Oh, they have some other virtues besides price, LP. This thread is not about SE vs. Wood, but since the 255's have been brought up twice already, not by me, I'll take the liberty of injecting some thoughts on the subject. I took Jamie's 6-6 chart and superimposed a 255 chart that I have (attached), which is the second best I've seen in terms of peak-TQ, 6 ft. lbs. better than the 6-6's tested here. So that I won't be accused of using a better-than-average chart I pushed the 255 curve down 3 ft. lbs. to a peak of 100 ft. lbs., as there are numerous 255 charts available that hit this peak. What I'd like to show is the shape of the curve, not the peak TQ value. I didn't show the HP curve because the 6-6's beat the 255's hands-down in that category, but these are two cam profiles that are quite different, more of an apples-and-oranges comparison.
It's obvious that one cam has an advantage on the left, the other on the right, and the chart shows 2000-5500 rpms. What grabs my attention and affects my kind of riding is the 8 ft.lb. difference at 2500 rpms. Keep in mind also that the 255 chart was obtained from a bike with TD's, which hurts low-end performance, and low-end performance is the cams' forte. Jamie's 6-6 chart was created in less-than-ideal conditions (high humidity), so both may not represent an optimal result.
The 255's have a single-purpose mission, which is to produce torque. IMO the 6-6's are a blend of good TQ and HP, and since Fuel Moto has entered the Stage II arena the winners here are the riders, giving us more viable options. I still believe the Wood cams profiled here would benefit from a compression increase in a Stage 1 TC96, but in an OEM 103 with 9.6:1 or a 103 Stage II with 10:1 flat-top pistons these cams might very likely be stellar performers in all areas.
