.From an appeal .. class not related to FV (ITA actually)
...
3. The purpose of having a protest process is to resolve matters of opinion regarding configuration relative to the rules, and
to compare the example to the rules. The SOM concluded that the configuration in question is a tortured application of the
rules [emphasis mine]. The Club Racing Board also noted that “Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/
modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.” [emphasis mine - almost word for word like the FV rules] (GCR 9.1.3.D.)
4. The SOM decision is not a rules change, but is an administration of the rules as written.
5. The length of time a configuration has been in use is not a measure of its compliance.
...
This clearly outlines some issues worth considering.
1). It would appear that the COA is starting to 'tighten up' it's stance on the INTENT of the rule beyond what it may actually say specifically. In this case, "engine air source" was INTERPRETED by the driver as being 'any way that air could get to the engine', but the COA saw it as 'the primary method of air supply intended by the mfr'. I think this is good. It might eliminate some of these issues surrounding 'as factory' .. etc.
2). It also CLEARLY states that the length of time you've been running in this configuration is not a measure of compliance today.
Be advised...
Steve