Is this airdam legal for IT?

[Greg Amy]

Actually says "shall be" attached to the body. Mandatory.

Jeff, show me the word "only".

And for Mickey: to follow your logic, show me where it says you can install a splitter.

"If it says you can, you bloody well can."

[mossaidis]

OK, I will roll with this...

Air Dam – An air control device at the lower front of a car, intended to divert some of the air which would normally pass under the car when the car is in motion.

Spoiler – A panel attached to the body of a car at the front or rear, intended to alter the airflow around or under that end of the car when in motion.

No definition for splitter...even though it's mentioned all over GTCS and STCS when referring to the extension of splitters beyond the outline of the car. In this case, I would agrue that a splitter functions as a air dam/spolier and needs no further explanation.

[JeffYoung]

True, but...

1. Rule allows airdams in certain dimensions. Says you "can" have one.

2. Rule does not say you can attach it anywhere.

3. Rule DOES say you (a) "shall" attach it to the body and (b) can't attach it to the bumper unless you have an integrated bumper. In the absence of you "you can," this for me anyway defines what you can do and anything else in the way of attachment is not permitted.

Not to get argumentative, but I think you'd lose a protest if you had your spoiler/splitter attached to anything other than the body, or the integrated bumper cover if you have one.

Jeff, show me the word "only".

And for Mickey: to follow your logic, show me where it says you can install a splitter.

"If it says you can, you bloody well can."

[jumbojimbo]

Is an undertray licked by the airstream? A floor? of course they are. And it doesn't say you have to attach to the OUTside of the body....

The body is by gcr definition the OUTSIDE of the car. There is no outside and underside of the "body".

Definition of body says ABOVE the floor pan, well, I'm too lazy to look it up again for the exact wording, but clearly the floor pan can not be above itself. So even though the undertray and floorpan might be in licked by the airstream, they are not part of the body. You can't claim the entire unibody is the body. The body is clearly intended to be the outside shell of the car that was painted to look pretty or get Armor-all'd. Not the grungy bits under the car that hold it together.

Oh, and that would seem to exclude the radiator support which makes the COA ruling so oddly unenlightening.

The part that drives me nuts about the GCR is that it is not clear on cars with integrated bumpers if the wording about attaching to bumper cover is IN ADDITION TO or INSTEAD OF the the attachment to the body. And the COA ruling seems to be designed specifically to not answer that question.

[lateapex911]

The body is by gcr definition the OUTSIDE of the car. There is no outside and underside of the "body".

Definition of body says ABOVE the floor pan, well, I'm too lazy to look it up again for the exact wording, but clearly the floor pan can not be above itself. So even though the undertray and floorpan might be in licked by the airstream, they are not part of the body. You can't claim the entire unibody is the body. The body is clearly intended to be the outside shell of the car that was painted to look pretty or get Armor-all'd. Not the grungy bits under the car that hold it together.

Oh, and that would seem to exclude the radiator support which makes the COA ruling so oddly unenlightening.

The part that drives me nuts about the GCR is that it is not clear on cars with integrated bumpers if the wording about attaching to bumper cover is IN ADDITION TO or INSTEAD OF the the attachment to the body. And the COA ruling seems to be designed specifically to not answer that question.

Good point on the floor wording. ANything ABOVE the florpan licked by the airstream is fair game though.

Regarding the mounting. Say I wish to make a nice light splitter, and it needs support at it's mid span. And the most effective splitter would use all the dimensions available in the rules, which puts the area needing support at, oh, say, the bottom of the radiator, or even further back. Tough to attach it to the body in such a location, most would think, right? Not really. I'd weld a tab to the underside of say a header panel (like on oh, say a CRX) and suspend with a cable. Or a thin rod if that seemed better.

[Z3_GoCar]

What about the rules related to the exhaust exit:

Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used. Exhaust
shall exit behind the driver, and shall be directed away from
the car body. Original exhaust system heat shields may be
removed. A suitable muffler may be necessary to meet sound

control requirements.

Let's see behind the driver, directed away from the car body. Down is away from the car body.

[Greg Amy]

Sorry, you guys can parse the rules all you want, but my position is how these rules have been commonly interpreted for the last quarter-century.

There's a lot of aspects of these quarter-century-old rules that were originally written for cars long before current chassis/body designs, and long before current racing technology was available at the amateur level (I suspect this rule is as constantly-argued as the IT-going-National rule...which, I see, we're arguing again). I agree that a lot of the aspects of these rules are not within what I perceive as their original intent, and let's not forget that I was racing Improved Touring when these rules were written and doing so in cars using old chassis/body/amateur racing technology (as was Kirk). So if you want to argue the original intent of the Constitu...uh, the airdam rules, bring it on.

But as we use the Internet to more efficiently argue about this, let's not forget how 25 years of case law...uh, de facto rules interpretations has changed and exploited the commonly-accepted usage. In the latter case, we now have splitters, undertrays, and mountings that that do not attach *only* to the "body" of the car, none of which are explicitly allowed within the general reading of the rules. We arrived to this point by one simple way, and that's via the Roffe Corrolary as I described above (and, along with suspension sphericals - which were recently explicitly codified into the rules even though its proponents argued that the rules allowed them - are perfect examples of why I spend time to write such things as the "How to Write a Rule" topic. Words mean things.)

This horse is loooong out of the barn, and trying to argue it back in is pointless, punitive, and has no positive value. Arguing frame brackets back in the barn is also arguing back splitters and undertrays, and leaves us open to arguments of inconsistency of application and effect in regard to body types designed since the 1980's (e.g., integrated bumpers versus detached bumpers.) You really want to take on that?

If you disagree with all this, feel free to drop $25 on any of my cars next time you're at the track; each of them will use frame-, engine, or radiator-support brackets to suspend, secure, and/or stiffen any aftermarket airdam I choose to install.

Dog. It's sleeping. Let it lie.

GA

On edit: James, all my cars use a center-dump downward-pointing exhaust, roughly mid-chassis, center of car, behind driver, pointing down. It's common.

[spnkzss]

Man I love winter and stirring the pot.

[mossaidis]

^^ me too.

GA - (Disclaimer: I have not read you're rules posting yet, but will tonight) you are an example for many of us, so pls set the example. So what you are saying is, the rules are not representative, in this area, of what we can do. So there's an understanding that I am not aware of, i.e. a gentleman's agreement?

[Greg Amy]

So there's an understanding that I am not aware of, i.e. a gentleman's agreement?

No, no, no, not at all! I do NOT approve of "gentleman's agreements", I read the rules exactly as they're stated.

Read that link from above and maybe you'll see.

- GA

[lateapex911]

Yea, I thought that would be your response, Greg. Add me to the "gentleman's agreements blow big donkeys dick club" roster.

Rules are rules, words have definitions. If the definitions and the order of the word says you can do something, then it's fair game. Intent is something for the writers to worry about.

[Hoof Hearted]

I've been trolling the site for a few months, bought an el-cheapo IT car cuz I wanted an "inexpensive" place to race. I've read about how the rules are the rules and the intent of IT racing "was" to drive your car to the track, pound around and drive it home... ...that's obviously so far out the barn door.

I have not turned a wheel on an asphalt track yet, so I'll don my hand-me-down, Pyrotect snowmobile driving suit while typing... ...people are arguing about where or how you can attach a splitler (or if it's even legal), yet the rules allow for a hopped-up program in the engine management system (but you must retain the car's windshield washer reservoir??)... ...how and why did that rule change come into effect?????????? The rules massages seem to be tilting, listing, avalanching towards "newer" cars and making the veteran cars less likely to gain access to the pointy end of the grid.

I've got a lot to learn so ignore this post if I'm We Todd Did... ...I'll shut up now and keep reading.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still not getting it. Maybe too late for me tonight.

Air Dam/Spoiler shall be attached to the body. (shall: will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.)
Body defined
Aft and height restrictions given

Radiator support, frame, etc explicitly not allowed as they are not 'licked by the airstream'. Don't see how you win that protest.

[lateapex911]

yea, the ECU rule came about in fits and starts. When the cars were first classed, the ECU guys often compared the carb guys ability to change jets and alter timing, and they had, maybe a distributor. An adjustable fuel regulator exists in the rules, but of course, soon chips were being altered. The PTB felt it was undetectable, and as some guys couldn't flash the chips and some could, it wasn't fair across the board. So, an effort to even things up occurred, to let extra boards be piggy backed, etc, and the "Anything goes as long as it fits in the original box and connects to the original harness with no other modifications" rule was born. Fortune tellers had it easy.

NOW it became a REAL have and have not: The guys with boxes of certain sizes could fit an entire MoTec system in there. They needed large cash stashes too, of course. Those without either the cash or the space were now "have nots".

Technology changes of course, and now there are multitudes of cheap systems available, many with files already out there to start with. So, the rule was recently opened up all the way. It really had to be, as many stock modern cars have very invasive ECUs that limit RPM in certain gears, limit speed to 100, manage ABS and go into limp mode if the sensors aren't reporting etc etc.

Times change and we can't lock the rules down to 1995 levels. The ITAC is aware of the situation, and DOES take all things into account when classing cars. Old and new are often seen competing together. You have an ITB car. If you race in the NE, you will face these top level drivers/cars: Ken H with his BMW 2002 (74?), Dave Gran in his 87 Prelude, and Tristian Herbert in a Golf III. Each represents different levels of engine management, yet each run at or under track records..the SAME track records.

[Greg Amy]

Air Dam/Spoiler shall be attached to the body. (shall: will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.)

Rules do not state it must "only" be attached to the body. As long as it's attached in some way to the body (whatever definition you care to use for that) it's legal.

The Roffe Corollary.

Don't see how you win that protest

There is no protest on this issue. Never has been, as far as I know. And I'm willing to wager there likely never will be.

On edit: If, however, someone were to decide to get a bug up their ass and try to make a point by protesting this (and/or trying to change the rule), and should they protest anyone besides me, I'd be glad to spend my own time and money to assist in the offense. In fact, if someone really wants to protest it, I'll be glad to accept that challenge with no avarice toward the person doing it.

[JLawton]

...people are arguing about where or how you can attach a splitler (or if it's even legal), yet the rules allow for a hopped-up program in the engine management system (but you must retain the car's windshield washer reservoir??)... ...how and why did that rule change come into effect?????????? The rules massages seem to be tilting, listing, avalanching towards "newer" cars and making the veteran cars less likely to gain access to the pointy end of the grid.

.

Welcome to the world of IT. LOL Don't let the seemingly crazy rules discourage you however. For the most part you will see a lot of diversity in cars that are all very competitive. Unless you are going to run a spec class (and even those rules get debated and hacked) you'll see this in any class.

[spnkzss]

On edit: If, however, someone were to decide to get a bug up their ass and try to make a point by protesting this (and/or trying to change the rule), and should they protest anyone besides me, I'd be glad to spend my own time and money to assist in the offense. In fact, if someone really wants to protest it, I'll be glad to accept that challenge with no avarice toward the person doing it.

That actually sounds like fun. If I win will you write a book and give me the first copy signed?

I actually first have to care, to protest it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I actually first have to care, to protest it.

And this is part of the problem, right? None of us really gives a crap about how someone attatches their air dam unless it clearly creates a performance issue.

I disagree with Greg's reading of the rule. You MAY attach one and IF you do, it SHALL be attached to the body.

(and for the newbies who keep popping up, don't get all worried about the silly season. The atmosphere at the track is a total 180 - literally in Lawton's case )

[spnkzss]

And this is part of the problem, right? None of us really gives a crap about how someone attatches their air dam unless it clearly creates a performance issue.

I disagree with Greg's reading of the rule. You MAY attach one and IF you do, it SHALL be attached to the body.

(and for the newbies who keep popping up, don't get all worried about the silly season. The atmosphere at the track is a total 180 - literally in Lawton's case )

Agreed that that is part of the problem, BUT, if being married and having a kid has taught me anything, you MUST pick your battles.

FWIW, I agree with Andy. AT LEAST in a Honda stand point, cause that's all I "think" I "know".

Edit: I also agree with Andy for the newbies.

[StephenB]

Ah, but therein lies the rub when it comes to rules writing: while "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot" (IIDSYCTYC, or the 'I.T. Principle'), do note that equally as important is "if it says you can then you bloody well can!" (the 'Roffe Corollary')

A complete lack of a rule means that it's not allowed; in other words, within IIDSYCTYC I don't have to write a rule that states "you can't lighten the piston rods" or "you can't move the pickup points" or you can't replace the windshield with Lexan" because it's expressly prohibited by the opening paragraphs of the ruleset. However, the very moment I write that "something is allowed"I now have the responsibility to restrict that "something" in every way possible, lest it be wide open.

In other words, the very moment you read "A front spoiler/airdam is permitted." that "something" - in this case, the front spoiler/airdam - is WIDE F*****G OPEN, subject only to subsequent restrictions. It's no different than if we started the engine mod rules with "engine modifications are allowed" and then trying to restrict them solely within the IT ruleset.

As such, you can do whatever the hell you want to with a front spoiler/airdam, as long as you meet all subsequent restrictions. This is exactly how we ended up with splitters in Improved Touring, despite they, also, not being specifically allowed. And, I do believe the product in question meets this to a "t"...

Fun, ain't it? If you want more fun, do a search for something like "Greg's recommendations to the rules writers" on this forum.

GA, racing season starts minus less than two months, and counting...

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far. I would not agree that the rules are written to allow you to attach your Spoiler to anything other than what it "shall" attach to per the rules. I will put a letter together for the CRB and maybe they can post a clarification for 2011.

Interesting,
Stephen