Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Chip42]

Mickey
GCR 8.1.4 spells out "compliance review."

the downside is that it costs $300. I'm betting a fundraiser could be started to gather that as there is sufficent interest in a ruling.

IF the thing under review is found compliant, you get a letter saying so and the result is not published in order to maintain the benefit of an innovation. If the review is found non compliant, it will appear with a full finding in the COA briefs in Fastrack for all to see.

I agree that the court failed us in the moser case as there were too many aspects to consider and they failed the whole device on some of the less gray points, namely unducted openings between the air dam and body work. the undertray, aft-of body mounting (using the GCR definition of body), etc.. remain unanswered and "gray".

a ruling can give the rule direction, and if desired, members can petition for revisions based on that. that would be somethign the ITAC and CRB can actually work with.

NOT ITAC/OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
I personally feel the rule allows a full undertray splitter provided that the entirety of the thing remain forward of the front fender opening leading edge, within the overhead or plan-view of the body including integrated bumpers, and the body and air dam are sealed to one another so as not to create unducted openings or oepnings ducted in ways not allowed by the rules, such as in the moser example. I think the structural mounting or supports may be behind the body, such as OEM tie down attaching points on the bumper horns as are often used, and I think the COA agrees with me based on the moser findings (though it's not explicit).

others feel that an undertray is legal, but all mounting and support bust be to the body, NOT structural points of the car interior to the body, making the strength and thus the usefullness of an undertray low in most cases. still others think a splitter in any form is not allowed and therefore illegal.