So when is a wing legal in IT?

[shwah]

I do not advocate altering the profile of the integrated bumper as shown in your examples. Only that a stock - separate - removable air dam be legally replaced by one that meets the IT rule, rather than covered by one.
You could do what is shown in these photos now below any existing stock body work, whether that be an integrated bumper, or a facia. I still don't see evidence of a legitimate performance gain by making the rule logical.

[Greg Amy]

I do not advocate altering the profile of the integrated bumper as shown in your examples. Only that a stock - separate - removable air dam be legally replaced by one that meets the IT rule, rather than covered by one.

How are ya gonna do that, when most cars these days have integral bumpers?

And, trust me, whether you "advocate" it or not, change the rules and someone will take advantage of it. I certainly will.

You could do what is shown in these photos now below any existing stock body work, whether that be an integrated bumper, or a facia.

My Integra, for example, has about 3-4 inches from the bottom of the stock nose - which is pretty much even with the vertical outline of the car - to the bottom of the wheels. Kinda difficult to make that into anything resembling the possibilities, were I allowed to remove it.

I still don't see evidence of a legitimate performance gain by making the rule logical.

Then we're at an impasse. But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

[shwah]

How are ya gonna do that, when most cars these days have integral bumpers?

And, trust me, whether you "advocate" it or not, change the rules and someone will take advantage of it. I certainly will.

My Integra, for example, has about 3-4 inches from the bottom of the stock nose - which is pretty much even with the vertical outline of the car - to the bottom of the wheels. Kinda difficult to make that into anything resembling the possibilities, were I allowed to remove it.

Then we're at an impasse. But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

I don't see how allowing someone to remove a stock air dam when installing an allowed airdam somehow also gives allowance to modify the bumper cover itself. What rule would possibly allow that?

Maybe we are talking about two different things - I would not be OK with cutting away any of the stock material, or replacing the bumper cover with an alternate one. I do think that if the car has an oem air dam that is a separate part, which is attached to the bumper cover, or fascia, or frame or whatever, we should be able to remove it if we install an IT spec air dam - which has a defined geometry today, which has not resulted in the outcomes you speculate, which does not allow for additional openings beyond those defined (possbily poorly) for brake cooling.

[shwah]

But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

I'll make sure to run any other rule questions by you in the future to find out what will happen, so I don't have to waste my time and those actually responsible for the rules...

[Greg Amy]

I don't see how allowing someone to remove a stock air dam when installing an allowed airdam somehow also gives allowance to modify the bumper cover itself. What rule would possibly allow that?...I do think that if the car has an oem air dam that is a separate part, which is attached to the bumper cover, or fascia, or frame or whatever, we should be able to remove it if we install an IT spec air dam...

Well, the problem then arises - in the same vein as the CAI debate - how do you rectify situations where different cars with different designs have different opportunities? Whereas my Integra is a pretty much a single-piece bumper fascia extending nearly to the ground (and thus cannot take advantage), other cars have "air dams" that extend all the way up to nearly at (or above) the radiator and can be removed, giving TONS of space, vertically and horizontally, to let their imaginations roam...then we get into specific make/model definitions of what an "iar dam" actually is, with some manufacturers' parts books calling them spoilers, some calling them fascias, some calling them air dams, some calling them valences...

The Pandora's Box possibilities are endless...open a small slot, and a train gets run through it. Thus my reference to it being a slippery cliff.

Then, one has to take that trip down Memory Lane once again, and go back to the original philosophy of the class to rectify this idea against the intent of the class...and it doesn't follow.

Just sayin' I think it's not a good idea, when taken in the context of all this. - GA

On edit: In reference to your last comment, you certainly don't need MY approval, Chris, I'm not in any way part of the rules process. Hell, it's hard enough trying to get those rules-making rat bastards to listen to me, let along take what I say seriously...

[shwah]

Just poking fun at stating your opinion as a fact about whether the rules would be improved.

Pandora's box is there and open right now simply by allowing non stock airdams at all. Asking to remove stock air dams won't change what can already be done.

[Knestis]

I have to agree w/Greg. While I can see Chris's point, it's kind of based on an operational definition of "air dam" that applies to his car. It applies to mine, too and it would be a heck of a lot simpler if I could remove that "lip" and start with a nice, horizontal surface. There are lots of perfectly reasonable aftermarket parts that poke right in there, or I could take advantage of the flat surface for mounting something we made.

But we've got to write the rules for all eventualities and even with a raft of new definitions in the gloassary, it would still be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.

K

[JeffYoung]

Basically, all 2nd Gen RX7s if I understand things correctly.
I agree as well. Lots of potential for trouble here if we allow a replacement.

Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.

K

[shwah]

But we've got to write the rules for all eventualities and even with a raft of new definitions in the gloassary, it would still be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

OK. I go back to the small bumper and have every one of those eventualities available to me. What exactly are you preventing from happening again?

Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.
K

You mean we can't tell the difference between an air dam and a bumper cover? If we can tell the difference between a drain hole and and air intake, we should be able to figure this one out.

Then of course there are the existing geometry limitations to consider - not more than 4" above wheel center would take pretty much any bumper cover replacement off the table regardless.

The argument to not be allowed to remove 'removable' air dams is like the argument to not allow ECU replacement. There are cars racing with us right now that have all the latitude you are afraid of, thus no pandora-ness can be claimed.

[Knestis]

...and you (and I) have exactly the same opportunities under the current rule. It's just easier for some models than for others. That's how it works.

I totally understand your position, Chris but a conservative approach (i.e., leave it alone) is the best answer for the ITAC, unless some really compelling argument can be made for the health of the entire category.

K

[shwah]

So the reason to force retention of the stock air dam is that it will open pandoras box with unique interpretations of the rule, but when faced with the fact that the very situation you are citing exists right now (and has since air dams were allowed), suddenly it's just easier for some than others?

That's a pretty poor piece of justification of your position right there. Changing tune mid stream.

The allowance you are scared of exists already. If that is not acceptable, then take away the air dam allowance. Stock configuration only. Give me one good reason that we should have them on IT cars. And if you give me the - well the horse is out of the barn line - then give me one good reason to require 2 air dams, other than 'well then some cars can make a different shaped air dam than they have right now, just like those other cars that already have that ability.'

Now that I think about it - seriously, I don't see one compelling argument to have them.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Chris,

As long as I can't mount an aftermarket rear spoiler, I won't be mounting an air dam or splitter. The reason is high speed balance: more high speed grip at the front means high speed oversteer. So I've got all that realestate to add one, but can't use it because of rear air flow issues.

[Gary L]

Hey Chris,

As long as I can't mount an aftermarket rear spoiler, I won't be mounting an air dam or splitter. The reason is high speed balance: more high speed grip at the front means high speed oversteer. So I've got all that realestate to add one, but can't use it because of rear air flow issues.

Man, I feel your pain... the 142 would just be such a handful with more front downforce. And I shudder to think about how bad it would be without the rear diffuser that was installed on all 142's from the factory. (Admit it... I'll bet you thought those were spare tire wells hanging down in the back, didn't ya?)

Aerodynamic discussions always leave me chuckling. Almost as much fun to read as the "short shifter" threads.

Merry Christmas

[Knestis]

So the reason to force retention of the stock air dam is that it will open pandoras box with unique interpretations of the rule, but when faced with the fact that the very situation you are citing exists right now (and has since air dams were allowed), suddenly it's just easier for some than others?

That's a pretty poor piece of justification of your position right there. Changing tune mid stream. ...

Sorry you feel that way, Chris. I'm pretty confident that the rationale has been consistent, even if I didn't do a great job of explaining it consisntently.

Some things are always going to be easier for some than for others. I know some of you think ITAC members sound like broken records on stuff like this but we simply can't use that reality as rationale to try to make each thing equally easy for everyone. If we did, everyone who struggles with their specific make-model challenges would use the same rationale to "fix" their inequity, and we'd be obligated to do it: If it's right for airdams, it's right for unobtainable windshields being replaced with Lexan, etc., etc., etc.

One thing for sure, though: Leaving the rule the way it absolutely prevents any new wrenches in the works. We'll have all of the issues we currently have but none more. And unless we KNOW that the new rule will be better - and we can't - the potential downside risk isn't warranted.

Kirk (who gets to go to Portillos for lunch today and thinks Chris might recognize the value of that)

[shwah]

Kirk,

I absolutely see the value in that lunch. Enjoy!

To be clear, this is more about something not being logical at all, more than what I can or can't do. Like I stated, I have run the small bumper setup, and was preparing to build a mold for a uberlight super effective airdam splitter for that car to replace the temporary pile that I tore up at IT Fest.
Which was this ugly thing:


I actually think I can do something very close to the illustrations that Greg gave, without the non-IT legal bumper modifications.

Something like this:


I stumbled on a free big bumper setup, and put it on the car to see how that would look, and see how it would work and made an air dam for that to run at the ARRC.

Like this:


I didn't leave the stock peice on, but as stated can modify the setup pretty easily to do so. I'm acutally not convinced whether I will stick with that bumper or go back to the small bumper.

It's not about whether it is easy for me or anyone else to perform the allowed addition of an air dam, it's about the dumb idea of leaving the previous oem unit mounted to the car doing nothing, behind that air dam. I really try to be pretty open minded and ready to just say 'well we don't agree' on these discussions, but I really honestly can't believe the lack of willingness to think about or consider my argument and why I am making it. I do see this as a knee jerk reaction. It's a shame, because it leaves a dumb rule unchanged, but it won't have much impact on my own prep or plans.

[Knestis]

I totally understand why you think it's silly, Chris. I share my personal opinion not in any effort to convince you that you're wrong but to share what I personally think: That there are a lot of IT racers out there, many of whom have at least one of our rules they think is completely nuts, and "it's stupid" isn't enough of a reason FOR ME to support a change.

Remember that I'm just one guy on the ITAC. I *think* that there are other members who act based at least in part because they share that perspective but write your letter and it will get considered - they all do.

K

[Flyinglizard]

Chris, both of those are really nice. Where is the splitter?? It looks as though you have at least room for a 1in splitter.
Both are too low tho. well under the wheel rim,IMHo, eyeball opinion.
Any air kept from under the car is a good thing,lowers the under hood pressure, wait, that lowers my HP...
The front fender plastic inners helps also. MM

[Flyinglizard]

PS the small bumper is better, as is the small window doors.
Jetta is way better.Smaller doors, smallbumber, more ass . all good. MM

[jimmyc]

But with the factory stuff there I am limited in horizontal placement and extension. With the OEM stuff gone I can set the air dam back a foot or so, make a very large and effective horizontal splitter, add upturns for downforce well within the vertical outline of the body, and clearly and directly divert large volumes of high pressure air to the brakes (a distinct advantage on this car).

interesting...

So the 92-95 civic SI/EX (as they come with a factory installed lip) is screwed in the splitter design arena. But the 92-95 civic DX/CX (no factory installed lip) get to reap the benefits of a well designed splitter.

The ITA integra (94-01) and ITS integra 94-01 get have a good splitter while the 97-01 ITR integra ITR doesn't.

[dj10]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

For all you BMW E36 ITR cars please install the trunk lip lip spoiler.