Is this airdam legal for IT?

[mossaidis]

I have a SPMS airdam as well for my EG. If it's similar to the EK kit, the attactment points include the bottom of the bumper cover for the airdam and the front lower side frames for the splitter. The airdam to the splitter is connected via 5-6 clips mounted on the top side of the splitter.

"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 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.

NOTE: Integrated bumper assemblies are defined as those designs where an external non-metallic bumper cover completely encloses the primary energy-absorbing bumper and where this cover could be installed in its normal position with the underlying bumper removed. On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover."

"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."

So, the SPMS kit is okay in attaching to the intergrated bumper cover. There is NO mention of being able to attach such a kit to the frame, since frame <> body. The rule does mention "no support or reinforcement extending aft of theforward most part of the front fender wheel opening." Given the last quoted stated, was the rule intented to allow have supports and reinforcements other than the body or bumper cover?

The SMSP kit does not include any openings, so the moser ruling does NOT apply specificially here. And yes I agree, the lack of ruling on attachment points leaves something to be desired... ugh.

I don't have a horse in this race since I have not installed my SPMS kit yet,
Mickey

[Greg Amy]

There is NO mention of being able to attach such a kit to the frame, since frame <> body.

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...

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the rule says it can be attached to the body and says the body is defined as parts of the car in the windstream not including bumpers or bumper mounts. Tells you how high and how low and how far back.

What's the question again?

[JeffYoung]

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

Unless you gots an integrated bumper.

[lateapex911]

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...

Jeff, want me to design a compliant airdam/splitter for Rons Z that does everything that guys with integrated bumper covers can do? I can, it's easy.

[JeffYoung]

More to it than that (I know you can run attachments to the body, etc.).

Look at the body of the rule. On a NON-integrated bumper car, the spoiler has to be within the bodyoutling of the car. That means on the old Z cars, your spoiler has to be "behind" -- completely -- the bumper assembly.

On "integrated bumper" cars, the spoiler can attach to the bumper cover and can extend out to it. We -- integrated bumper cars -- have a distinct and I suspect unintended advantage.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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

[Greg Amy]

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far.

"Stretching the rules"? Really? "Stretching the rules"? Are you feakin' kidding me?!?

- Given the old rules for suspension bushings - before the CRB unilaterally changed the rule to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with spherical bearings in control arms?

- Given the old rules for ECUs - before the ITAC/CRB changed the rules to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with adding additional sensors, such as a MAP sensors, in these "factory housing" ECUs and added vacuum lines from the intake manifold, into the car, and through screw holes in the case to feed this newly-installed sensor?

- And, given the current rules for "air dams and splitters" - which, as of this point have not yet been changed to match what people are doing - how in the hell did we come up with aerodynamic splitters and undertrays?

And you accuse *me* of stretching the rules on freaking mounting brackets?!?!?

These are but three examples of the hypocrisy being displayed in this thread and others like it. Words mean things, and if rules are to be "interpreted" - instead of simply read - for what they were intended to be, then that must apply across the board, not just against what you like and what you don't like. Just because YOU didn't read the rules for what they say, not with using your pre-conceived assumptions to read what you THINK they say, don't accuse me of stretching the rules.

It's historically been made patently clear by the Improved Touring racing community - and codified by the ITAC and CRB in subsequent rules changes to reflect reality - that these rules are to be read for what they SAY and not for what they may possibly have MEANT when written. "Intention" is not part of the rules, nor is it even available to the competitor to disseminate; words are.

"Stretching the rules"? Hardly.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will agree with one main point Greg makes. He isn't 'stretching' per se, he is applying what he thinks he is reading. Some read it different.

[lateapex911]

It's the old "Perceived intent" vs "strict reading of the actual words" debate.

It says, the Airdam shall be attached to the body.

It could also say, the airdam shall only be attached to the body.

But it doesn't.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's the old "Perceived intent" vs "strict reading of the actual words" debate.

It says, the Airdam shall be attached to the body.

It could also say, the airdam shall only be attached to the body.

But it doesn't.

And to me, it doesn't have to. If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

#1 The airdam may be attached to the body.
#2 The airdam may only be attached to the body.

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

So now what will happen is that someone will ask for a clarification (as what happened with SB as bushings). What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly. Could be as simple as the addition of the word 'only'.

Now if they cave in (like they did with SB's) and clarify the rule to anything other than the original intent......