Results 1 to 20 of 359

Thread: Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mossaidis View Post
    I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.
    Mickey, the STAC never got a letter from you regarding splitters...were you asking for splitter clarifications in IT? We had requested that the definition of a splitter be placed in the GCR Technical Glossary but the CRB decided to keep it in the STCS for now. - GA

    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    ...he effectively asked the same question regarding mounting / under car components that went unanswered by the COA in the moser splitter protest, coupled with a request for a general rewrite to clarify air dam / splitter mounting rules.
    A Pandora's Box in Improved Touring.

    Splitters are not explicitly allowed in Improved Touring. However, the verbiage for airdams in the ITCS - which have been around for decades - are nebulous enough to where competitors have leveraged them to create splitters and undertrays. It's a long-standing argument, debated ad nausea on this forum over the years. First time I saw one I thought it was cheating, until I opened up the rulebook and read the words. Then I was convinced that while it may not be in the spirit/intent of the original rules, it was certainly within the letter.

    And before someone throws back "how do you know what the intent was" argument, remember I was in IT back in the mid-80s when it was new, and I remember how cars used to look back when those regs were written...

    If the ITAC were to decide to pursue a clarification on this allowing splitters, I recommend looking at the verbiage the STAC just proposed for 2013. I stole a lot of the ITCS verbiage for that change, detailing how an airdam, undertray, and splitter are to be done. The ITCS could use the same verbiage, changing only the allowance to extend 2" outside the bodyline and adjusting the ride height limit.

    However, note that the reason we decided to allow STL to go 2" outside the body outline was because there are numerous cars that, because of the front end design, cannot have any splitter at all. We decided it was more equitable to allow all competitors at least a 2" splitter (splitters gain most of their value at 2"-3", from there the advantages drop off sharply.)

    Please note that if anyone ever sends in requests that are intended for more than one committee (e.g., Super Touring and Improved Touring) it's best to breka them out into two different requests. The STAC never saw Mickey's letter; the regs we published for ST were purely and completely coincidental...
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 10-16-2012 at 02:41 PM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •