| Nearly every conversation spoken to Clark is in excess of 2-3 hours. I'd say countless would pretty much sum it up in the jist of things. Originally these cams were for Mike Smith where he was going to run the 350Z buckets and so forth...so yes these were designed for a hydraulic based valve train. Later finding that Clark was getting good feedback and the cams were not flattening under loads (which was his main concern because no real data had been sent in) he moved forward and kept these for the solid lifter applications. Due to the new quenching process he incorporates into the production of each blank these are more durable than the various cams he's advertised for the hydraulic buckets. And, I've certainly learned of the VGs limitations in regards to lift which is why I stated I have a solution to achieving the ability to use a camshaft that will be able to work with more than .433" lift. The biggest issue that Clark and I have discussed is that the base circle and offset of the lobe has a direct relation to the loads and strain put onto the camshaft and bucket. So there's a lot of talk right now about what exactly can/can't be done. If for some reason we need to upgrade the valve lifter to offset the base circles installed position then that can easily be done but for the moment I want to see how much we can do with the stock dimension lifter and then proceed from there. I in no way want anyone to think I've come up with the parameters and development of these camshafts. That was all on what Mike Smith wanted but apparently never got around to doing. Clark kept the camshafts on the shelf for a long time till they were picked up and tried. As it stands now I'm working on coming up with two other profiles to compliment a few different cylinder heads that I offer. I've just spent quite a bit of time discussing some avenues on what "can" or "could" be done in order to correct some issues we've questioned.
 |
