Schubeck Lifter Update

Cam · 08-19-2007, 08:41 PM

I hate to ask a potentially dumb question but here goes; Assuming your cam is optimized and your not trying to reduce net duration by increasing lash, except to ensure the valve is closed on the base circle why have any lash at all? Trying to keep cylinder pressure longer by delaying the valve event at super low lift then wacking it open at a more aggressive point in the curve?
It would seem that more lash would result in greater damaging harmonics from impacting. Everythng gets hit with a more agressive hammer. With the Schubeck lifter cermic puck there seems to be no practical limit ( stock diameter single springs, <500 pounds over the nose) to spring pressure when lash is very tight. But hit them once too often and they will fail with predictable results.
Cam

08-19-2007, 08:41 PM	#35
Cam Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Prince George, BC, Canada Posts: 83 Likes: 6 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Schubeck Lifter Update I hate to ask a potentially dumb question but here goes; Assuming your cam is optimized and your not trying to reduce net duration by increasing lash, except to ensure the valve is closed on the base circle why have any lash at all? Trying to keep cylinder pressure longer by delaying the valve event at super low lift then wacking it open at a more aggressive point in the curve? It would seem that more lash would result in greater damaging harmonics from impacting. Everythng gets hit with a more agressive hammer. With the Schubeck lifter cermic puck there seems to be no practical limit ( stock diameter single springs, <500 pounds over the nose) to spring pressure when lash is very tight. But hit them once too often and they will fail with predictable results. Cam