PDA

View Full Version : Air Dam question



itaracer
12-01-2003, 12:21 PM
Like everyone else I'm working on getting my 1st. Gen RX7 ready for next year. One project is the front air dam. I used a Mazdatrix fiberglass air dam last year and it took some abuse. I've been looking for a urethane air dam but have not located one yet. I also need to replace the front bumper cover. So here is my question. Can I replace the front bumper cover and aftermarket air dam with an integrated bumper cover air dam? Specifically I'm thinking of using the Mariah Mode 4 front bumper cover/air dam. My interpretation of ITCS 8.b (2003 GCR page ITCS 16) is that it is legal. Any comments will be appreciated and if anyone has a source for urethane air dams please let me know. I'm also posting this message on the Mazda thread on this site.


------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

Knestis
12-01-2003, 04:03 PM
You might be able to make a case for this being legal IF you can show people the clause that specifically allows the removal of "integrated" bumpers. I haven't asked this question specifically - or critically - but my first instinct is that it is not allowed to do so...

Kirk

itaracer
12-01-2003, 04:54 PM
I'm not removing teh integrated bumper. Just replacing the cover.

The NOTE section is ITCS 8. b states "On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or air dam may be attached to the bumper cover."
The Mariah Mode 4 is basically an '84-85 bumber cover with an air dam molded to it making it a one piece bumper cover/ air dam. It attaches to the shock obsorbing bumper just like a stock bumper cover attaches.

Check out the photos on the Mariah web site.

http://www.mariahmotorsports.com/



------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

Greg Amy
12-01-2003, 05:22 PM
I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I don't see how it could be legal.

First, the regs do not allow removal of the stock integrated bumper cover, and second, the air dam cannot be attached above a certain height on the car (x inches above the horizontal centerline of the wheels?)

I'd have to say it is an illegal mod.

itaracer
12-01-2003, 05:37 PM
It is not removal of the stock bumper cover. It's a replacement of the stock bumper cover with an integrated air dam.

I'm trying to understand why it would not be legal. Especially when CRX's, Itegra's and BMW's has a source for exactly the same type of air dam that is obviously IT legal. Check out this site (an advertiser on the discussion board).

http://www.roadracegear.com/

These air dams appear to me to be integrated bumper cover/air dams and are legal.

lateapex911
12-01-2003, 05:44 PM
Nope...Mariah themselves say that the other air dam they sell IS SCCA legal...which implies that this one aint.

But IF you were to use this one, the end result would be lighter than the combination. IIDSYCYC...

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
12-01-2003, 05:49 PM
You can't "replace" a stock part unless you first "remove" it. Heck, you can't "replace" it with an aftermarket part unless there is a rule allowing said replacement.

You can do anything you want but I have a very hard time picturing how this one will be upheld if a protest is filed.

K

itaracer
12-01-2003, 06:19 PM
Ok. I'm not trying to start a pissing match here. Here is where I started.

I want to replace the damaged stock urethane front bumper cover and the damaged aftermarket IT legal fiberglass air dam. The part I'd like to use is a stock bumper cover that has an air dam molded to it. I know Mariah has an IT legal air dam available that is essentially the same. My question is if ITCS 8. b. NOTE "On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or air dam may be attached to the bumper cover." If the air dam is molded to the bumper cover so that it becomes one single piece why would it not be legal? It is attached to the bumper cover. It has all the stock locating and attachment points and otherwise meets all the other criteria for an air dam described in ITCS 8. b.

ITSRX7
12-01-2003, 07:55 PM
It's not legal because it's not the factory bumper cover. No place in the rules does it say you can use an aftermarket bumper cover.

You can, ATTACH a front air dam to your STOCK bumper cover, provided you do so in a resultant configuration that is legal per the rules GregA states.

I understand your stance, but don't try and manipulate the wording to suit your goal. (no disrespect there) Buy a used STOCK bumper cover and fab a dam or splitter per the rules.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/images/200_06_checkered.jpg

itaracer
12-01-2003, 08:15 PM
OK. I've seen the light. Can't blame me for trying. A one piece bumper cover/air dam sure seemed better than 2 pieces. I'll save the $500 and use the one from ISC. I hate fiberglass though.

Andy, I really prefer "interpretation" of the rules rather than "manipulation" of the rules.

No offence or disrespect taken and I certainly hope none was inferred. Thanks everyone for the posts.

philstireservice
12-01-2003, 08:24 PM
use the ones from roadracegear.com.....incredibly durable, light, user friendly, functionable ....can take a pounding

------------------
Phil Phillips
94 Acura Integra GSR #4
ITS/H3/ST1
www.philstireservice.com
Amsoil Dealer
distributor for FireCharger AFFF fire systems
Hoosier Tire Dealer
Toyo Tire Dealer

Festus E. Simkins
12-02-2003, 10:08 AM
Victoria British sells an air dam for 1st gen RX-7s that works very well and is very durable. They are about $200.

They advertise them as unbreakable but I hit a wall at about 100 mph http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif and it did break where I had put holes for the brake ducts. However, it did survive several off course excursions without damage. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Drive well.

sgallimo
12-05-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
It's not legal because it's not the factory bumper cover. No place in the rules does it say you can use an aftermarket bumper cover....

hmmm.... slightly different angle on this one. Suppose I have an aftermarket bumber cover that appears to be identical to the factory one (no integrated air damn, etc). You're saying I can't use the aftermarket one even though (1) they really do look 100% identical, (2) it is tons cheaper than the factory one, and (3) the insurance company used aftermarket bumper covers, hoods, and fenders on the last two street cars that we had repaired (heck they even tried it on my 3 day old truck that the ice storm clobbered)??


------------------
-Scott Gallimore
-ITC #88 Pulsar

jc836
12-05-2003, 02:38 PM
If it is a replacement part that is identical to the stock one then I do not think anyone will question it. The issue here dealt with a cover that has the airdam molded on it rather than a bolt on piece. Certainly a CRX (example) with a molded airdam would not be correct. Even my Prelude has a bolt-on one.



------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

grjones1
12-05-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
You can't "replace" a stock part unless you first "remove" it. Heck, you can't "replace" it with an aftermarket part unless there is a rule allowing said replacement.

You can do anything you want but I have a very hard time picturing how this one will be upheld if a protest is filed.

K
Does this mean I can't replace a brake rotor (same specs) with any other than an OEM part even if the OEM part is no longer manufactured by the original manufacturer, because nowhere do the rules say I can replace brake rotors?
GRJ

jc836
12-05-2003, 04:09 PM
A brake rotor of the same design and size-as shown on the spec line in the GCR can come from any source. I run Brembo "blank/plain" rotors that are an exact replacement for the stock Honda part. Brake pads are "free", btw. The thread's author was asking about a part that was not available from the OEM to begin with in the form he asked about.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

Eric Parham
12-05-2003, 04:37 PM
If the bumper cover with molded air dam *looks* exactly like an OEM cover with a bolted-on airdam, I believe that it would be allowable since the airdam may be attached by any means (e.g., does not have to be "bolted"). "Molding" the airdam to the bumper cover seems perfectly reasonable to me, as long as no part of the "cover" is missing (such as, perhaps, a portion just behind where the *airdam* meets the *cover*).

lateapex911
12-05-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
If the bumper cover with molded air dam *looks* exactly like an OEM cover with a bolted-on airdam, I believe that it would be allowable since the airdam may be attached by any means (e.g., does not have to be "bolted"). "Molding" the airdam to the bumper cover seems perfectly reasonable to me, as long as no part of the "cover" is missing (such as, perhaps, a portion just behind where the *airdam* meets the *cover*) .

Italics mine. I would bet a gazillion Ferraris that indeed that is the case. No way would an aftermarket manufacturer deal with such an impossible to mold and produce part, especially when the potential market that needs the hard to produce feature (the exact contour of the bumper cover under the air dam joint matching the stock cover) is so small.

Any peice that doesn't include the lower section of the bumper cover, which is hidden by the airdam is illegal.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

grjones1
12-05-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by jc836:
A brake rotor of the same design and size-as shown on the spec line in the GCR can come from any source. I run Brembo "blank/plain" rotors that are an exact replacement for the stock Honda part. Brake pads are "free", btw. The thread's author was asking about a part that was not available from the OEM to begin with in the form he asked about.


You miss my point: K said in so many words that you cannot replace an OEM part with an aftermarket part unless the rules say so. My response is then I cannot nor can you replace OEM brake rotors with Brembo or anything else but an OEM brake rotor because nowhere in the ITCS does it say you can. This of course is absurd, we all use aftermarket replacement parts within specs but not necessarily OEM because often OEM parts are no longer available. Am I wrong?
GRJ

grjones1
12-05-2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by jc836:
A brake rotor of the same design and size-as shown on the spec line in the GCR can come from any source. I run Brembo \"blank/plain\" rotors that are an exact replacement for the stock Honda part. Brake pads are \"free\", btw. The thread's author was asking about a part that was not available from the OEM to begin with in the form he asked about.


You miss my point: K said in so many words that you cannot replace an OEM part with an aftermarket part unless the rules say so. My response is then I cannot nor can you replace OEM brake rotors with Brembo or anything else but an OEM brake rotor because nowhere in the ITCS does it say you can. This of course is absurd, we all use aftermarket replacement parts within specs but not necessarily OEM because often OEM parts are no longer available. Am I wrong?

Excuse me, but where does it say a brake rotor can come from any source?
GRJ

jc836
12-06-2003, 12:20 AM
As to the rotors-I seem to have an incorrect interpretation based on the simple fact that many folks use parts from the aftermarket (ie. autozone for example). I agree that there is no specific rule permitting any rotor other than OEM in the ITCS since it only mentions "manufacturer's specifications" for truing.
I have no problem with people using replacement parts from an alternate source due to cost or scarcity. For example a stock CRX hood sells for $250 new and the aftermarket piece is $129. They are identical so far as I can tell yet the rule would suggest this to be an invalid choice just as it would for the bumper cover with or without the airdam attached. The CRX Si airdam is a bolt-on and thus should not be molded into the cover.


------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

Knestis
12-06-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
...I cannot nor can you replace OEM brake rotors with Brembo or anything else but an OEM brake rotor because nowhere in the ITCS does it say you can.

Sounds like we agree... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Now, I NEVER said that this makes sense. That strand about "stupid little rules" bears on this issue. Some of these things really should be either (a) clarified, or (B) enforced.

K

grjones1
12-06-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sounds like we agree... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Now, I NEVER said that this makes sense. That strand about "stupid little rules" bears on this issue. Some of these things really should be either (a) clarified, or (B) enforced.

K
K,
I'm pleased if we are in agreement that we can use other than OEM parts. But this edited quote misrepresents my side of the argument in that it implies agreement with your original statement.

I earnestly believe the intention of the original ITCS writing was to permit aftermarket replacement within specs. That's why no rule states that parts must always carry OEM part numbers. Do we remain in agreement?
GRJ

megmeyer
12-06-2003, 11:58 AM
If you visit the site, you will see that they offer an "SCCA ITS/ITA legal" airdam, thereby implying that the mode 4 is NOT SCCA ITS/ITA legal.

Geo
12-06-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I'm pleased if we are in agreement that we can use other than OEM parts.

Oh, I doubt Kirk would agree with that statement. That's pretty tortured - especially since I imagine Kirk would say the rules say exactly the opposite.


Originally posted by grjones1:
I earnestly believe the intention of the original ITCS writing was to permit aftermarket replacement within specs. That's why no rule states that parts must always carry OEM part numbers. Do we remain in agreement?

Excuse me, but when did interpreting the intent of the rules become your job?

There is zero need to require parts carry OEM part numbers because the rules only allow alternate parts where specifically spelled out in the ITCS.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
12-06-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Excuse me, but when did interpreting the intent of the rules become your job?

Ans. I don't consider it a "job" - as a 20-year dues- and entry fee-paying member and driver in the SCCA, I consider it a right! And I must add whenever anyone builds a car for SCCA competition he is in the position of having to interpret the rules. When his interpretation is challenged then it becomes the "job" of an appointed board to judge his interpretation. Hopefully he will always be allowed to interpret just as hopefully he will always abide by the judgement and he will always have the right to suggest when the rules need correction.

There is zero need to require parts carry OEM part numbers because the rules only allow alternate parts where specifically spelled out in the ITCS.

ANS.
Then we're back to my original point, we can't use aftermarket brake rotors because it's not spelled out in the rules, and that is an absurd situation. Nothing "tortured" about that logic.
GRJ




[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 06, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 06, 2003).]

Geo
12-06-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I don't consider it a "job" - as a 20-year dues- and entry fee-paying member and driver in the SCCA, I consider it a right! And I must add whenever anyone builds a car for SCCA competition he is in the position of having to interpret the rules.

You've carefully avoided answering the question. I never asked about interpreting the rules, just interpreting the intent of the rules. As racers we are all required to interpret the written rules. Intent does not factor in. It is up to those who write the rules to make sure the written rule follows the intent. It's not your or my job to interpret the intent of rules that are already written. Futhermore, I've seen COA rulings where the COA sided with the competitor because he/she followed the written rules while it was seemed clear the intent was something else.


Originally posted by grjones1:
Then we're back to my original point, we can't use aftermarket brake rotors because it's not spelled out in the rules, and that is an absurd situation. Nothing "tortured" about that logic.

I agree with this statement. There is zero provision in the ITCS for aftermarket brake rotors of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't use them. It just means that if they do, technically they are illegal.

It's a rule that should be changed IMHO.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bruce
12-06-2003, 06:56 PM
Forgive me if I've missed something here. I believe that the car in question was a gen 1 RX7 the last time I looked the bumper was seperate from the body work. The gen 2 is one piece. In that case Air dam specs change and the body deterimines to location and dimentions.

steve s
12-06-2003, 07:45 PM
just want to answer the original question .the front spoiler assembly is fiberglass so it's illegal. if it was urethane as the original cover then it would be legal if all the dimensions were the same.the spoiler isc sells attaches to the original cover at the wheel centerline's height so it fits the rule hence its legal. buy the soiler from isc.

------------------
steve saney
it-7 /it-a #34

grjones1
12-07-2003, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I agree with this statement. There is zero provision in the ITCS for aftermarket brake rotors of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't use them. It just means that if they do, technically they are illegal.

It's a rule that should be changed IMHO.



I apologize to those wishing to resolve the airdam question for diverting the discussion, but I feel the diversion is germane to the discussion. Please indulge me.

Geo,
When one reads a rule he assumes he must grasp the intent of the rule and he hopes his inferences are accurate according to the intent. Semantics are playing a big role here; however, I am not avoiding the question. Most COA decisions I've read appear to side with what the court finds in their judgement was the original intent so we differ in our perception there.

In any event, what I'm trying to say is that if the rule is not clear or not founded on sound reasoning, and much of the time common sense, it must be revised and made to fit reality. And the problem is that if we go too far in the strict adherence to unsound rules we find ourselves mired in unresolvable quandries where no one is really satisfied but the official winner of the race.
I think we can justifiably consent to using aftermarket parts that meet factory specifications whether or not we agree the rules allow them (and I think they do because the ITCS does not require part numbers). Brake rotors, wheel bearings, and the like (any routine maintenance item) and yes even airdams molded to new bumper covers should be allowed from any source if for no other reason than availablity. But yes, if the new bumper cover with airdam provides an unfair competitive advantage (lighter) than the original bumper cover then another should be found. But again let's not be so petty as to disallow a solution because the rules don't spell out every possible circumstance, we'd have to deal with an encyclopedia. Do we concur on any of these points?
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 07, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited December 07, 2003).]

Geo
12-07-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I apologize to those wishing to resolve the airdam question for diverting the discussion, but I feel the diversion is germane to the discussion. Please indulge me.

I agree. Discussions about rules are always on-topic. Sometimes they become holy wars and they shouldn't. If we as racers are doing our jobs correctly, we should not become emotional about rules. We should simply want clarification so we can go on to build the best car we can. That said....


Originally posted by grjones1:
When one reads a rule he assumes he must grasp the intent of the rule and he hopes his inferences are accurate according to the intent. Semantics are playing a big role here; however, I am not avoiding the question. Most COA decisions I've read appear to side with what the court finds in their judgement was the original intent so we differ in our perception there.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.


Originally posted by grjones1:
In any event, what I'm trying to say is that if the rule is not clear or not founded on sound reasoning, and much of the time common sense, it must be revised and made to fit reality.

I couldn't agree more and already have. I think the rule should be changed to allow aftermarket replacement parts that serve no other function beyond that of the OEM part. That would seem reasonable. Perhaps the CB is worried about being able to police these parts, or they are worried about people stretching, bending, and otherwise warping such a rule. Or perhaps it has never really come up. I don't know.


Originally posted by grjones1:
I think we can justifiably consent to using aftermarket parts that meet factory specifications whether or not we agree the rules allow them (and I think they do because the ITCS does not require part numbers).


OK, a couple of points here. We don't get to consent to such a thing. We can do it, but the stewards and the COA get to make the call until the rule is changed. And again, the ITCS does not need to require part numbers because it's already explicit in what is allowed regarding OEM vs aftermarket parts. I will say, however, that you are effectively correct as long as there is no way to distinguish the aftermarket part from the OEM part. It's much like my argument about bending RX-7 axles to add camber. Nothing says you can, but it's impossible to find them illegal. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by grjones1:
But yes, if the new bumper cover with airdam provides an unfair competitive advantage (lighter) than the original bumper cover then another should be found.

But whether a part provides a competitive advantage or not is not the issue. Such parts, if illegal, are still illegal and people get tossed for them.


Originally posted by grjones1:
But again let's not be so petty as to disallow a solution because the rules don't spell out every possible circumstance, we'd have to deal with an encyclopedia. Do we concur on any of these points?

1) I think someone who protested aftermarket replacement rotors would be taken behind the porta-potty and throttled. Or should be.

2) Certainly in the cases we are discussing, the rules do indeed deal with them. There is no allowance for these aftermarket parts. How can that be more clear?

3) The rules don't have to make sense to us (do they Kirk? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ). The fact is, what makes sense to one person, may not to another. If the powers that make rules (CB) decide they don't make sense, they will be changed. If the competitors think they don't make sense, they should write to the CB and try to convince them. People do this every day.

4) We are not allowed to ignore rules that we think are silly or don't make sense. It doesn't mean that people won't do it. Shoot, I can assure you I won't be buying Porsche factory rotors for my 944. That's crazy. But, if the rule is not changed before I race and I get caught, that's the chance I take. And probably the chance the protester would take since the entire rest of the IT field would probably take the protester out behind the porta-potty and throttle him (can't throttle a her http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ).

Sounds like the solution is to try to get the rules changed. I could see aftermarket replacement rotors being allowed. Aftermarket bumper covers with integral airdams? No. BTW, I've raced against cars with those. I wouldn't dream of protesting them, but they are still illegal.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

grjones1
12-07-2003, 04:28 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B]
George,
Whether we agree on everthing or not, I'm beginning to believe you are a reasonable man. Enjoyed talking with you.
GRJ

lateapex911
12-07-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
1) I think someone who protested aftermarket replacement rotors would be taken behind the porta-potty and throttled. Or should be.




Tch Tch tch....C'mon, George! You know better than that! You don't take 'em behind the porta poddy, you wait until they use it, then fliparoo, door side down. Best done on a hot, humid, summer day....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

itaracer
12-09-2003, 03:03 PM
OK. Thanks to Festus I've found an air dam that will work. It is urethane and is IT legal. For those interested you can find it at Victoria British, part number 95-828 and sells for $199.99. It is polyurethane and almost an exact copy of the fiberglass air dam sold by Mazdatrix which is what I have right now.

Thanks for all the posts.

------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

RX767
12-09-2003, 04:08 PM
Mark, Festus, or anyone,

How are you attaching your airdam?

How far under the car does it extend?

Does anyone have insights into repairing a tear in the urethane?

I also have a urethane one that withstood an off course excusion where it was jammed up under the front of the car. My intial setup was to use Dzus fasters (two per side) and zip ties underneath the car to aid in loading and unloading the car. I am now considering attaching it more permanently and building longer ramps.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

itaracer
12-09-2003, 04:56 PM
Bill,

The ad in the VB catalog says the dam comes "complete with all mounting hardware and step by step installation and painting instructions".

On the fiberglass one I got from Mazdatrix I used 3 Dzus fasteners on each side to attach the dam to the fender and a couple of urethane bunges in the front to keep it from sagging in the middle. If you like I can sent photos of the installation when I get the new air dam. My email is [email protected].

------------------
Mark Jeffery
ITA #92 '85 RX7
MiDiv - Arkansas Region

Festus E. Simkins
12-10-2003, 12:19 PM
I used large head (button) pop rivets to attach mine. The "kit" comes with push in plastic rivets. I had to make up a small bracket to keep it from sagging on the bottom. Basicly two brackets pop rivited to underside of radiator opening. No big deal at all. Took about half an hour to make and attach. The air dam does not have any openings for brake ducts so I had to cut holes in it. When I crashed real hard that is where the dam tore. I trashed it and will get a new one when the car is fixed.

Drive well.

RX767
12-10-2003, 04:54 PM
Mark and Festus,

Thanks for the replies. I will order the VB catalog. Mark, I will send you an email. I would like to see some pictures when you have it installed.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23