"And your point is?"

Neither of those 2 examples is mine. I was trying to show that there some people who post a recommendation without stating any reason, research, dyno testing or other backup for their point of view.

The other is from "Grumpy" on the Chevytalk forum. When he makes a recommendation he attaches countless links to test data that led him to his conclusions and recommendations.

I'm really curious which of these approaches is considered more useful here.

As I recall, what started this thread is a guy asking "how far to go" with a 350 sbc that would be used in a truck application. If I were that guy I wouldn't want "Use an RV camshaft and stay away from long duration camshafts". The reason is "RV" and "Long duration" can mean different things to different people.

What I would want is specific data like "Pick a camshaft with duration @0.050" lift of some specific degrees and lobe separation of some specific degrees. Examples of such camshafts are these grinds from these companies". I would also really appreciate dyno test results that show the torque and HP produced by various camshafts at various RPMs so that I could see for myself how those camshafts would perform in my application.

I would also appreciate dyno data comparing various cylinder heads, intake manifolds, carburetors and exhaust manifolds/headers in the RPM range I would be operating in.

That is why I find Grumpy's posts fascinating. I know that the enthusiast magazines are constantly doing "Shoot out" articles that have this kind of information. I just wonder if others share my preference for the whole story of if they just prefer the "bottom line".

Ray