Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Harris
I don't see where this is vague. It says no modifications. How is that subject to interpretation?
|
What's the point of changing the rule to allow "any" valve spring if nothing is changed to accommodate "any" valve spring? (Within some structured reason, of course.) While there may be a way to incorporate some Frankenstein combinations within the letter of the rule, the creativity of it can lead to other questions of legallity, interpretation and expense.
I've seen simialr rule changes pop up which just confuse the situation. I may not go to dual springs that would "normally" require elimination of the step. But I have a good, otherwise legal, set of heads that happen to have had that step machined away by the previous owner. With the valve spring rule change, it would seem that a change allowing the use of the available spring options would make sense.