I tend to agree with that statement.
Are they available to us ?
It's one of the dyno results the guy uses, no one is arguing with that going tighter generally makes more mid range torque that's common knowledge, the question is does the formula get you optimal lsa and does this optimal lsa gain you 40-50 lbs-ft and get you near the 1.40 lbs-ft DV claims over the 110-114 most cams are ground on? What was the gain of this eg., like 10 lbs-ft or so 108 vs 112 most would be glad to lose 10 for driveability.
No one arguing that, like saying does more duration tend to make more hp, question is does running tighter lsa then the formula recommends are you still gaining torque? And in the eg.. The guy shows seems you will, if that is true how's the formula recommendation optimal ?
Which is the whole bases of me posting this.
Just like everyone would expect, the question isn't does tighter lsa give more torque, it's does the formula give optimal lsa and more important match the claims of being up there choosing cams like 1% of engine builders.
Like said before you could probably do worse than using the formula as a guide line.
And I like the basic idea of tighter lsa less duration for same type cam as you would normally pick.
And these aren't setup as a real test, to do that 1st you'd have to run recommended cam and a bunch of cams on either side of the lsa while keeping overlap the same, maybe in that scenario we'll se the 40-50+ gains for 1% builder type torque. But what evidence I've seen so far I'm a bit doubtful, so until then I'll take it with a grain of salt.
And the main problem with his formula is picking overlap which the next main step so you can figure out duration.
