I understand the idea, and can see no problems with the idea of
an interference fit. But the conical shape of the seating area
means that it's an interference fit anyhow.
I am concerned that on valves as small as ours, the valve head, and
valve seat, may not flex enough to cause normal contact across
the whole seating area if a 46-45 cut were used.
If the valve only contacts the seat on that narrow line, then heat
is restricted from flowing away from the valve head to the valve
seat, leaving the valve insufficiently cooled. This is a very important
part of cooling the valve (says Phil Irving's "Tuning for Speed" and
Yamaha's "OW01 Race Tuning Manual"). In fact, Yamaha recommended
setting the valve lash loose on the racing motors, to allow the valves
a few more microseconds on the seat for cooling purposes.
I can see that on larger valves, particularly cooler-running engines where
heat is not such a factor, it could be beneficial...
With a large flexible valve a 45-45 cut could allow the valve
to flex in such a way that
the seat and valve face is actually exposed to the combustion,
causing accelerated seat and valve face wear, and depositing of
combustion byproducts.
Here's a little picture to show what I mean:
If we want to use the interference/offset-angles cut on valves this
size, it might be necessary to use a 45.5degree or similar. I'd need
some pretty hefty FEM software and detailed engineering specs on engine
stresses and material specifications to figure it out for sure.
This is all just based on thinking processes, I am not an experienced valve
designer even though I have a little training in related areas.