40mm intakes and 38mm exhausts might be a tad too large for a 98mm bore, once you allow margins between seats and around the plug (even an 8mm or 10mm racing plug). Regardless, you're numbers are likely pretty close.
As for comparing valve lifts on a production road bike engine to an F1 engine, it's probably not a good comparison. The F1 engine uses pneumatic valve springs and does not have the fatigue life requirements that the bike engine has. With the cam profile used by the F1 engine, the bike engine's valve springs would quickly fail in fatigue. It would also be very difficult to design a coil spring that had the right balance of spring rate, seat pressure, and force at max lift without over stressing the spring wire or even producing coil bind. Most metal valve springs do not like engine speeds much above 13,000 rpm, even race engines, due to the severe vibratory and inertia issues that arise within the spring body above those driving frequencies. If you remember, that was the defacto engine rev limit in F1 during the early '90's, until the pneumatic systems were widely adopted.
Another difficult issue with a severely over square (ie. huge bore diameter and short stroke length), high compression engine like a modern F1 unit, is making sure that the valves do not hit the piston crown. This issue is compounded by the use of high valve lifts, lots of duration and overlap in the cams, and the very shallow, wide, narrow valve angle pent-roof combustion chamber shapes that result from high compression ratios in the very over-square cylinders.
n smikle, thanks for linking that paper from Gordon Blair. I used to work with one of the authors, Hans Herman, for a short while about 20 years ago. Small world, eh?
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"