Splitters - Rule Change Proposal

#1

I’ve submitted the following proposal to the series directors. Discuss please.

Rule change proposal – Splitters
Submitted by: Simon Hunter
09/12/2011

I would like to put forth a rule change proposal regarding splitters. I have 2 proposals with my first choice being the first one.

Proposal 1: Change the rules to say that the body must remain completely stock or some wording like that. It’s simple and there is no grey area. I vaguely remember this being discussed before and the argument against it was the cost of replacements. As someone who has fixed the front end I did not see these high costs replacing the lower valence on my late body car.

Proposal 2: If this is not acceptable I would like see that the rules instead say stock body work, or replacement panels can be substituted that only run perpendicular to the ground and retain the same aprox size and shape of the original stock panels (or some similar wording).
Here are my reasons for the rule change

  1. The splitters being run are totally against the spirit of a spec class. I’m not saying they are illegal, they are not and I have no problem with the drivers who have chosen to build and run them. This is a spec class and you reasonably expect every car to be similar and that all parts are readily available to all competitors. These homemade splitters are detracting from spec. It would be more acceptable if I could purchase this splitter but I can’t. I have to be able to build this splitter myself with no real guidelines to abide by. I’m not the greatest at building things and I can pretty much guarantee my splitter will be not so effective.

  2. They are costly. Not in parts so much but in labor and maintenance. Time is very important to me now that I have twins. I don’t want to invest the time and money (if I can’t do it myself) to build a splitter that will give a minor performance gain. It’s not just the initial investment but the ongoing maintenance of this splitter. Every off track incident you have is likely to rip this thing off along with the associated damage to parts of the car that it is attached to. It might even mean you have to rebuild the whole thing or like me if you don’t have those resources perhaps it means paying to have another one built multiple times.

  3. There are other benefits that although minor are there.
    a. My car won’t go straight on the trailer with the splitter attached, so it has to be designed to be removable. Just one more thing to do when packing up. Yey, I’m excited aren’t you :slight_smile:
    b. Your car won’t be underweight from ripping off your splitter when you hit the scales, Hi Steve :slight_smile:

The performance benefit of the splitter itself is certainly debatable and I don’t think removing it will shake up the order or anything. The faster guys will still win, but the problem does exist that the perception is that they make a difference and even if it’s only a couple of tenths that is something that is worth doing with the closeness of the competition. My problem is that maybe I don’t have the access to the same splitter that the other guy does and this shouldn’t be a factor in a spec class. I realize there are still differences between the stock body styles but the delta between those is negligible in my mind especially compared to a car that has all the fixings with a functional splitter compared to stock. Thanks for considering my proposal.

#2

seconded

#3

I agree

Andrew Z
Drive-gear.com

#4

I have no problems with the rule change. I saw my first splitter in person at Roebling Road, and I did take a long look at it to see how it was done though.

#5

never going to use one myself (it’s just going to get ripped right off) so I concur.

#6

I like “Proposal 1” though it (theroretically) might give an 9/86-8/87 an advantage. But then those chin spoilers are getting harder and harder to find for early cars. I agree that the driver is probably going to make more difference than anything that you can do with respect to a splitter. That said, the existing rules are the splitter are okay for those that want to waste time and money. Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should.

#7

Agreed.

Prefer proposal 1. If it’s got to to be #2 the language should include a minimum height from the ground, and I would suggest that height should approximate the stock part height (again to minimize lack of “spec”).

#8

Why take away one effective way of tuning front end grip? If you don’t want one, don’t use one. An afternoon and a jigsaw is all you need. If I can build one, it can’t be hard.

#9

What about those of us who already cut off the late model lower valence panel and threw away our bumper covers. I think the earlier cars have less weight up front than the later cars with steel panels. Now I’ll have to replace the valence panel or backdate to the 87 style. When it comes to working on my car I have a lot more time than money. I wish it was the other way around. My front spoiler didn’t cost much and it doesn’t look good but the mold which is still good for when I need another one took months to make. If you don’t think a modified front spoiler/splitter works then why do you want everyone else to change. I need at least one thing I can be creative with and I don’t mean the paint job.

#10

I have built splitters for people; materials cost less than $15, less than two hours labor, and they are functional. In my opinion it also makes the car look more like a proper race car. I really don’t mind if this rule stays or goes as long as there is some leeway with the hard to find lower valance. I do however think there are more important issues that should be addressed; Weight being one of them. Saw a car the other weekend carrying >90 lbs of ballast on the passenger floor, and after two races the floor is tearing apart.

Just my $.02

-Nate

#11

[quote=“TOOLEAN” post=59772]I do however think there are more important issues that should be addressed; Weight being one of them.
-Nate[/quote]

I’d love to see the min weight dropped by 200 lbs or so.

#12

This may be a stupid question but how do you tune grip with a splitter, isn’t either on the car or off?

Its not that I don’t want one, its that I don’t feel it belongs in a spec class. Obviously if the rule stays the same I will have to pursue building and testing one.

You overestimate my skills :slight_smile:

#13

I never said it doesn’t work, in fact I believe it probably does work some. Also not everyone would have to change I would say the vast majority have stock body work or can go back to stock. Remember this is just a disucssion it is not a rule change. The rules could very well stay the same.

#14

[quote=“TrackRat” post=59774][quote=“TOOLEAN” post=59772]I do however think there are more important issues that should be addressed; Weight being one of them.
-Nate[/quote]

I’d love to see the min weight dropped by 200 lbs or so.[/quote]

Lets not derail this thread, there are already plenty of threads on car weight and they already dropped the weight 50lbs for this year.

#15

[quote=“TrackRat” post=59774][quote=“TOOLEAN” post=59772]I do however think there are more important issues that should be addressed; Weight being one of them.
-Nate[/quote]

I’d love to see the min weight dropped by 200 lbs or so.[/quote]Are you high? What rule changes do you propose that could allow cutting 200 lbs?

#16

This may be a stupid question but how do you tune grip with a splitter, isn’t either on the car or off?[/quote]Yes. With it on, you have more front grip. Mine is slotted for fore/aft adjustment, though. Lots of exposed lip = more grip/more drag.

Its not that I don’t want one, its that I don’t feel it belongs in a spec class. Obviously if the rule stays the same I will have to pursue building and testing one.[/quote]It has been in the rules for quite some time, no?

You overestimate my skills :)[/quote]I’ll be building another one over the winter since mine is somewhere in MidOhio’s bumper/muffler/splitter/roadkill collection. Send me $20 and I will mail you a cardboard template. :wink:

#17

weight could be dropped another 50, not 200! but as simon said, that’s a different topic altogether.

#18

[quote=“Steve D” post=59779]It has been in the rules for quite some time, no?
[/quote]

Yes its been there this is the first year I started seeing them.

#19

Mine isn’t even a splitter its just cow catcher that angles out to the maximum 2 inches, because I was more concerned with weight distribution, drag and polar inertia than extra front grip. It however won’t pass your proposed rule change. I’ve never understeered in a high speed corner so I don’t know why you’d want more drag and front downforce. Maybe theres a few off camber high speed corners it could help but I don’t see it being worth it.

#20

Turn 1 at Mid Ohio, it also leads to a small straight. I have no idea at what speeds it needs to be effective, I’m trying to avoid all that. When I think of Spec E30 an adjustable front splitter does not come to mind.