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?

[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.

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.

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.

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' (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!

[CaptainWho]

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

[ddewhurst]

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

Bill, I understand the "Permitted, not required" spec of the rule. BUT, 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...........

Play Time <<<<<<<<<<
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?

[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!***

Bill, I understand the "Permitted, not required" spec of the rule. BUT, 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...........

Play Time <<<<<<<<<<
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?

[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.