I can see where you are trying to pull that interpretation from, but I don't agree that it's legal per most people's interpretation. of 9.1.3.D.1.p.[/b]
Here's where we get to picking nits.
First of all, aftermarket cams are allowed in 9.1.3.C, "Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts."
Problem is, one has to wonder why someone feels the need to have one "custom ground". After all, a brandy-new factory cam perfectly meets the rules, is optimal to the spec (you can't get any better than brandy-new) and is, no doubt, even cheaper than having something custom ground.
The implication is clear: someone does this because they've taken the workshop-listed specs and ground a cam that meets those specific numbers but improves performance in other ways; e.g., meets the lift and duration specs but is reprofiled such as to gain torque and power.
But, this is illegal, plain and simple. That part is not "...the exact equivalent of the original parts."
"But," you may say, "it meets the specs!" Yep, it meets the workshop specs, but it's still cheating. Also, you're missing a key component: the GCR specifically states that camshafts are checked by providing a known good stock example to compare it against. Topeka has the tools to compare profiles of the cam, not just the lift and duration, ergo anything that deviates from a stock cam - including profile - is easily
discoverable as illegal.
So, why "custom grind"? Well, one of two reasons: one, it's cheaper (unlikely), or two, it's not the stock profile.
Or am I missing something here...?
GA