I haven't heard of that exact term, but something similar. If the valve diameter is increased, its possible to run less lift because it's just another way of increasing air flow, if you were to do both it turns into a stale mate situation where you either need excessive valve lift to make use of it, which in turn makes the engine run lumpy and impossible to drive unless it idles really high. Much like what you have said. Therefore ideally its really one or the other. Some engines actually respond better to a smaller valve and or less lift, this is one area where the 1.3 N/A engine really suffers! It uses exactly the same components (except springs) as the FTE heads, yet the FTE heads flow enough for 340bhp in stock trim. Lets be honest, a 1.3 N/A engine is never going to even reach half that power output. With such large ports and valves for such small power, the velocity through the ports is going to be somewhat lacking, and since velocity and pressure have a direct relationship, pressure also drops, meaning poor atomisation of the fuel. I'm actually on the lookout for an N/A daily, I was tempted to get another head and sleeve the ports to see what kind of impact it would have by raising the pressure in the ports. Some people tend to weld the ports and then smooth them back, but that for me seems a lot of work for something which may not even yield any gains what so ever. I remember reading an article a little while ago about a Porsche 911 race car (can't remember what series), but they designed the head with large valve diameters and it really suffered in mid range power, Porsche then redesigned the head and fitted slightly smaller valves and the peak power was actually up over like 9 tenths of the rev range.