.
Care you elaborate more on “cutting the heads”? Where does he say the shaft needs to go? I know Mike has plenty of experience with those heads and the different rocker combos. I assume you took the measurements he needs to determine that. Revealing that would put the kibosh to the back and forth of it needing to go up or down etc.
Archeryguy02
Well-Known Member
11.60's @ 115, but I haven't really tuned it to try and go faster. I run a 12.0 and slower sportsman class. With the secondaries on my 750 double pumper disconnected, short shifting at 5k, and a throttle stop out about 2 turns it runs 12.0-12.2 depending on air and launch rpm.
Archeryguy02
Well-Known Member
He said the shaft needs to up and towards the intake manifold. Mike has already posted here so I doubt this will put the kibosh on anything. The cutting the heads I was referring to was related to some of the speedmaster heads having saddles that are too wide and allow the shaft to move. This was discussed in comment #11-#20
Archeryguy02
Well-Known Member
Is that a B3 spacer kit? Did you check or correct your saddles for the rocker shaft to make sure they were correct?
Mostly rhetorical questions on my part. It’s been kiboshed as far as the majority here are concerned I believe
That's a b3 kit. I didn't notice an issue when I was putting my motor together, but I also wasn't checking, so it's possible that it got past me.
I've looked through all the photos from when I was building the motor, and I don't see any indications of a saddle issue as described by @replicaracer43.
I used to make the kits for the Speedmaster heads until bad things started to happen, and ONLY on the Speedmaster heads. I'm sure I did yours prior to that knowledge and experience. Keep an eye on the bolts that they are staying tight.
I have a brand-new set in the shop that looked like they had been corrected by Speedmaster when I took them out of the box, but after a closer look, they were incorrectly machined as well. Maybe @SSG Karg can chime in. He saw them firsthand. I think they came from the 2020 Black Friday sale, so they hadn't corrected them by that point, and I doubt they have yet.
These are just a few of the pics I have of damage caused by this issue. The end results of the bolts or studs working loose.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Yeah, I've had my kit for a few years now. replicaracer43 posted about his issues, but the pictures and explanation seemed contradictory (3/4" ball mill, but also too wide).
Can you give a better explanation of what you've seen wrong on the saddles? I need to pull the covers to check valve lash anyways, so I'll check that nuts on my hold down studs at the same time. But if I need to pull a set of rockers to measure something on the heads I will.
Maybe he misunderstood when I talked to him about it. Yes, they use something along the line of a 3/4" (19mm) end mill, but they step over and make a second pass to get the width, which is all over the place from head to head. The problem is it makes the radius shallow, and leaves a high spot, or stepover cusp, that the shaft can rock back and forth on. Aluminum is soft, so over time the high spot flattens out and the bolt tension relaxes and allows the bolts to loosen. That's when the bad stuff starts happening.
pishta
I know I'm right....
How important is this really? Im just curious to what will happen if he runs it?
Great, that makes sense. The way it was being described just didn't jive.
Does it seem like the width is consistent on each head (Like they're doing two passes, but they're doing the saddles in one operation) or is there inconsistency between saddles on the same head?
Would a check with a radius gauge be sufficient, or does it require a "feel" check with a shaft?
There is a member here who had a pretty stout stroker running Speedmaster heads who had a rockershaft hold down bolt(s) pull out and the actual shaft broke as well IIRC. Blamed it on the helicoils failing along with use of bolts instead of studs. I noticed on a set that passed through my garage a couple years ago that there was reduced oem bolt engagement into all the stands (not just the oiling stand in each head) as the threads were down in the bores of every stand. Throw in saddles incorrectly machined and it’s a recipe for disaster it seems, more so with higher spring pressures, lifts and rpm.
-
