Does this prove David Vizard's 128 lsa formula ?

Mattax said
I think it pays to be sceptical.
Someone asked for a DV story. I loved his early books, used his muffler testing and guidlines, and looked forward to his somewhat occassional posts on ST. Now I've posted this before so this the short version. I followed the recommendations in his books to improve my carb like the Carb Shop did for him. Carb Shop had closed so sent it to Quick Fuel (when they were just transitioning from modifying into making carbs). $400 and many months later I began my journey. It cost me a lot more money and time to understand better why things worked and didn't work. Without Shrinker, Tuner and Gregory and lot of time and data collection (and dyno pulls) that carb would be a door stop.

Does anyone ever regret a tigher LSA? Well I did. Went 108 instead of 110 and didn't do what I needed it to do. Again a learning and was able to crutch it with the v-max lifters but they have their drawbacks too - especially for what I wanted.

That's really the dead give away isn't. When it doesn't work can they explain the whys and how's? DV is just scratching the surface.

Imagine being able to say this:

We’ve worked many a program where we used a record holding engine as a base line. In every instance, when the "soft" counterpart was tested, we’d gain perhaps only 8-10% more usable power, but the recovery time and acceleration rates were in a league all their own. As one would expect, the specific fuel consumption was always lower, but in every case the specific airflow requirement for the engine dropped considerably as well. So, now we’re making more power with the same displacement at the same or hopefully lower rpm ranges, and the engine’s consuming both less air and fuel. This not only verifies the fact that we’re achieving greater combustion efficiency, but the airflow relative to power notions that most believe in are no longer applicable

There's levels to this and DV's not very high up the chain in my view.