 |
|
Recently, some drivers have asked for official consideration of requiring an unmodified stock intake airbox and also going to a completely stock body, including the airdam.
They feel that stock airboxes are cheap and provide yet another way to restrict performance modifications, and that some drivers will spend a lot of money on exotic air dams that will provide a significant performance advantage.
Thoughts from the group?
Carter
Stock is fine by me unless you want to also allow headlight removal. I have a BavAuto CAI for sale if anyone wants one.
Air dam is stickier because they are becoming hard to come by and pricey for the stock IS. Consistency would be fine, and affordable is a requirement. It would be a shame to not be legal for a race b/c a racer couldn’t find an original air dam.
Carter, thanks for asking.
Age
Stock unmodified airbox, absolutely.
I’m all for stock bodies and airdams. However, we should at the least allow for up/back dating between all of the different stock body styles. Including bumpers if so desired. AJ is right. The "stock" IS airdam from my 87’ is very expensive used, if one can be found. I wouldn’t want to run just the standard 87’ metal valence naked though. I’d at least like to be able to move to the later style "integrated" metal valence.
Other than some of the homemade alternatives, there aren’t really any exotic pieces available that would have any noticeable gains. Well, except for Damion’s lip, but he has to be cheating to be that much faster than me! hahahah.
-Stock air box: no objections
Igor
Igor K wrote:
[quote]-Stock air box: no objections
Igor[/quote]
+1
I would say stock to both. I think Cobetto proved to us that having no IS front lip and a completely banged up front spoiler is just fine to win races/run up front.
I am all in favor of the update/backdate concept.
The simplier we make this process, the easier it will be and hopefully less expensive.
I like both ideas.
Airbox - no brainer.
Bumper cover - I think this should be a stock piece (and allow back dating updating), or at the very least, it can be any material but cannot extend lower than the stock piece and should be in a vertical plane, meaning it is not beant to create a front wing or winglets etc. We fabbed up a lower spoiler at nationals and I think it helped some but I would prefer not to run it, simply because it will get torn off everytime I go off the track or put the car on the trailer :), plus its just another area to get creative.
I am all for the stock air box. I have an '88 so diving boards and later style valance. The stock plastic part that is suposed to be under the valance has a great tendency to fall off as well in an off. I just use some sheet ABS plastic and screw it to the bottom of the valance. Cheap and easy. I would prefer not to have to find a regular source for the stock plastic lower part.
Michael
I vote that we stick with a stock air box.
As for the air dam/bumper cover… I’m on my 3rd one. and they are getting harder and harder to find. It would be nice to have a home made version from a cost perspective.
Why not spec the home made air dams? That way, no one will gain an advantage with the home made versions.
I ran the last 2 races of the year without one. Would that be an option? 
Were I the cynical type, I’d ask why do you want feedback?
Stock airbox should not cost anything to add back to the car. By no modifications you’d best spell out what the racers need to do about the (typically) missing rubber air horn that preceeds the plastic air box. You had best spell out whether the internal air horn needs to stay in place.
Availability of '87 spoilers is poor.
Great idea to let the cars that already running be grandfathered-in. Would not have thought of that.
Robert Patton
Agree with stock (and unmodified) airbox. Makes it simple, and they should cost next to nothing at salvage yard if any racers are lacking one.
As for the front spoilers, the 86/87 are becoming unobtainable, and the later 88+ ‘is’ style retails for well over $100, and are easily damaged, so requiring those seems counter to the spirit of the series.
If somebody wants to fab something up from sheet metal or high-impact plastic that faithfully reproduces the ‘airprint’ (think footprint but with air) of whatever was original to the car, then I’d be OK with that. I think this might exclude the Racing Dynamics and Abraham splitters, which have a forward-jutting lower edge, but anybody who can find their way to the hardware store could gin up something cheap and legal.
Stock airbox, yes. Should have the "horn" inside. Should have ducting from the headlight cover only.
Airdams, I wouldn’t require stock, but maybe spec ground clearance = to stock. Disallow splitters and no aero devices perpendicular to the body (trying to think of a good way to say "no aero devices").
Robert Patton wrote:
[quote]Were I the cynical type, I’d ask why do you want feedback?
Stock airbox should not cost anything to add back to the car. By no modifications you’d best spell out what the racers need to do about the (typically) missing rubber air horn that preceeds the plastic air box. You had best spell out whether the internal air horn needs to stay in place.
[/quote]
:))) Removing rubber which precedes the air box, with otherwise unmodified area around it, will actually hurt performance (ever so slightly though), due to hot(er) air from engine compartment being sucked in. So if my competitors want to remove it I am all for it 
The little air horn inside stock air box is functional too (those BMW engineers knew what they were doing), so if people want to remove it I say let them, but I am keeping mine - ofcourse if rules allow it.
Robert Patton wrote:
While I don’t want to spoil ‘the game’ for the cars already running, I am not big fan of ‘grandfathering’ this in. It does not induce level playing field across the board - I am speaking from financial (and headache) standpoint at the moment. Those air dams are hard to come by (I have 87 car) and are expensive By same token should of exhaust been grandfathered in ? ( ducking for cover). Also, grandfathering can bring it’s own questions and arguments - are the cars currently being built grandfathered-in? Is the car grandfathered in (potentially creating market for them)? Or is driver grandfathered in (what happens if I build another car)?, etc.
I said it in the earlier post, but here it is again (from someone who had to go find air dam recently) - leave that rule as is (it’s not perfect, i.e. bumper conversion is not allowed, but it’s better then proposed alternative…)
I think we all want stable rules for our inexpensive series, which guarantees level playing field .
Regards,
Igor
stock airboxes: yes
stock valances: no (I’m all for restrictions on the valence but like everyone has said, it’s very hard to find stock 87is front valances.) Talk about spending money? If you try to find a factory mtech front spoiler which in my opinion is the best you will spend alot of cash. We got lucky when we purchased the blue car. However, if it gets damaged beyond repair we will not try to find another one.
I am all for the factory air box.
I say restrict the front spoiler rule somewhat. I have the Reiger front spoiler mainly for the fact that it looks cooler that the factory piece. Anything to help these rolling boxes look a little more like race cars. I have driven the car with and without it and it made no difference in the handling. The 87is front spoiler seems like it may actually be a more functional piece offering an advantage to those that run it versus the 88+ cars. Now some of the homemade things I have seen were a litlle over the top.
specing the ground clearance for the air dam is what I was thinking. It should be common to all cars - don’t try to make it year specific. Maybe disallow aero devices roughly parallel to the ground (splitters), although some commercial valances may have some lip there - probably doesn’t make much difference.
stock airbox is a good idea because it may save some newbies some $ if they are thinking a CAI will get them something.
bruce
Michael Skeen wrote:
[quote]Stock airbox, yes. Should have the "horn" inside. Should have ducting from the headlight cover only.
Airdams, I wouldn’t require stock, but maybe spec ground clearance = to stock. Disallow splitters and no aero devices perpendicular to the body (trying to think of a good way to say "no aero devices").[/quote]
Another vote here for the stock air box.
The present rules regarding air damns seem pretty good to me. Damion and I have the same Reiger front spoiler. It makes the car look better but provides nothing to improve the cars handling. For me, its a good spot to advertise Toyo tires and Konig wheels.
Stock air box = yes. There’s been zero proof that any kind of CAI makes a lick of difference on these cars to begin with.
Spoiler = I’d agree the factory pieces are too expensive. I bought a really beat up IS spoiler for the front of my car and it still cost me too much. The interesting thing is, I held it up in front of the car and the bottom clearance appears identical to the little lip spoiler my ‘I’ model came with. Aside from helping with brake ducting installation, the IS spoiler really isn’t any improvement from what I can tell. In fact, it’s heavier. 
So I’m thinking I may not even bother with it. I have no problem with the existing rule, as I don’t believe any of the currently manufactured air dams are going to make any marked difference on the track. I’d also be willing to allow a home-made substitute so long as it is basically vertical and meets the same height from the track as the factory versions. These cars aren’t going to get any younger and sourcing such easily damaged parts in the future is going to be a problem, and they are simply too ugly to run without any. :laugh:
Judging from the discussions here on experience, does the front airdam make any difference? In the interest of rules stability, is there a reason to change this rule at all? If a stock look is required, then allow updating / backdating withing E30s and disallow splitters, but if it were a choice I would leave the rule as is (Disclaimer: I do not have a splitter or a stock airdam).
I’m the only person I’ve seen who has installed a carbon splitter on their car. I think you should mandate stock bodies. I am using stock ‘IS’ panels with a carbon splitter hung underneath that would cost me around 300-500 dollars to replace. Unless of course I’m gifted another one from a World Challenge team (thanks Chris Tindol).
I also consider the use of new or used stock panels a good option as a deterent for contact. I’m also a huge fan of allowing an update backdate allowance for these. That way if you get into a wreck you can go with whatever option is cheaper or prefered.
You don’t have need a bunch of rules to deter folks from monkeying around with what they see as a loophole if you just make it stock for everybody.
I don’t really care about the intakes, but stock makes sense.