Harney's diatribe - rocker geometry to install & beyond

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:50 pm

Man.. it's a lotta work to clearance by hand. I ground, rounded, and semi polished. It's not the prettiest, but it's all smoothed, and everything clears by about 0.100 or better.

CB 76 crank plus totally stock rods. I was surprised at how much material I had to take in some places. Some places needed about 1/8" or maybe a little more. I did it all with a Dremel since I don't have a die grinder. Next time I am buying a die grinder before I do it.

Tom Simon · Post by **Tom Simon** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:33 pm

PSSSSSssssttt......

Dude, do yourself a favor, call Mario Tavers at Pauter, tell him what you are trying to do and buy a single 1.4 rocker arm. If it doesn't work I'll buy the rocker arm from you!!!

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:10 pm

Tom,

I already had a set of them and I got rid of them because of the oiling issue. Thanks though.

Tom Simon · Post by **Tom Simon** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:53 pm

mharney wrote:Tom,

I already had a set of them and I got rid of them because of the oiling issue. Thanks though.

Oh yea, I remeber the famous thread (that had me rolling my eyes and almost laughing) about pauter rockers suposedly having somesort of oil problems... Gotta love the internet, for all it's good and bad. I'll just say I have never had such an issue in 5 years and literally hundreds of laps down the quarter mile nor ever talked to any experienced racer with that issue. But then again, we all read it here, so it must be true

if you don't take any advice I have offed at all, llisten to this: dig your heels in and don't give up until you have it solved. Regardless of who's advice you choose to take, unless you are running big spring pressures, pretty close is probably good enough. Trial and error with sample parts can be a pretty good way to solve for rocker geometry sometimes. Good luck man

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:59 pm

Heck, I didn't know the thread was famous!

The racers can deal with it because they run full on down the track. Anyone that runs lower rpms on the street a lot is a probably more subject to the problem. I may reconsider them if I can't make something else work.

I appreciate your advice, however. I'll get back to it when I can afford to start buying parts to solve the problem. Right now, I am a little frustrated, and will just give myself time to get interested again.

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:12 pm

Ok, now that I have been paid for building this ramp:

I have some extra play money, and can order some new rockers. I am going to try the CB rockers and see how they work for me.

Brian Murray · Post by **Brian Murray** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:10 am

nice ramp.

Hope ya get this resolved mark, I'll be setting my geometry soon...

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:19 pm

Dougy Dee · Post by **Dougy Dee** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:56 pm

I had a similiar problem with 044's, fk8 and Scat 1.4's. Ended up with the Berg tall lash caps and problem solved.

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:08 pm

Now we are getting somewhere...

Currently, at half lift, the rocker tip contacts the lash cap dead center (top to bottom), and if I draw a line perpendicular to the valve stem at the point of contact (lash cap to rocker tip), it passes right through the center of the rocker shaft. This looks good to me.

With this in mind, when I look at the adjuster screw, it is about 3 degrees off parallel with the pushrod, such that if I shimmed the blocks out a little, it would become parallel.

Should I leave it like this, or shoot for the adjuster screw being parallel by shimming out the shaft blocks, or should I compromise, taking a little angle at the perpendicular measurement and at the adjuster shaft?

A_67vdub · Post by **A_67vdub** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:58 pm

You can adjust the angle of the adjuster without changing the geometry by shortening your pushrod and lengthening the adjuster to compensate. Or lengthening the pushrod and sucking in the adjuster to compensate. It looks like your adjuster is already in pretty far, so I don't know how much adjustment you have left.

BTW, did you get new rockers, and if so, which ones?

Steve

A_67vdub · Post by **A_67vdub** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:15 pm

You know what, I don't think that's right for the rockers with the adjuster on the bottom. Only stock style.

My bad.

Steve

mharney · Post by **mharney** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:28 pm

Yeah, Steve, I don't think that'd make a difference. Look at this picture.

Making the adjuster go further out would change the engagement a SLIGHT amount, but not significantly.

Besides, pushing the adjuster out would cause more leverage on the rocker threads and the adjuster.

The only thing that is going to make any big difference is shimming the rocker blocks out a little, which would shift the centerline off the center of the rocker shaft. Either a compomise or choosing one over the other for a good reason would make sense. Looks to me like maximum lift would probably be achieved by splitting the difference and max guide life would be achieved by leaving it about like it is.

These are Bergs btw. The other ones in the past pics are Scats.

vgajames · Post by **vgajames** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:44 pm

Hey thats looks good! I knew ya could do it.

A_67vdub · Post by **A_67vdub** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:50 pm

Max lift will be achieved by setting the bottom geometry the same way you set the top. You want a line drawn from the point that the pushrod tip pivots about through the center of the shaft to be perpendicular to the pushrod. THIS is what gets adjusted by changing the adjuster position / pushrod length. The problem with this is that it could throw off the geometry up top by changing where half lift is.

That angle between the pushrod and the adjuster doesn't look good, though. I'd almost be inclined to just back the adjuster out as much as practical and adjusting the pushrod to compensate. This might cost you some lift, but would make the adjuster less likely to break.

Steve