It's really pushing it IMHO. Two ways to look at it:

1. It looks AWEFULLY reinforced to me - overdone, very overdone - so I ask why and would lean toward illegal.

2. Look at the last sentence of that rule. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate." This is most certainly what the installer did. I would then have to argue (prove) it served as a reinforcement. I would lean toward legal if I thung my hat on this portion of the rule.
BUT

To me the most telling piece of info is in the ad itself.

"The camber plates are custom built and welded to the unibody by xxx - no one ever looks at them in person and doesn't comment on them."

Huh? Double Huh? Why mention it at all unless it's an issue?

Anyway, they sure look well made! Non-reversable in my little world however...
[/b]

Andy,

If you read the way the rule is written, it says the plate may not serve as a reinforcement. It says nothing about what the permitted additional material may do. Given the way the rule is written, I don't see these plates being an issue. What I do see as an issue w/ that car, is the cage. Where are the rear stays for the main hoop? I don't think that X-brace satisfies the requirement for rear stays. I saw this car posted on VWVortex, and asked the seller if it had an SCCA log book.