Roller Rockers in Stock

[Dave Ribeiro]

Jeff + SSDiv 6,

Do we really need more changes now ? I have to agree with Todd, why did we vote for Reps? If NHRA or the players are going to continue to change the rules.. Lets stop all the rule changes and give the reps a chance to do something... Lets start to do a better job of enforcing the current rules , then see if we need some changes.. Between heads, pushrods, carbs, intakes and everything else that's been changed resently, I think we need a break and step back and look at what we are doing to stock... Do we really need all those aftermarket
parts, or are trying to make things too easy ?

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Dave Ribeiro

Jeff + SSDiv 6,

Do we really need more changes now ? I have to agree with Todd, why did we vote for Reps? If NHRA or the players are going to continue to change the rules.. Lets stop all the rule changes and give the reps a chance to do something... Lets start to do a better job of enforcing the current rules , then see if we need some changes.. Between heads, pushrods, carbs, intakes and everything else that's been changed resently, I think we need a break and step back and look at what we are doing to stock... Do we really need all those aftermarket
parts, or are trying to make things too easy ?

Dave, like I said before, I am not advocating the allowance of roller rockers. All I did was explain the reason why the request is being made by others that are experiencing rocker arm failures and the technical reasons why the rocker arms are failing. The quality of replacement parts is no longer there. With the globalization of the economy, and the manufacturing of parts overseas, we are getting inferior replacement/over the counter parts. As an example, how many good lifter companies are there left? Look at the amount of camshaft failures many are experiencing even with street use camshafts. That is the reason why I pay more for parts: I would rather pay 3 times more and get a quality Crower rod than a CAT or Eagle rod made in China.

[Jeff Lee]

I sure would like to think I could pick up the phone to Glendora and get rules changed to my liking but clearly, that is not the case. Regarding the disk break rule, I may have been more vocal (publicly), but many other's, including the manufacturer's, were for it. My 125 MPH D/S car and other's approaching or exceeding 130 MPH were quickly finding the limitations of OEM brakes. Would you suggest they were going to fast and just needed to slow down? I originally raced with drum brakes then progressed to disk brakes / drum (OEM) on my car. I could tell in the shut-down area more than the track when the engine was making more power, every two MPH increment made it noticeably harder to slow down the car. And when you are finally pumping the brakes to the last turn-off, keeping in mind trhere's a line between slowing from a high speed and not glazing / warping the brakes, you realize change may be neccessary.

Regarding solid lifters in Stock, I sure was vocal on that issue. Keep in mind I feel I have a right to be as vocal as I choose as I'm a member and racer in NHRA and this is a public forum. I know some feel this is just a great place for race kudo's and birthday club greeting's, but I see it as a place to voice concern's or implement opinion on change.
So on solid lifter's....nobody has yet to explain to me why it's OK to allow $500-$850 lifter's in Stock that are "quasi-hydraulic" (meaning they do nothing in resemblance to a hydraulic other than have a mere .015" plunger travel) when a $79.00 set of solid lifters will perform identically at a 962.50% savings to the racer. No, Jeff wasn't after easier or cheaper as I had already been down that road and spent thousands on various Sherman, Scubeck, Chilled-iron and modified OEM style lifters. I was after being reasonable and using logic to make it easier on everybody else.

As mentioned previously on this thread, every aspect of the Stock valve-train has been upgraded to acceptable by NHRA except the rocker arm. But hold on. That's not entirely true. Chrysler racers have enjoyed the use of Isky ductile iron adjustable rockers for years on all V-8 engines. Ford Clevland & 429/460 racers have been using roller bearing rocker folcrum's in Stock for years. Both examples having never been assembly line installed as an OEM part as required by NHRA. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Following the logic which allowed Isky rockers on the MOPAR's, the SBF (289/302/351W) racer's should be allowed the use of SVT aluminum roller rockers in Stock as it was an OEM rocker on the '93 Cobra engine. Could the same argument apply to the SBC as the LT4 and LS family utilizes roller rockers?
So there are two issues as far as I am concerned. One is equality. If MOPAR racer's enjoy superior non-OEM rockers, then so should everybody else. Second, if NHRA allows basically a stock-lift Superstock valve-train from the rocker arm on down, then finish the job. (Alan, I believe the Holyrod stud is Stainless or other quality material). In my opinion it should be all stock (valve-train) or all modified at the racer's discretion with limitations that the installation resemble OEM construction, i.e., any stud mounted or shaft rocker arm as applicable to OEM installation standards.
And for those that have found the magic solution already, great, good job. The proposal is not that roller rockers should be mandatory, just an alternative. Same with taperd, large diameter pushrods, and guide-plates, and beehive springs, and Schubecks....

[Paul Precht]

The Isky ductile iron adjustable rockers have no advantage over the stock Max rockers. Both measure around 1.47. I have two sets of these and still run the same 1963 rockers I got with a stock Max engine in 72, Paul.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Paul Precht

The Isky ductile iron adjustable rockers have no advantage over the stock Max rockers. Both measure around 1.47. I have two sets of these and still run the same 1963 rockers I got with a stock Max engine in 72, Paul.

Don't forget your MOPAR buddies that also get to run the Isky parts as a replacement to their 318/340/360 engines factory equipped with stamped steel rockers. I think you would agree there is a considerable durability advantage in using those Isky's over stamped rockers.

[Alan Roehrich]

Jeff, Holroyd's rockers are STOCK GM, the studs and adjusters are similar in material to the ARP rocker studs.

We can get by with the 7/16" stuff, there are even some fast cars still using 7/16" rockers. What we broke 2 years ago at Gainesville was an ARP rocker stud, it broke at the base of the threads. I was going to upgrade to the ARP Pro Series studs when a friend turned me on to Holroyd's stuff.

The rockers themselves will still fail the same as the 7/16" rockers, ask a couple of the real fast guys.

If you are willing to replace the rocker studs often enough (the ARP Pro Series studs are $100 or so) you can run the stock diameter studs and rockers. You MAY lose a little to deflection.

NHRA allows all engines to run aftermarket studs, and even convert to screw in studs when they were not originally equipped.

Some big block Chevy high performance engines came with 7/16" pushrods. We (as well as most I know) currently use 7/16" straight pushrods and GM guide plates.

Again, I'd LOVE to see a solution for the rocker problem so that guys with the less popular stuff could go buy good parts for a fair price. I DO NOT want to see cars parked.

However, allowing roller rockers will absolutely bring about serious unintended consequences, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

However, allowing roller rockers will absolutely bring about serious unintended consequences, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

As long as they do not allow shaft type rocker arms in applications that were not OEM configuration, and they do not allow stud girdles, then there will not be any measurable gain in power, just reliability.

[Dwight Southerland]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Jeff, Holroyd's rockers are STOCK GM, the studs and adjusters are similar in material to the ARP rocker studs.

However, allowing roller rockers will absolutely bring about serious unintended consequences, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Alan -

Your argument on the basis of logic whows a bias toward yourself, as well as most of the arguments presented here. Just because "Holroyd's rockers" are available from GM doesn't mean anything; GM is more capable of producing high quality race parts than aftermarket suppliers (more budget, bigger staff, bigger economic base to absorb R&D costs and a product that will make no profit.) Before the new rule revision, you BBC racers enjoyed an advantage of being able to cross breed some factory race parts that were never specified as even replacement parts for the engine combinations you are racing. So it is with most engine combinations, especially when you get into the higher classes that require engines that produce enough power and RPM to exceed the capability of OEM, assembly line specified parts. Allowing roller rocker arms at this point willl make so little difference in the playing field (unless you are afraid of some of the engine combinations mentioned that use shaft rockers) and will provide a way to eliminate breakage for you and everybody else.

It's the open valve spring rule and the elimination of requiring stock duration that is killing the budget for stock cars, not roller rocker arms or big push rods. If you had to retain stock valve spring pressure, rocker arm breakage is not a big issue, and there would be no 8000 RPM+ engines.

[Dirk Olson]

For what it is worth. I had never broke a rocker until last week broke two warming the car in shop to check springs and lash and this last weekend in Brainerd broke two more. I was lucky and did not explode a lifter and did not hurt motor? Lost some ET and MPH pulling motor to check it out. So with that being said, if we we had a vote, count me in.