Air dam/splitter discussion

[cmaclean]

My question is, is this legal? Loads of IT cars (mine included) at the ARRC had some form of splitter. Mine is (was) a giant airdam but the attached image is clearly a splitter with no pretensions of being an airdam. Legal?

http://www.trackdogracing.com/website/product_photos/radical.jpg

[DavidM]

Looks like a really thin air dam to me. ;) :026:

Is that a custom piece or did you buy it? Looks nice. What's it made out of? Mine's just sheet metal.

David

[bobqzzi]

Unless you want to get into specifying relational dimensions (which the rules don't) then yes, it is legal.

[mlytle]

as long as it doesn't protrude outside the outline of the car body when viewed from above. hard to tell in that picture if it complies with that part of the rules.

[ddewhurst]

If the red piece just above the black piece is called by it's OEM name an airdam/spoiler (Mazda Miata calls that the "chin spoiler") then IMHJ attaching the black piece to an airdam/spoiler makes the black piece part of the airdam/spoiler. :023:

BUT, if we look at the first paragraph of rule ITCS 9.1.3.d.8.b. the rule specifies that "Openings are permited for the purpose of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator" within a permitted airdam/spoiler

Using my common sense if the red piece just above the black piece is not an OEM named airdam/spoiler I will say that the black airdam shown in the picture with the red car is ILLEGAL because one may not effectly cut openings & install the air ducts in the black piece specified in rule ITCS 9.1.3.d.8.b. :o

Have Fun ;)
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Using my common sense if the red piece just above the black piece is not an OEM named airdam/spoiler I will say that the black airdam shown in the picture with the red car is ILLEGAL because one may not effectly cut openings & install the air ducts in the black piece specified in rule ITCS 9.1.3.d.8.b. :o

Have Fun ;)
David [/b]

I know you are being arguementitive but to play along...

Why couldn't you cut holes in the underside on the horizontal plane and use NACA-type ducts (as long as they meet the hole max-size rules) to get the air into your brake ducting? :P

[ddewhurst]

***Why couldn't you cut holes in the underside on the horizontal plane and use NACA-type ducts (as long as they meet the hole max-size rules) to get the air into your brake ducting? :P

I know you are being arguementitive but to play along... ***


PRESSURE, if we look at the first paragraph of rule ITCS 9.1.3.d.8.b. the rule specifies that "The spoiler/airdam SHALL be mounted to the body," which the black piece is mounted to the body, BUT it's also mounted through the extension rods atached (guess) to the "non body" part called the "bumper reinforcement" which is underneath the body (not licked by the airstream and situated above the belly pan) part & just as there is no such thing as being half pregnant there is no such thing as being half legal. Don't you agree......... :P :P

Play Time ;)
David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oh boy.

[Rabbit07]

Legal or not, it sure is sexy! ;)

[ddewhurst]

In all reality this is a very interesting discussion because there were two Production (ya I know we are talking IT cars) cars that I viewed at this years Runoffs with some very as Rabbit07 says sexy airdam/spoilers. Sexy & legal IMHJ. The rule words are about the same.

Play Time ;)
David

[RacerBill]

Not that my car gets that fast (well, maybe not yet) that a splitter would help, but I have been thinking about a airdam/splitter. I need to get the car lowered first, just to see how much room I have to play with. The Shelby came with a nice spoiler and it has a nice flat surface on the bottom to which a splitter would attach nicely to.

I think if we go back to the intention of the airdam allowance, we would see that it was added way before splitters were ever used elsewhere in racing. If we are hung up about the word 'splitter' not being in the rules, lets just add it.

But only if we get rid of the 'total openings' :D :D :D (I am not against openings for brake cooling, just against 'total openings'.) Darn 'k' too close to the 'l'!!!!!


And Dave, "Openings are permited for the purpose of ducting air...." Permitted, not required! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CaptainWho]

(I am not against openings for brake cooking, just against 'total openings'.)
[/b]

:happy204:

[ddewhurst]

***And Dave, "Openings are permited for the purpose of ducting air...." Permitted, not required!*** :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill, I understand the "Permitted, not required" spec of the rule. BUT, :014: stay with me for a second. Talking in terms of normal brake duct openings in a normal air dam/spoiler the friken black airdam/spoiler on the red car is not tall (vertical) enough that one could cut holes for the normal brake duct openings therefore under these stated conditions illegal. Fun playing upsmanship & twisting things untill the poster (me) thinks he's correct.

Andy all ready beat the crap out of me for this ^ with his NACA duct hence my second post about the black airdam/spoiler not being 100% attacehd to the body therefore illegal, correct........... ;) :birra:

Play Time :023: <<<<<<<<<<
David

[seckerich]

So lets see what we have. A spoiler may direct air "around or under" according to the GCR definition. It may have holes for brake ducts and is allowed to allow air to enter for cooling of oil, water, and brakes. It Shall attach to the body and MAY attach to the bumper of integral bumper cars. I do not see a definition for splitter. :P What does your twisted logic say is illegal? :D

[Parrish57]

If anyone is getting hung up on the word "splitter" then don&#39;t use that word. Let&#39;s just call it a spoiler that happens to have a horizontal component. It certainly meets the GCR definition of "Spoiler- A panel attached to the body of the car at the front or rear, intended to alter the airflow around or under that end of the car when in motion".

Perfectly legal!!

Steve

[RacerBill]

***And Dave, "Openings are permited for the purpose of ducting air...." Permitted, not required!*** :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill, I understand the "Permitted, not required" spec of the rule. BUT, :014: stay with me for a second. Talking in terms of normal brake duct openings in a normal air dam/spoiler the friken black airdam/spoiler on the red car is not tall (vertical) enough that one could cut holes for the normal brake duct openings therefore under these stated conditions illegal. Fun playing upsmanship & twisting things untill the poster (me) thinks he&#39;s correct.

Andy all ready beat the crap out of me for this ^ with his NACA duct hence my second post about the black airdam/spoiler not being 100% attacehd to the body therefore illegal, correct........... ;) :birra:

Play Time :023: <<<<<<<<<<
David
[/b]

Dave: Please accept my apologies. I did not mean to get anyone upset. I have been upset enought in the last couple of weeks (by events outside of the racing part of my life). I really respect all who those who are watching out for the IT community, especially the ITAC, and CRB. And all of the racers who add their input. I do think that we get carried away with our seriousness sometimes. I do hate any cans of worms, and hpefully will never open any!

BTW, do you know what a &#39;total opening&#39; is? :blink: :blink:

[Z3_GoCar]

I&#39;d like to know where it says the spoiler shall be purely vertical, made of one piece of material, or limits how it&#39;s connected to the front of the car. I think DD means it&#39;s illegal because of the fact it&#39;s horizontal and the opening below it isn&#39;t allowed. Well where is it called out how low an air dam must be. I think the air dam/spitter rules are some of the most evident and self explanitory in the ITAC.

James

[Dave Zaslow]

There is no rule mandating how low an air dam MUST be, just a rule on how low it can be:


9.1.3.c. No part of the car, except for the exhaust system and suspension components, shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims.




..... Well where is it called out how low an air dam must be.....
James
[/b]

[lateapex911]

It would be legal, except for the issue with the support rods attaching to the bumper. Techically, I think DD has a point on that one item.

It could be cleared up easily by attaching them elsewhere. If done that way, it&#39;s completely legal in my eyes.

[seckerich]

It would be legal, except for the issue with the support rods attaching to the bumper. Techically, I think DD has a point on that one item.

It could be cleared up easily by attaching them elsewhere. If done that way, it&#39;s completely legal in my eyes.
[/b]
Except the rule clearly states that "on cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover". Totaly legal.

[Gary L]

Except the rule clearly states that "on cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover". Totaly legal. [/b] Well just for the fun of it... in the photo, how can you tell what the support rods (which are clearly part of the &#39;spoiler&#39;) attach to? The details of the upper ends of the rods are not shown, but I&#39;d bet they&#39;re prolly not fastened to the &#39;bumper cover&#39;, which is most likely a fairly flimsy piece of molded plastic.

[lateapex911]

See? I shouldn&#39;t believe everything I read, even if it comes from the hair splitting DD! (Thats a compliment, DD)

[seckerich]

If you roll in the mud with a pig long enough you realize the pig just likes it. Have fun! :D

[ddewhurst]

Before I go any further, some of you need to lighten up a tad or two. Please do not be selective in your word reading. Below is from a previous post by me. < This is not refering to you Bill.

"Fun playing upsmanship & twisting things untill the poster (me) thinks he&#39;s correct."

Steve, was your last post funny?

Jake, everyone should read everything someone else says a couple times & then continue to question what they said or typed. Measure sevearl times, CUT once. ;)

Gary, being that Colin started this thread I&#39;ll presume the red car shown is a Miata & yes the bumber cover is a fairly flimsy piece of molded plastic. Anyone doing any serious business with their horizontal element of their airdam/spoiler wouldn&#39;t connect the mounting rods to the flimsy material. We agree that the rods are prolly not attached to the fairly flimsy piece of molded plastic therefore they are attached to something by viewing the picture not within the air stream therefore ILLEGAL. :023:

James, I agree with you about the physical shape of an airdam/spoiler that they may be in about any plane anyone desires to fab them. :D

James, let me below take another shot at my teasing technial sense of homor. :D

If in the picture of the red car within the first post IF the manufacture called the red attached piece below the intergrated bumper assembly a "bumper cover extension" them we would need to call the black part in same picture the airdam/spoiler correct. Also for my purpose of teasing argue we need to forget about Andy&#39;s NACA ducts mounted in a horizontal plane. Now with all that ^ said the black piece called an airdam/spoiler is not tall enough in the vertical plane to implement normal duct openings for cooling brakes, correct. If one is allowed by rule to implement normal brake duct openings (for fun call the opening 3 inch diameter) for cooling brakes in the airdam/spoiler then one would think that the vertical surface would need to be larger in dimension than the 3 inch diameter of the duct opening which the black piece is not therefore the black piece is ILLEGAL. Twisted & evil BUT if the manufacture called the red piece a bumper cover extension that little thin maybe 3/4 inch thick black piece would be found ILLEGAL even IF it was legally mounted. :o

:lol: :happy204: :o :rolleyes: ;)

[Greg Amy]

Whee!!!! (...TM, Prof. Knestis/Conover Motorsports...)

[JeffYoung]

David, read your post 4 times. Um, what? Steve E. is right. If you have an integrated bumper cover, you can attach your spoiler to it. That&#39;s what happened here. Legal.

[ddewhurst]

***David, read your post 4 times. Um, what?***

Jeff, are we having fun yet? Which post by number are you refering to? If your refering to my post # 25 that post is written in lawyer speak.


***Steve E. is right. If you have an integrated bumper cover, you can attach your spoiler to it. That&#39;s what happened here. Legal.***

I aggree the spoiler may be attached to the bumper cover, BUT not legal when you attach (rods) the spoiler to something that&#39;s not to the body & not within the air stream. ILLEGAL........It&#39;s quite understandable that neither you or I would attach our spoiler to the flimsy bumper cover. For argue purpose I&#39;ll guess that where the spoiler is attached to the bottom of the flimsy bumper cover that it&#39;s also attached to more than the flimsy bumper cover.

While Colin sits back laughing. :rolleyes: :lol:

ps: When we put on our common sense hat, we ALL know that the rule was written for a vertical air dam/spoiler. Ya Ya I understand the rule has no description about what plane the surfaces of an air dam/spoiler may be. I said put on a common sense hat. :023:

[seckerich]

I did put a smiley face David. Where in the rule does it say anything about mounts or anything else in the "airstream". It is mounted to the bumper or body. Do you want to split hairs and say they meant to say body and not frame or in this case "unibody". Pull out your own common sense hat. Body is defined as parts licked by the airstream and I can find lots of parts in that grill opening licked by the air.

[ddewhurst]

*** Body is defined as parts licked by the airstream and I can find lots of parts in that grill opening licked by the air.***

Steve, there are all kinds of parts within the person compartment of a car that are secondarly touched by air from outside the car. Do you believe that air is what is ment to be the "air stream"? If you do you need to in your words "Pull out your own common sense hat". Gee, the carpeting within the person compartment is in the air stream therefore the carpeting is part of the body. :rolleyes: Or the air that eventually touches the hood latch or hood hinges is part of the body. :o :lol:

Break time from this thread ;)
David

[seckerich]

See post 23. :026: