My point is that a "pro" motor and/or "pro" head make considerably more HP than an oem equivalent. Does anyone dispute that?
Are "pro" motors what is best for our class?
Mr. Hampton, have you entered a race in the past two (or three) years? I'm just wondering how much skin you have in the game.
I don't know how the question is relevant, but the answer is "none". I have a car that I built with my own hands (minus the motor), I have nasa and scca memberships, and I drive as often as I can. I have spent the last three years traveling back and forth to new Zealand on business. I don't have the resources to do "arrive and drive". So, the car sits while I have traveled. That contract is coming to a close, and I only have 1 or 2 trips left. So, my "skin in the game" is ratcheting up for 2015 with my expectation of being able to get serious about it again.
I have a pro motor. But, I didn't get it for the "power". I fully intended to drive the original motor into the ground and buy a junkyard motor and rebuild that myself. But, the decision was a time optimization choice, given my travel schedule.
But, your "story" means nothing. Again, no one has ever claimed that a plunge cut head made equal power to a non cut head. Again, the claim has been that it reduces population variation.
However, no one has ever posted any statistics for that claim. Nor have they produced dyno numbers or anything else that is remotely meaningful to substantiate the variability claim.
The claim makes intuitive sense, but I've been an engineer for far too long to rely on intuition for things like fluid dynamics. I've been there, done that, and have several mental scars from it.
I find it highly unlikely that the 'super special head committee" will spend the resources to answer that question with any statistical validity. The sample size would need to be prohibitively large to ensure it encompasses the entire population variance. I doubt there is anyone associated that even understands the DoE issues well enough to do it right.
And to bring this back to the original topic, they have not shared ANY details of the test program. Someone said it was "impressive". But, if they aren't testing 10s of heads from each generation at every phase of the machining process repeatedly, then it's just more meaningless data mostly designed to confirm someone's desired course of action. Eg: "see, we told you stock heads were better."