 |
|
Yes, you have to have a definition from some place–in our rules. I don’t care if you copy them from someplace, just get a definition in OUR rules. Otherwise a protest becomes a battle over who can google a def of “splitter” that fits their application.
@EdP: yes, but the rule we are discussing falls under "except as allowed . . "
Hell, this thing was deemed legal:
Yes, you have to have a definition from some place–in our rules. I don’t care if you copy them from someplace, just get a definition in OUR rules. Otherwise a protest becomes a battle over who can google a def of “splitter” that fits their application.
@EdP: yes, but the rule we are discussing falls under "except as allowed . . " in the rule you quoted.
Hell, this thing was deemed legal:
If a driver thinks it is useful, he’s entitled to a clear rule.[/quote]
I agree. I would say it differently tho. I’d say…if there is a rule, it needs to be a clear rule. We can’t have ambiguity in the rules. And giving credit to Carter, year by year sections that were ambiguous have been getting fixed. This rule will get fixed too. The better solution tho is to give Carter a call and talk to him about it. He has a real job and therefore doesn’t spend his waking hours here like we do.
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.
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.
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
[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.
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?? 
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.
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)?
I think that technically those lips and purely vertical elements should not be considered splitters.
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=“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.
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.
[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?
[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!