Splitters - Rule Change Proposal

#61

More pictures

Robert Grace

Cameron Bullard

Cameron’s splitter after going off track :silly:

#62

[quote=“Elephant4” post=59959]More pictures

[/quote]Wow! Those must have cost tens of [strike]thousands of[/strike] dollars and [strike]hundreds of[/strike] man-hours to fabricate and install. :laugh:

#63

They cost more than the cost of not running one which is zero. I’d also add that Cameron (or his Dad who fabricated it) has rebuilt that splitter at least 3 times. Now currently I’m assuming he is fine with that in order to get a leg up on the competition. But once everyone has splitters negating that advantage then we just have a bunch of cars that are more susceptible to damage and take longer to fix especially at the track (do you bring a spare splitter to the track?). They also aren’t even the same, as you can see the design is very different between builders as you would expect when the rules leave you to interpret your own design. I’m not sure why we would to want to go through all this, just so you can tune the front end? I’m perfectly fine building and testing a splitter for next year, but why bother if we don’t have to. Spec E30 has never been about making the cars faster, we don’t need splitters to have great racing.

#64

[quote=“Elephant4” post=59965]Spec E30 has never been about making the cars faster, we don’t need splitters to have great racing.[/quote]True, but Spec E30 has always had an eye toward cost.

Here is my experience and/or what I believe to be true: a splitter helps get rid of push in high speed corners. With less push, there is less tire wear and more predictable handling.

The offset is that the splitter takes some time to fabricate and install. It also makes the car more susceptible to damage in off-track excursions. For those reasons, I don’t run one at most tracks. But it is damn handy when needed to properly tune the front grip.

A splitter may be seen as some as a PITA, but so is a lot of performance-influencing stuff that the bottom half of the grid sheet won’t bother with.

You can’t legislate intent in the rules. If the powers that be take away splitters like they took away adjustable FPR’s, I’ll comply with the rules. But they don’t seem to influence performance to a similar extent. Heck, some folks on this thread think they hurt performance!

#65

[quote=“Steve D” post=59966]
A splitter may be seen as some as a PITA, but so is a lot of performance-influencing stuff that the bottom half of the grid sheet won’t bother with.[/quote]
Yeah baby. Splitters are against the mindset of someone who paints his car with a foam roller and two quarts of boat paint. :stuck_out_tongue: Just make sure when you knock them off they don’t lay on the track for us second stringers to run over. That would really tick me off. :wink:

#66

[quote=“ddavidv” post=59979]Splitters are against the mindset of someone who paints his car with a foam roller and two quarts of boat paint.[/quote]Dwight, don’t obfuscate my argument with your “aw, shucks” paint job story. Your car - foam roller or not - was the 2nd prettiest car I saw at NJMP.

You’ll probably “slap together” a splitter over the winter that will have the finish quality of a 1950 Chris Craft.

#67

[quote=“ddavidv” post=59979][quote=“Steve D” post=59966]
A splitter may be seen as some as a PITA, but so is a lot of performance-influencing stuff that the bottom half of the grid sheet won’t bother with.[/quote]
Yeah baby. Splitters are against the mindset of someone who paints his car with a foam roller and two quarts of boat paint. :stuck_out_tongue: Just make sure when you knock them off they don’t lay on the track for us second stringers to run over. That would really tick me off. ;)[/quote]

I used rustoleum metal door paint. The bumps in the paint from the roller delay airflow seperation increasing the effectiveness of the trunk spoiler at high speeds and should be banned imediately.

No offense Simon. Hopefully I’ll meet you at Road America next month.

#68

[quote=“turbo329is” post=59989]
No offense Simon.[/quote]

None taken, I do have a sense of humor even if my posts on splitters suggest otherwise :), its only a discussion, I’m not taking anything personally.

[quote=“turbo329is” post=59989]
Hopefully I’ll meet you at Road America next month.[/quote]

Sorry I won’t be there I’m done for the year. Mid Ohio in April will be the next event for me.

#69

I have been playing with the splitter idea since the beginning of the season. I probably have one of the more aggressive designs and one of the first models of the splitter was seriously low. The one I ran at Nationals was about an inch higher, but the plywood part was the same exact template. I have definitely ripped a good few of them off, usually at turn 1 at Mid-Ohio.

As far as the cost, splitters are very affordable. I believe I run on one of tighter budgets and even after building lots of these things I bet I don’t have 100 dollars into it. They can be made very adjustable as well. Mine was slotted for height, and had adjustable turn buckles on the front to adjust the angle which is nice when the plywood becomes slightly warped. I use a thin piece of scrap stainless steel from my dad’s plant to make the valence, and bolt the plywood to the bottom of the stainless steel. We attached the steel to the bumper with two small screws which rip out easily. That was the newest version of the splitter and ripped off well at Nationals. Earlier versions of our splitter definitely didn’t tear off as cleanly.

I know for a fact our design works. I’m not sure if it is faster or not, but definitely changes the handling of the car. We add two pounds of pressure to the front tires when running the splitter to get equal pressures. I ran without a splitter on Thursday, then put the splitter on for Friday. I notice the car doesn’t understeer at all with the splitter on, which helps me a lot at Mid-Ohio. I like a loose car. I even notice it in slower speed corners such as the Keyhole. During the Friday Qualifying I ran a 1:43.9 which was the fastest lap I’ve ever ran at Mid Ohio. The splitter also makes my front tires wear more evenly. I tend to wear rear tires faster than the fronts now.

Overall I’m definitely a fan of the splitter. With our newest design it doesn’t damage the bumper even when I rip it off, and completely fixes understeer problems which haunt most of the e30s at tracks like Mid-Ohio. They are cheap and easy to make, and I don’t think are a complete performance advantage compared to non-splitter cars. The month before at Mid-Ohio I ran a 1:44.2 when I won the Saturday race without a splitter, then ran a 1:43.9 during Friday qualifying at Nationals (which was a colder day) with a splitter. For me it seems to improve the car’s handling to my liking. Someone who doesn’t like a loose car wouldn’t enjoy driving my car.

That’s my 2 cents on the subject. I like the ability to use the splitter on tracks that cause our cars to understeer.

#70

[quote=“cbullard” post=59996]
That’s my 2 cents on the subject. I like the ability to use the splitter on tracks that cause our cars to understeer.[/quote]

I think thats all tracks :). Thanks for sharing your data, its very interesting that you have to raise the pressures by 2lbs and also supports Steve’s idea that the splitter reduces front tire wear. I was getting the worst graining I have ever seen on the left front at Nationals (I blame part of this on the compound which just sucks in the 2011 toyos, but thats another thread). I’m still against splitters for the reasons I’ve already mentioned but it is pretty obvious to me that there is time to be had from building one. The 2 sessions you mentioned I ran a 1:44.5 and a 1:44.2. There are too many variables to really compare them as I should have been faster in the 1:44.2 session since I was on better tires and had an almost perfect 2nd lap when the tires were best. Basically if you can get rid of the understeer at Mid Ohio especially out of the Keyhole and just beyond mid corner at turn 1 then that is huge. I’m guessing its going to be worth around 3 - 4/10ths. Thats equal to about 3 hp and who wouldn’t add 3 hp to their cars?

#71

Hmmmm. I used boat paint because I felt the ultra-smooth gloss would part the air with less turbulence much like water around a hull. Perhaps I need to look into some kind of faux finish that will create additional air channeling, something that would work like the little plastic fin things on the trailing roof edge of a Mitsubishi Evo. I’m sure the secret to enough speed to pass DeVinney and Grace is out there somewhere. :stuck_out_tongue:

Meanwhile, back in reality, though I like Steve and his pretty car with it’s wind tunnel designed splitter I would vote against having them. Adding still another engineer’s variable to the cars that doesn’t keep them truly equal. I’d rather be beaten by a driver than a splitter (and I generally am anyway, so perhaps my complaint is misplaced).

#72

[quote=“ddavidv” post=60002]Adding still another engineer’s variable to the cars that doesn’t keep them truly equal.[/quote]We are not adding another variable. The proposal is to take away a useful setup tool that has been permitted under the rules for >3 years.

Should we take away spring pads since some people choose not to use those for setup tuning? Adjustable rear bars are unfair to those who never adjust them, too. Not to mention those bastards who buy new shocks every couple years. :lol:

#73

I’m the new guy here and I was wondering why there is even an allowance for an aero device in a spec class that didn’t come from the factory?

I think comparing aero to spring pads is alittle off base. Spring pads are a known entity whose characteristics and uses are easily described. Look at the length F1 goes to define aero!

Just my noob .02

#74

[quote=“cosm3os” post=60005]I’m the new guy here and I was wondering why there is even an allowance for an aero device in a spec class that didn’t come from the factory?[/quote] There are a great many things on our cars that didn’t come from the factory. This is not Showroom Stock E30.

[quote]I think comparing aero to spring pads is alittle off base. [/quote]The smiley face was as close as I could get to showing my sarcasm.

The splitter can, if the driver chooses, be used to address a known handling issue present with our nose-heavy cars. This method can possibly extend tire life.

The effective area of the splitter is well defined in the rules. Maybe we should add that it must be a flat piece mounted horizontally if you are concerned about an F1 front wing being developed.

#75

My splitter does tend to warp when it rains for some F1 status :evil: . The tire wear (for my car atleast) definitely improves. Everyone complains about Mid-Ohio and graining. I have zero graining on the tires when using the splitter.

#76

The point I didn’t make is that splitters are something that must be made, and everyone can engineer their own design. There is no ‘spec’ splitter. Even if there were, I liken it to the computer chip debate; it’s something that to be truly equal, we all should have, so we all just spend more money making our cars equal…again. More cost with debatable returns.

I liked the Toyo vs Hoosier debate better. :slight_smile:

#77

If there’s a problem with the looseness of the rules surrounding the splitter, let’s tighten them up. I would hate for us to take a step backwards and lose some potential handling of our race cars.

If some are thinking that the designs are too differing, how about we have a standard template for the splitter and however you want/need to mount the splitter go for it? I feel the rules are pretty solid around the shape of the splitter, but if having a template is what it takes to keep it, I’m all for sharing my template to everyone.

#78

It’s a spec series. What’s wrong with the stock clips? Hell, should probably make the cow catchers illegal so you all can sell them and buy the cheap ones, which will still hold brake ducts.

#79

Here’s what is going to happen. A bunch of folks are going to make a big deal out of this and as a result the regional directors are going to feel compelled to make some rules to reduce the chaos.

Status quo.
No one is annoyed because it’s no big deal if some folks want to play around with an idea that is somewhere between ineffective to mildly bad.

Future.
We will have rules imposed and now lots of people will be annoyed because:

  1. Some folks with splitters will have to change them.
  2. Either early or late model owners will feel the rule is unfair to their model.
  3. Some folks that will be making splitters will feel unreasonably constrained by the new rules.

If we can all just shut up about it, than the folks that want to dabble in splitters will be free to further unbalance their car. Those with splitters will be happy because they got to imagineer, and those w/o splitters will be happy because they’ll see the others handicapping themselves. It’s all good.

#80

Nicely summed up. :lol: