>> I fear the IT rule set could end up getting a lot longer and more complex. More pressure to tighten the noise factor in the process. ...

A very real concern.

Kirk's opinion (shared by some ITAC folks, he's sure) - We can't enforce rules by writing them differently. Adding more verbiage just provides more words that can be repurposed by those interested in "going gray." If anything, I'd advocate for getting rid of some of the "clarifying" language that's made its way into the ITCS - particularly the "you can't do this" stuff.

In our system - love it or hate it - we are our own cops. We get, in practice, the interpretations that we're collectively willing to put up with. Go back through my rants here (last winter, particularly) and you'll see that I think there's been a general leaning among THIS group of IT drivers toward, uh, "clever" interpretations as being socially/culturally acceptable.

Someone shows up with a "replacement" cam (allowed under that clause), then it's simply got to be the same dimensions - even the ones that are hard to measure - as an OE part. Here's an example of an OE part - spin it on the Cam Doctor and compare the outcome with the "replacement." We do NOT need to write more rules to make that happen.

This issue is not ITAC business - that's EVERYONE'S business. And (yet again) it's got to be handled irrespective of National status status.

K