Why then are airdams and splitters allowed?[/b]
Adding *any* aerodynamic downforce results in *significant* increase in expense. Proven.

Splitters were never "allowed" in IT; show me where they're explicitly addressed? We had this conversation on this forum a year or so ago, but splitters showing up in I.T. were as a result of the evolution of cars in the 70s and 80s from those with detached metal bumpers to those in the 90s incorporating integral bumper covers. Within the confines of your typical IT-legal car back when the rules were written, splitters were virtually impossible to make (and not thought of; I don't think I saw one on a pro race car until maybe early 90s in WTCC or BTCC?).

Enter the integral bumper cover and now you've scads of horizontal space to mess with behind the vertical nose, coupled to graphic examples in Pro racing to emulate and - voila! - splitters show up in Improved Touring.

Besides, adding a rear wing to a street car is just simply gay. Or ricer, though in some cases I fail to understand the differences...

And what of the FWD disadvantage? Adding a rear wing to a FWD car is PAINFUL, especially if you can't install the mega-buck remote reservoir shocks you're going to need to control the springs you're going to need to setup the car stiff enough that you're going to need to take advantage of the wing.

However, I can be convinced: I propose that we allow unlimited wings in Improved Touring, with an automatic 10% weight penalty. That should even it out. Maybe.