Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[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.