Splitters - Rule Change Proposal

#92

So a lot of us are going to have to spend significant dollars to adhere to a rule change if splitters will no longer be allowed. To find and buy the factory front pieces, depending on which car you have, is difficult and more expensive than building a cheap splitter.

It has been agrued that the rule should be CHANGED to no longer allow splitters. This will cost money. This is why I hate rule changes. It has been agrued that splitters should not be allowed becuase they cost too much… Keeping a stock front end will cost many of us more.

A few apparently think you have lost races because someone has a splitter.

This is stupid. what are you going to ask for next? As soon as a guy wins who has really cool data acquistion and a really cool digital tach, I can hear the arguement… “hey that is not in the spirit of Spec! We should have a pure stock dash!”

The physics on splitters is really SIMPLE. and no I do not have any advanced degrees. They can add downforce/reduce lift when executed properly, and they slow you down on the straights. period. So it is one item we can tune the handling of our cars with. It can reduce front tire wear. It will reduce your straight line speed. Bingo a trade off. Simple, done, move on, nothing to see here.

Please don’t change the rule. If you do, something else will be next, and so on.

(This messsage paid for by “Splitters are cool”) I am vain and I approve this message.

#93

I don’t believe the rules permit removal of any portion of the lower steel valance panel.
[/quote]

9.3.13.3.1. Vehicles with integrated bumper assemblies, 1989 to 1991models, may use
aftermarket front one-piece bumper/spoiler unit, provided the original crash bar is
maintained.

I don’t know of any bumper spoiler units that could be installed without removing the valence panel below the bumper.

#94

[quote=“theShoe” post=60440]So a lot of us are going to have to spend significant dollars to adhere to a rule change if splitters will no longer be allowed. To find and buy the factory front pieces, depending on which car you have, is difficult and MUCH more expensive than building a cheap splitter.

It has been agrued that the rule should be CHANGED to no longer allow splitters. This will cost money. This is why I hate rule changes. It has been agrued that splitters should not be allowed becuase they cost too much… bull! Keeping a stock front end will cost many of us more.[/quote]

I feel like the words significant dollars, MUCH more expensive, and many of us might be a wee bit exagerated. The general consensus is that there are very few people currently using the splitter, and I am sure there are many members on this site that have spare early and late model factory front pieces they would sell for cheap.

#95

Wouldn’t you just remove the splitter, what am I missing here?

#96

[quote=“King Tut” post=60456][quote=“theShoe” post=60440]So a lot of us are going to have to spend significant dollars to adhere to a rule change if splitters will no longer be allowed. To find and buy the factory front pieces, depending on which car you have, is difficult and MUCH more expensive than building a cheap splitter.

It has been agrued that the rule should be CHANGED to no longer allow splitters. This will cost money. This is why I hate rule changes. It has been agrued that splitters should not be allowed becuase they cost too much… bull! Keeping a stock front end will cost many of us more.[/quote]

I feel like the words significant dollars, MUCH more expensive, and many of us might be a wee bit exagerated. The general consensus is that there are very few people currently using the splitter, and I am sure there are many members on this site that have spare early and late model factory front pieces they would sell for cheap.[/quote]

Depends on how you define “significant” or “Much” But, Your right, that is part of my point. this whole debate is exaggerated. IF making a splitter, for those who want, is too expensive, than putting the OEM parts back on is too expensive.

I have knitting to complete.

#97

[quote=“theShoe” post=60465][quote=“King Tut” post=60456][quote=“theShoe” post=60440]Depends on how you define “significant” or “Much” But, Your right, that is part of my point. this whole debate is exaggerated. IF making a splitter, for those who want, is too expensive, than putting the OEM parts back on is too expensive.

Really whatever. This whole debate has become juvenile.

I have knitting to complete.[/quote]

Just so we are clear I never said making a splitter is expensive, there is some cost but it is relatively minor. I’m not sure why you are hung up on this cost issue. It is a non issue in my mind, its cheap to make a splitter and its also cheap to remove them. Feel free to argue otherwise but there is no point getting all bent out of shape, you aren’t really offering anything constructive. Steve at least comes with thought out constructive critism, I don’t necessarily agree with it but I respect his opinion, likewise with Ranger.

#98

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Kevin I did look at my very first post and there could be some confusion. I did start out saying “they are costly”, but if you read the rest I’m talking about cost in time more than $ cost. I could see how that could be confusing. I don’t think they are expensive $ wise to build, several others have already vouched for the low cost of building one.

#99

Not going to get into the splitter debate, but what parts are you talking about here? The rules don’t allow for the removal of the valence or other OEM pieces (other than the undertray) if you have a splitter and/or air dam. But I realize you might be talking about something else or I missed something.

#100

[quote=“secu” post=60471][quote=“theShoe” post=60465]

than putting the OEM parts back on is too expensive.

[/quote]

Not going to get into the splitter debate, but what parts are you talking about here? The rules don’t allow for the removal of the valence or other OEM pieces (other than the undertray)…[/quote]
The part of the rule that causes confusion is where it states that the crash bar must remain. That implies that other parts may be removed. To my eye, that’s a tortured interpretation but that seems to be what’s being argued.

#101

In summary - people have said it’s annoying and/or costly and then some back peddled once more opinions have been heard. Others have said it makes no difference in performance or it has (and it benefits them in way of tire life which is a plus).

To me it seems like a good addition, and should be left alone. You have a choice. No splitter, or splitter. Seems very reasonable to me.

#102

[quote=“Rob in VA” post=60475]In summary - people have said it’s annoying and/or costly and then some back peddled once more opinions have been heard. Others have said it makes no difference in performance or it has (and it benefits them in way of tire life which is a plus).

To me it seems like a good addition, and should be left alone. You have a choice. No splitter, or splitter. Seems very reasonable to me.[/quote]

I’m with Rob. Anyone who actually has ran a splitter knows they work. I still think its a useful tool to set the car up for tracks that produce a lot understeer/graining. I ran one pretty much all season up here. I can tell a big difference in front end grip when I run without it.

I wouldn’t say it unbalances the car, just changes the balance. If you don’t like a car the oversteers, I wouldn’t recommend a splitter, and leave it like that.

#103

Horizontal Front Splitters: These are still legal for 2012 but a rule change disallowing horizontal splitters is being recommended for the 2013 Season.

It’s officially unofficial now.

I would like a heads up on what the rule will likely be. I’m guessing all aftermarket and homemade airdams will be banned. If this is the case I’m hoping the “meets the profile of the factory part” rule like the rear spoiler rule is what we get.

My homemade carbon fiber airdam is a likely cause of my cooling issues so I need to do something before the next race. I have an 89 and I cut off the metal valence behind the airdam. I’m thinking of backdating to metal bumpers. Last time I checked a new 87is poly airdam is nearly 500$. I’m thinking of getting a 87 is or es airdamn, building a mold from it and making a dozen or more in carbon or fiberglass.

#104

IMO it’s unlikely that airdams will be addressed in any new rule at all. The issue being debated is splitters, not air dams. Have there been complaints lately re. airdams? Communicate your feelings to your Regional Director. He/she will be part of the discussion on the rule changes so your voice will get heard.

Buying a new early airdam would be a mistake. They’re too expensive and our airdams take a beating.

#105

I wasn’t planning on buying a new airdam because I couldn’t afford it. I am in the market for a 87 325es airdam if anyone is selling.

#106

An early model air dam is a good PickNPull or part out find. For example, there’s a shop down the road that’s been trying to sell an early model auto with a perfectly serviceable air dam for a year or so. I’m sure the car could be bought for $500. Then you take the air dam, part out the car and end up pocketing a grand or two depending on how much work you put into the part-out and what you want to keep for spares.

#107

I bought a 4 door because I didn’t want to deface a 2 door. Now I want to buy a early model to deface it and strip parts off of it. I’m such a hypocrite that if I stayed in the army I would be a 1sg by now!

#108

I bought a really beat up and broken ‘is’ dam from a guy for $75 figuring I could fix it up good enough to use on a race car. In mocking it up over my existing valance/chin dam there is actually almost no difference in height over the stock setup. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t tried it. So I would not spend money or effort in getting one of these dams (still haven’t done anything with mine). The only advantage I see to having one is it makes adding the brake ducts easier. And, last I heard the brackets to attach the ‘is’ dam are NLA.

Though I question the performance advantage of a splitter on a car like ours, I wouldn’t mind seeing them go away. I don’t think they fit the spirit of the class simplicity (translation: I’m too lazy and inept to fab one up to become a member of the splitter club).

#109

Any chance that the ministry of airdamn/splitter design will share the progress of the current debate with the proles before March. Simply saying that it can’t extend past the profile of the bumper as seen from above would eliminate downforce.

#110

isnt that what the rules say now…:blink:

#111

No. The rules say no more than 2 inches past the profile of the bumper. Those 2 inches are the only part that provides the downforce.