Splitters - Rule Change Proposal

#21

Didn’t mean to derail the topic…back to splitters!

#22

[quote=“Elephant4” post=59783][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.[/quote]This is my 3rd year with one. I built mine for Miller in 2009. It made a rather significant difference in the high speed sweepers out there. I don’t typically run it at any of the SE tracks but given MidO’s tendency to be pushy, we thought we’d try it out.

#23

IMO there’s nothing broke with the current rule and since rule changes require a bunch of folks to go change things, rule changes require compelling justification.

Obviously early and late model bumper, valance and air dams are different. Allowing some flexibility in front end aero prevents the creation of a “common wisdom” that one type of car has better front aero than another.

A couple yrs ago I played around with aero a lot and did a bunch of research. I don’t have all the answers but a few results might be worth regurgitating.

  1. Our cars have net rear aero lift. Since we can’t put a rear wing on, anything that adds front downforce further unbalances the car at high speed by moving the aero center of pressure further forward. An unbalanced car seems like meager reward for the added drag. Maybe you can find a way to make the unbalanced downforce work for you like Steve did, but the odds are against you.

  2. The more elaborate you make your front end, the higher the liklihood it will end up at a corner station. If you are lucky it will only take your brake cooling with it. If you aren’t lucky your elaborate front end will take out something important when you run over it. Oil cooler, brake or fuel lines come to mind.

#24

[quote=“Elephant4” post=59783]
Yes its been there this is the first year I started seeing them.[/quote]
Because you weren’t at Putnam last year when I unveiled mine :wink: I think I’ve been plagerized :stuck_out_tongue:

For the record, my trailer likes to eat my splitter, but the track never has. Mine sits a little higher than some others’, though. Might develop a rev.2 over the winter :wink:
… unless this rules change goes through.

#25

I modified my trailer to accommodate. My trailer has pockets for 2x4s along the sides so in back I built steel jack stands that I can drop down and pin in place. They are basically rectangular tubes with steel pads on the bottom to support the weight of the car when loading and unloading so I can unhitch the trailer and jack up the front an extra foot. I’ll try to remember to get some pictures next time I’m at my parents place.

#26

[quote=“Ranger” post=59790]IMO there’s nothing broke with the current rule and since rule changes require a bunch of folks to go change things, rule changes require compelling justification.

Obviously early and late model bumper, valance and air dams are different. Allowing some flexibility in front end aero prevents the creation of a “common wisdom” that one type of car has better front aero than another.

A couple yrs ago I played around with aero a lot and did a bunch of research. I don’t have all the answers but a few results might be worth regurgitating.

  1. Our cars have net rear aero lift. Since we can’t put a rear wing on, anything that adds front downforce further unbalances the car at high speed by moving the aero center of pressure further forward. An unbalanced car seems like meager reward for the added drag. Maybe you can find a way to make the unbalanced downforce work for you like Steve did, but the odds are against you.

  2. The more elaborate you make your front end, the higher the liklihood it will end up at a corner station. If you are lucky it will only take your brake cooling with it. If you aren’t lucky your elaborate front end will take out something important when you run over it. Oil cooler, brake or fuel lines come to mind.[/quote]
    In rereading the above I find that I failed to, ah, make a point.

My point is that IMO there is no good reason to do a lot of screwing around with front aero. Therefore it’s likely that we won’t see a lot of screwing around with front aero, and that would remove concerns from the rule change issue.

#27

[quote=“Ranger” post=59795]… it’s likely that we won’t see a lot of screwing around with front aero, and that would remove concerns from the rule change issue.[/quote]You should have taken a look at the pointy end of the grid at Nationals. And, ahem, the very back of the grid. :blush:

The winning car wanted to make sure he got on the plywood. So he taped some to the bottom of his spoiler. :woohoo:

#28

I can think of 6 cars off the top of my head that were running splitters…

#29

[quote=“Steve D” post=59796][quote=“Ranger” post=59795]… it’s likely that we won’t see a lot of screwing around with front aero, and that would remove concerns from the rule change issue.[/quote]You should have taken a look at the pointy end of the grid at Nationals. And, ahem, the very back of the grid. :blush:

[/quote]
Bad ideas aren’t necessarily recognized as such immediately. Sometimes it takes me a while.

No, that’s not right. I mean in general terms. “Sometimes it takes people a while”. Not me. No no, not my ideas.

#30

does a splitter:

  • improve safety? no (think fire system)
  • improve reliability? no (think power steering removal)
  • improve durability? no (think stronger mounts/bushings)
  • address a fundamental weakness in the original design for track use? no (think camber plates)
  • free in terms of cost and/or time to fabricate and mount? no
  • make a car easier to live with? no (think wheel studs)
  • put cars without it at a disadvantage? arguably yes.

personally i don’t understand why splitters were allowed in the first place, if anyone can shed some light on that i’m all ears. that said, it’s in the rules now so what’s done is done, but i fully support its removal from the rules as an allowed modification.

my name is jason tower and i approve of this message.

#31

[quote=“jtower” post=59799]does a splitter:

  • improve safety? no (think fire system)
  • improve reliability? no (think power steering removal)
  • improve durability? no (think stronger mounts/bushings)
  • address a fundamental weakness in the original design for track use? no (think camber plates)
  • free in terms of cost and/or time to fabricate and mount? no
  • make a car easier to live with? no (think wheel studs)
  • put cars without it at a disadvantage? arguably yes.[/quote]
    You get the same answers with data acquisition. And possibly new paint and nice decals. Let’s outlaw those.:stuck_out_tongue:

If I can better tune the front grip of the car, I get better tire wear, better control. That makes it easier to live with. :wink:

A home-made splitter is as close to ‘free’ as stuff gets in racing.

#32

[quote=“Steve D” post=59800][quote=“jtower” post=59799]does a splitter:

  • improve safety? no (think fire system)
  • improve reliability? no (think power steering removal)
  • improve durability? no (think stronger mounts/bushings)
  • address a fundamental weakness in the original design for track use? no (think camber plates)
  • free in terms of cost and/or time to fabricate and mount? no
  • make a car easier to live with? no (think wheel studs)
  • put cars without it at a disadvantage? arguably yes.[/quote]
    You get the same answers with data acquisition. And possibly new paint and nice decals. Let’s outlaw those.:stuck_out_tongue:

If I can better tune the front grip of the car, I get better tire wear, better control. That makes it easier to live with. :wink:

A home-made splitter is as close to ‘free’ as stuff gets in racing.[/quote]

DA is to help improve the driver, not the car. and adding force to a tire does NOT reduce wear. keep trying steve, you’ll come up with a logical argument eventually!

#33

[quote=“jtower” post=59801]and adding force to a tire does NOT reduce wear. keep trying steve, you’ll come up with a logical argument eventually![/quote]Here’s what my butt dyno tells me: If I tune out understeer with my splitter, I am sliding the front tires less. Less sliding = better wear. I’m sure you and Ranger can come up with some formulas or hypotheses for why that’s wrong, but I’ll stick with my results until then.:stuck_out_tongue:

#34

this whole thing reminds me of a joke…what’s the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? a developer wants to build a house in the woods. an environmentalist already has one.

#35

My only comment on this issue.

A splitter came off a BMW at California Speedway and impact Rius Billing’s car on loan from Garrett K. The impact took Rius out of the race and they had to replace the windhsield and un-dent the hood so that it could be opened.

#36

Here is your logical argument. Homemade is cheaper. Not to mention the factory is front spoiler is not made anymore.

#37

i don’t deny your results, just the fact that it’s one more thing that i’d have to add to remain competitive (insert obligatory wisecrack here). spec racing is about making cars cheap, reliable, and equal. not faster.

#38

Are you referencing the early model spoiler? The late model ‘is’ lip is readily available from BMW.

#39

I made my gauge and switch panels out of carbon fiber which is clearly not in the spirit of the spec either. So we should ban that even though theres no performance advantage.

#40

I like the fact we have a choice about something. We just ran Cal Speedway where the (NON E30 Spec) BMW lost his splitter due to POOR PREP and than the very next lap ran over it him self. We ran a spoiler not a splitter for a little areo at top speed. The coast was about $45. see photo below