 |
|
[quote=“Ranger” post=60377]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.
[/quote]
Scott, just a question, have you actually tested a splitter? You seem convinced they don’t work.
I will tell you one thing - they do something, whether it’s good or bad is up to the kind of driving style you prefer. 
For those of us who already cut off the lower part of our late model steel valence panel it will be 258$ plus shipping, cutting, welding etc. It would be cheaper to build a splitter.
[quote=“Elephant4” post=60380][quote=“Ranger” post=60377]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.
[/quote]
Scott, just a question, have you actually tested a splitter? You seem convinced they don’t work.[/quote]
Yes I tested several designs and all I could really say is that the results were inconclusive.
It’s pretty darn hard to test something rigorously, and I was no more able to set up a rigorous test than anyone else. On the other hand the physics of this is pretty simple and that’s what folks are shying away from. When anecdotes conflict with physics, something is wrong. Sometimes it’s that we don’t understand the physics, but usually it’s a matter of non-rigorous testing.
Go back thru your old GRM mags. The aero article was in Apr or May2010 I think. All you need to walk away from a splitter is right there.
I don’t believe the rules permit removal of any portion of the lower steel valance panel.
The arguments for leaving the splitter allowance in the rules are these:
My suggestion would be to improve the rule to make its applicability the same regardless of big bumper or small bumper car. Change the language to state the (a) maximum distance the leading edge and (b) minimum distance the trailing edge can be forward the front hubs. Leave in the part about the contour following the overall outline of the body when viewed from above. A plumb bob and tape measure are all the tech tools you need.
[quote=“Steve D” post=60397]
My suggestion would be to improve the rule to make its applicability the same regardless of big bumper or small bumper car. Change the language to state the (a) maximum distance the leading edge and (b) minimum distance the trailing edge can be forward the front hubs. Leave in the part about the contour following the overall outline of the body when viewed from above. A plumb bob and tape measure are all the tech tools you need.[/quote]
I have wondered what the bottom of the splitter should look like. How far back are you allowed to go as there are specific rules that disallow underbody aero. Here are the 2 rules currently that cover splitters as far as I can tell.
Doesn’t that mean that diving board cars can have a more extended splitter.
Can the Splitter go under the car? Or does it just extend from the front forward?
In order for early cars and late cars to be treated the same, early cars have to have a more prominent splitter because they have a moreprominent bumpers. The current rule is based on a rule change request I made a couple years ago. The reason this is necessary is because a splitter and the front bumper work against each other and size matters.
At speed a high pressure zone develops at the front of the car. That high pressure zone pushes up against the underside of the bumper and causes lift. A splitter gives that same high pressure zone something to press down against, so the force pushing up is offset by force pushing down. That is to say, front lift is reduced.
Since a big early bumper traps a larger high pressure zone under it pushing it up, a larger splitter is required to provide a counteracting down force.
This isn’t the only role of a splitter, but it is the primary one.
The rule used to measure splitters from the body contour, but that prevented early model owners from installing a splitter proportional to their larger bumper.
[quote=“Elephant4” post=60398][quote]
9.3.13.3. Front spoilers, air dams, and splitters are permitted, provided they do not protrude
… aft of the forward most part of the fender opening.
[/quote]
Can the Splitter go under the car? Or does it just extend from the front forward?[/quote]
The splitter can go under the car as described in the rule. In my experience, the splitter needs to be trimmed to clear the tires at full lock if you maximize the trailing-edge-to-the-front-of-the-fender-opening part of the rule.
Ranger wrote:[quote]
This isn’t the only role of a splitter, but it is the primary one.
[/quote]
No, the primary role of a splitter is to look cool and make the competition wonder if they are missing something important. Is it working? :laugh:
[/quote]
No, the primary role of a splitter is to look cool and make the competition wonder if they are missing something important. Is it working? :laugh:[/quote]
I think Steve’s quote is the answer.
I’m with Ranger, I think I’ll go look for the old GRM magazine. Course It doesn’t matter who I’m with, I don’t make the rules.
Perhaps there would be a concern if our brick cars could exceed 130mph.
Rather than worry about the splitter I need to learn how to drive.Continue the debate/entertainment.
RP
I favor a spec that references against a vertical line dropped from the bumper. The spec would say that the forward edge of the splitter must be a specific distance aft of that line and width of the splitter would be limited. I am not sure what the numbers should be and I think there would need to be a spec for metal and plastic bumper cars. But the size splitter I am thinking of would be no further forward or aft than two inches from a line dropped from the metal valence of a 9/87 or later 325i
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.
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.
[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=“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.
[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.
[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.
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.
[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.