To be accurate, "mechanical changes" were not made mid-season.
What happened, to the best of my knowledge, is that the specs for camshafts in the Miati were somewhat sparse (lift only, I think, was specified). In addition, note that SM also has an "aftermarket replacement parts" rule. To take advantage of this grey area some engine builders were buying camshaft billets from Mazda - with all the regular Mazda markings and stampings on them - and grinding camshafts to maximize performance within this spec (changing overlap and duration, as I understand it).
SCCA got wind of this and decided to publish more-detailed camshaft specs via Fastrack. Immediately thereafter this person started dropping coin on camshaft checks and one particular engine builder got dinged a couple of times (rumor has it the other engine builders got wind of the change sooner and got the word out to their customers. PURELY speculation).
So therein lies the "tree falls in the forest" argument: given that these aftermarket camshafts met the published specs were they therefore legal up to the point of the Fastrack clarification, or is it because they did not meet all specs of the original stock camshaft (or any alternative camshafts, for that matter) were they illegal to begin with? Said differently, if they could have passed Tech the old way were they legal, or because they did not meet the true intent of the rules were they illegal?
Rules Nerd Greg says they were never legal camshafts; Competitor Greg says they were legal until the point that SCCA published more-detailed restrictions. It's neither here nor there, as the more-detailed specs have been published and competitors must abide by them.
Now, about that funny word "material"...
[/b]
Bookmarks