Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[gran racing]

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching.

The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

Yeah Tom, the Prelude I have has 110 stock HP. The differences between them are CR as you noted, and a couple of other non-legal IT mods.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.

Forget where I read it, maybe the Box, but all ITB now processed at 25% with a proactive look for power numbers on anything with Multi-valve before classification or correction.

The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

So it would seem we are there. 25% on new classifications. If a car is classed at over that based on the boner, then it should get swapped back per the Ops Manual. If it's processed over that based on dyno numbers, so what?

[jjjanos]

It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body.

It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.

So where is the confusion about mounting?

Seems perfectly clear to me.

Agreed. So long as the mounting doesn't do something illegal, I don't get the issue.

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

[Greg Amy]

There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

The reason for that restriction lies in 1985, when cars has separate bumpers (prior to plastic aerodynamic bumper covers). The reason for specifying mounting them to "the body" (and limiting the attachment to below 4" above wheel centerline) was to keep competitors from mounting them to separated bumpers, thus closing out the whole front of the car. - GA

[JeffYoung]

I just don't see any real answer we could have given here other than the rule says wha it says. It is clear. Your spoiler has to fit in a defined space (witin the "shadow" of the body and in front of the wheel wells, and not above the wheel centerline).

It has to be attached to the body or if you had an integrated bumper, the bumper.

If you can make a splitter within those parameters (and you should be able to), more power to you.

I had to think hard on this one for a while when it first came in -- good letter -- but I'm convinced the above is correct and that nothing further is needed or should be rendered by the ITAC.

Dave, yes, default is now back to 25% for all cars in B multivalve or not.

Peace out brothers of Rules Nerditude.

[CRallo]

My post was a response to others. Did you read them? I ask because you might misunderstand my post if you took it out of context.

The word I highlighted, you grasped out of mid air. It is NOT in this rule. Andy understands me. In fact my very point was the absence of that word in the rule. No confusion there IMHO.

Oh and on that theme, your conclusion at the bottom is not a true statement/summary.

It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.

Seems perfectly clear to me.

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

[Chip42]

Chris hit the crux of the issue.

as I see it, "must be mountedto the body" can be read as follows:

1) "the air dam (splitter) must attach to the body in order to not leave openings between the allowed device and the body."
THIS was the basis for finding the moser submission illegal, so we know we can use this interpretation.

2) "the structural mounting of the airdam (or splitter) must be to the body and ONLY the body, as this is the only method specifically allowed. in fact, it is required."
THIS is the unanswered portion in the moser request. we all agree that the air dam/splitter must attach to the body, but is that mounting exclusive, or just the single mandatory component of an otherwise free system? functional under-trays and the like largely hinge on this answer.

some will read it as 1 AND 2, some only 1. I suppose there could be another interpretation but I think I captured the gist of them all above. the ITAC COULD make a "clarification" on this but as I've said, it's a pot better left unstirred. If we draw that line, we will alienate members either by making existing devices illegal or for enacting what is seen as further rules creep.

*I* read the rule to require only #1 and thus allowing splitters due to the Roffe Corollary. to me the body attachment is an aerodynamic restriction more than a structural envelope. I'm sure splitters weren't intended in 1985, but that's what I feel that the words say. were the ITAC to consider clarifying this, we may well put forth a recommendation that doesn't agree in whole or part with my *personal* interpretation. that's how committees work.

[jjjanos]

My post was a response to others. Did you read them? I ask because you might misunderstand my post if you took it out of context.

I took "It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body" to mean that you may also mount the spoiler/airdam/splitter to both the body and somewhere else where the else is not an integrated bumper assembly. Where mount is defined as attached.

If that is not what you meant, my apologies. If it is what you meant (at least for IT), then you are mistaken. Attaching the splitter anywhere else is not a permitted modification.

9.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
9.3.D.8.b ....The spoiler/air dam shall be mounted to the body
9.3.D.8.b ....On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover.

Whether the allowance to mount to the bumper cover gives an alternate mounting point replacing the body or an additional mounting point if the splitter is mounted to the body is unclear.

Oh and on that theme, your conclusion at the bottom is not a true statement/summary.

None-the-less, the GCR tells you where you are allowed to legally mount the item.

[Ron Earp]

I don't have GCR handy and it won't load in Chrome for some reason. What is the description of "the body" in the GCR?

[tom91ita]

"my" interpretation is that the review committee's ruling:

concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b.

was overturned by the COA for TWO reasons per:

The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings.

The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

the COA specifically mentioned the attachment design is not an issue AND the appeal was "well founded."

[Chip42]

I don't have GCR handy and it won't load in Chrome for some reason. What is the description of "the body" in the GCR?

Body – All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. For Formula and Sports Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with the function of the engine or transmission.

-c

[Flyinglizard]

Riddle me this, If the dam can be attached to the bumper cover, how is it legal if it can be seen from above, ( shadow rule)?
Can it be flush to the bumper?( allowing air to exit over the bumper)?

I am pretty sure the intent was to not allow slotted air control, (Wings).
If the dam sees excited ,air over and under , it is now a wing.
Wings = bad road to go down. Much lift can be made with small slots.
The upper edge of the air control system should be mounted to the bodywork , sealed, without room to pass air.IMHO

If mounted to the front valence(body), with stand offs, it would still be legal, as long as the dam was covered by the shadow. A small effective wing could fit there on many cars.

If the ITAC wants to address this ,before I start building IT wings, it would be good for the group.
The rule should address Vortex Generators , splitters,and keeping the upper edge sealed to the body, and not worry about a strut going to the bumper support.
The bumper is body, in GCR talk, maybe also.

[Greg Amy]

My understanding of the process is that CoA declarations are point-in-time opinions, and are not necessarily indicative of future considerations. In other words, if the regs are not cleared up to address the concerns raised by the CoA results, then there's risk in future courts presenting a different opinion. For example, I don't see that retaining CoA findings will necessarily be sufficient evidence in defense/offense of a protest.

The easiest damn thing to do here is change the verbiage to clearly reflect the intent of the regs. I'm baffled why there's resistance to that.

GA

[ShelbyRacer]

From my standpoint, I *thought* the "mounting point" argument was the question of whether the uni-body structure (radiator support or the like) was a "body" part for the purposes of the mounting rule. This was the part of the discussion that I spoke to, so if I am missing the bigger picture here, please let me know. In my mind, the allowance for the air dam to incorporate a splitter and/or undertray is there, so long as it fits within the clearly defined envelope- the location, outer outline limits, and mounting method. What you call it or what function someone thinks it serves inside that limit may be debatable, but if it doesn't perform an unauthorized function, it's all good.

To add to Greg's point way back on page 2 (the options for "clarification")-

If you want to see the mounting changed or have other words to define it, write in. The ITAC/CRB will respond.

If you want to see the limits expanded, write in. The ITAC/CRB will respond.

I was one who argued though, that it's not our place to issue a judgement, especially one that was based on a COA action (or inaction). The request to do so was read, and we had quite a bit of discussion on it, so please don't think it was a glib response.

Again though, if I am missing the bigger picture here, tell me. In the end, I want to represent the IT community (which is larger than just this forum) and do what is best for the club.

[Chip42]

The easiest damn thing to do here is change the verbiage to clearly reflect the intent of the regs. I'm baffled why there's resistance to that.

because whatever way you slice it, people will not like the change. as it is, they appear to MOSTLY aggree to disagree and race and it's not causing a problem on track that I can identify.

I know this job is damned if you do and damned if you don't, but I for one draw a line when it comes to fixing stuff that isn't broken. I'm not in the business of taking existing rules and mucking with them to the extent that it make cars non compliant for no demonstrable purpose, nor to clarify creep for the sake of specifically legalizing one commonly held interpretation of a rule thats not causing much real issue in practice as written.

[erlrich]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the mounting point fire:

A front spoiler/air dam is permitted. It shall not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above perpendicular to the ground, or aft of the forward most part of the front fender opening. This body outline does not include bumpers or bumper mounts. The spoiler/air dam shall be mounted to the body, and may extend no higher than four (4) inches above the horizontal centerline of the front wheel GCR hubs. It shall not cover the normal grille opening(s) at the front of the car. Openings are permitted for the purposes of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator. Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited. The spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the forward most part of the front fender wheel opening.

Seems to me if the rule explicitly states that the spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the wheel opening, then it is implicitly saying that supports and/or reinforcements forward of the wheel opening are ok.

[jjjanos]

the COA specifically mentioned the attachment design is not an issue AND the appeal was "well founded."

I read that as "We all agreed in 5 seconds that the openings were illegal and the other thing is going to take all night, so let's just declare it illegal."

[Greg Amy]

...as it is, they appear to MOSTLY aggree to disagree and race and it's not causing a problem on track that I can identify.

I disagree. In point of fact, Mosers thought it was nebulous enough to pay for the (non-)clarification, persons have expressed doubt in this very thread that their proposed parts are compliant, and I'm aware of threats up here in the northeast to protest commercially-available product.

The issue is decisively not clear. There are basically four camps:

- Group #1: Those that think it meets the letter of the regs and don't care about the spirit, and do the mods;
- Group #2: Those that think it may meet the letter of the regs but not the spirit, and might do it 'cause others do it but are concerned about that because they're afraid they'll get tossed, but understand that it could be a performance disadvantage against Group #1 to not do it;
- Group #3: Those that think it meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the regs, and are damned pissed-off at Groups 1 and 2 for being cheaters; and
- Group #4: Those that have never thought of it, and who will some day see an example and become members of Group #3, then eventually #2, then maybe #1.

So what if someone gets pissed at a clarification? People are already pissed now! We should decide what we want to allow in Improved Touring and change the regs accordingly, and the "losers" will get over it (see me and sphericals).

- GA, who used to be a member of Group #4, quickly progressed to #3 within minutes, then went to #2 after reading the regs, and is now firmly in Group #1.

[Flyinglizard]

MY lawyer's advise for rental race cars; The driver takes all responsibility..
Thats it.
The jist is that few words make for few loop holes.
VS many words = many loop holes.

[tom91ita]

I read that as "We all agreed in 5 seconds that the openings were illegal and the other thing is going to take all night, so let's just declare it illegal."

could be...

but if i add a dam/splitter, the best attachment points are my car are metal and not plastic bumper covers.

i will likely print a copy of the protest and appeal letter and point at that if i am protested for attachment method. "see, they said that this was not an issue" it may not be the spirit of their ruling but it could likely help sway a trackside ruling.

i want a dam/splitter very similar to the ones Mosers were running. relatively simple, well made and attached securely. the ducting/openings i would add in it will be directed to the general vicinity of my brakes....