What's a splitter?

#24

I completely agree.

#25

Copied from the CCR:

28.1.6 ‘Splitter’
Is an aerodynamic device that is attached to the front lower portion of a vehicle to essentially ‘split’ the air flow in a clean fashion so as to lesson turbulent air flow on the nose of the vehicle, but by forcing air to either go under the vehicle or be directed over or around the vehicle.

#26

I do not understand why the bodywork rule is not modified to read that no modifications or additions to the front clip is allowed aside from brake ducts and then spec the size of the largest duct available. Then you dont have to define anytjing regarding splitters and eliminates that part of the racing prep which was ridiculous to begin with.

#27

I would think that white thing on the #39 would slow you down??

By the way, I have lots of factory front plastic thing-a-ma-bobs…not sure what they are called for sale.

Al

#28

So would this be Illegal?

#29

[quote=“harnems” post=69847]So would this be Illegal?
[/quote]
No, actually, that’s legal. That’s the factory snowplow variant used by the BundesDOT to quickly clear the Autobahn in the early 90’s.

#30

I would think that the evo-shaped valences would be legal, as they do not split the air and are actually the valence/bumper, itself. It is not a separate piece that is attached, nor is it horizontal to the ground. Damn… now I need to convert to a late style front bumper. Who wants to swap?? :wink:

#31

I disagree. Anything that extends well past the air dam at the bottom will function as a splitter. It doesn’t have to be a separate piece to be a splitter.

#32

Not rhetorical questions: Does a Volvo lip or IS lip function as a splitter? How about the home depot garden border stuff (especially if it’s rubbin on the ground)?

#33

I think that technically those lips and purely vertical elements should not be considered splitters.

#34

I think that technically those lips and purely vertical elements should not be considered splitters.[/quote]
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Volvo lip, but either of the simple OE parts (like 5171194555 or 51711968488) are not splitters. Nor would a vertical panel qualify as a splitter.

In my mind the distinction between an air dam/spoiler and a splitter is what it does to the air flow. If there is a projection on the bottom that traps air on the front of the air dam/spoiler it is a splitter.

#35

[quote=“jlevie” post=69874]
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Volvo lip, but either of the simple OE parts (like 5171194555 or 51711968488) are not splitters. Nor would a vertical panel qualify as a splitter.

In my mind the distinction between an air dam/spoiler and a splitter is what it does to the air flow. If there is a projection on the bottom that traps air on the front of the air dam/spoiler it is a splitter.[/quote]

The volvo lip is nearly identical to the IS lip.

#36

I think that technically those lips and purely vertical elements should not be considered splitters.[/quote]
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Volvo lip, but either of the simple OE parts (like 5171194555 or 51711968488) are not splitters. Nor would a vertical panel qualify as a splitter.

In my mind the distinction between an air dam/spoiler and a splitter is what it does to the air flow. If there is a projection on the bottom that traps air on the front of the air dam/spoiler it is a splitter.[/quote]

I think we’re getting close to the definition that needs to be in our rules.

#37

[quote=“JeffN” post=69875][quote=“jlevie” post=69874]
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Volvo lip, but either of the simple OE parts (like 5171194555 or 51711968488) are not splitters. Nor would a vertical panel qualify as a splitter.

In my mind the distinction between an air dam/spoiler and a splitter is what it does to the air flow. If there is a projection on the bottom that traps air on the front of the air dam/spoiler it is a splitter.[/quote]

The volvo lip is nearly identical to the IS lip.[/quote]

I happen to need one, as I, err, lost my IS lip. Is the Volvo lip cheaper or preferable for some reason?

#38

[quote=“EdP” post=69877]
I happen to need one, as I, err, lost my IS lip. Is the Volvo lip cheaper or preferable for some reason?[/quote]

Well, I got mine for $13 at a junkyard. I’ve tried to find a part number to see how much they are new, but I can’t seem to find it.

Either way it’s better than $150!

#39

This is legal and it works for me
[attachment]C:\fakepath\DSC00574.JPG[/attachment]

#40

This is legal and it works for me
[attachment]C:\fakepath\DSC00574.JPG[/attachment]

#41

I use the volvo lip, takes some trimming but works well, Much cheaper than the basically identical factory part.

Al

#42

Sorry to be late for the party. I am still alive, and am appointing myself as the physical laws logic officer of the series.

I believe I talked to Kyle about a splitter rule in which the only thing necessary would be to bann the airdam from extending beyond the profile of the bumper. The splitter functions on the bernouli or venturi or whatever effect that states that higher velocity air has a lower pressure. A long extended and/or upward raked splitter will create a low pressure area beneath it because the air above the splitter hits the front of the car and the air below it moves past at a high velocity. Any part of a splitter that doesn’t extend beyond the front of the bumper doesn’t actually function because the high pressure area has an equal effect on the bottom of the bumper.

As for the picture of the number 39. The splitter debate was already happening when I built that. The intention was to reduce drag not create downforce. Since it was to thin to hold shape at high speed it did nothing helpfull. The fact that the entire thing was less than 2 lbs was the only advantage. I knew that with banning splitters it would be banned also and am fine with that.

The only part of the rule that is neccessary to eliminate downforce is to say that it can’t extend past the bumper horizontally. Take out the part about splitters because it just confuses people.

The only thing I ask for is an even field between early and late models. The late models have a heavy steel valence which needs to be removed.

#43

The flaw in that is that a metal bumper and a later plastic bumper extend different amounts. Since this is a Spec series, the most logical rule would be to specify the valence and lower lip that must be used, like the late valence as used on 9/87 and later 325i (not ic) cars. That can be fitted to earlier production cars.

Or one could specify a fore/aft projection from a line dropped from the line where the valence mounts to the car. That would result in one set of numbers for a metal bumper can and one for a plastic bumper car.