Air Dam & Splitter attachment Points & COA

Actually this ruling specifically allowed the attachment points to the body. Anything above the floor pan licked by the airstream is fair game. If it is on the outside of the car it gets licked.:D The ruling was that the openings in the air dam were not used for legal purposes. The first ruling on the attachment points was just to get it to the COA for a definitive ruling. That was overturned and the attachment specifically defined as legal.
 
I'm confused on this ruling.

I've always read the airdam rule as allowing me to add as much or as little airdam as i want as long as I stayed inside the x,y,z, dimensions allowed.

If my car is 5' wide, and I put a 3' spoiler in the middle do I have 2 1' unducted openings at the sides? I don't think so. The ruling talks about a horizotal plane. If I have a splitter that has a "U" shape when viewed from underneath is the inside of the "U" an unducted opening? Again, I don't think so.

The rule is written kind of dumb. It basically allows any airdam. It then goes on to allow openings for DUCTING air to a couple things. They were already allowed under any airdam. I don't follow how they then starting talking about "unducted openings". Must my airdam also now be sealed to the bumper and/or body? Are those leaks unducted openings?
 
Tim, EXACTLY -- that is exactly my confusion as well. It seems to suggest you can only have an opening in the air dam if you use it to duct air to the radiator, oil cooler or brakes, and also seems to suggest that you have to have a perfect "seal" so that no unducted air gets to the engine compartment.

That's not right. But I'm pretty sure that is what it says.

I suspect Moser (the guy asking for the ruling) was using the splitter/air dam to duct air to his air intake and that is what the CoA was trying to prohibit, but the language they used went way too far.
 
I'm considering making a good "airdam" for the Z3, along with several other parts. I'd love to see what's not legal on this airdam.
 
tderonne said:
The rule is written kind of dumb.
Click to expand...
If you read this in the context of its original design, that being the early 1980's, you'd understand how we evolved here. Do a search on this forum for "splitter" and "airdam" and you'll find a long discussion on its history, which may assist in understanding its spirit.

If, in today's context, it makes no sense, then design and recommend a re-write. But be aware: this forum can tear a rule to shreds in microseconds and leave your ego panting on the doorstep of reality...
 
Greg Amy said:
But be aware: this forum can tear a rule to shreds in microseconds and leave your ego panting on the doorstep of reality...
Click to expand...

And therein lays one of the greatest assets that this forum provides. Using a forum like this gives a far better chance of anticipating unintended consequences that any small committee, no matter how smart, can do.
 
My guess is that he was adding a conventional splitter as we all know it, but did not fully fill the front "gap" between the top of the splitter and the bottom of the stock bumper cover (what we would normally consider the extended air dam). So the splitter kind of just "hung" beneath the front bumper. And then perhaps some vanes or other items of some sort were added to the top of the splitter to direct air upward or towards a specific spot...
 
Better rule?

They should never had said openings are allowed.

Follow this logic:

If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

You CAN add an airdam, but it CAN'T go past x,y,z dimensions, and it CAN'T cover existing openings.

Saying that you CAN have openings doesn't follow the "if it says you can" premise. The only thing you can say after a CAN is CAN'T. If there is something that an airdam CAN'T do, it needs to be spelled out somehere. (There can be an illegal functions called out elsewhere too.)

It's like saying you can use any wheel, and you can use blue wheels. If they can't be red, it has to say that.
 
Actually the rule is pretty clear in use. It allows us to have an airdam/splitter that redirects air around/under the car. It is allowed to help performance by reducing drag,providing downforce on the front of the car. It is specifically allowed to have openings to not block stock grill opening and allows very detailed use of any air that passes through any other openings. Anything else is covered by allowed modifications performing a disallowed function.
 
Evidence of why we've never done an airdam of any kind on Pablo. I can NOT imagine one lasting 12 hours in the real world and the carnage would undoubtedly take out something else - PS belt (which is RIGHT there), cooling hose, brake line.)

Interesting info in the finding though...

K
 
Knestis said:
I can NOT imagine one lasting 12 hours...
Click to expand...
Try 45 minutes... :sadbanana:

DSC_1701.JPG
 
Sorry Greg... thought the fishing comment was good enough that I almost shot beer out of my nose...

Is this the pic y'all have been fired up about? Looks like a 2007 pic. No comment as the pic is from a long way away and not sure if this is the car in question. is there a gap between the splitter and the engine bay....?
 

Attachments

  • 2007_moser.jpg
    2007_moser.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 104
From what I remember, the splitter/airdam on the car at that time didn't have the extra holes referenced in the appeal. I really think their intent was to find a way to duct outside, cool air into the air intake and gain back some of the advantage they lost (up until 08 they were running a cold-air intake that was ruled illegal at the 08 ARRC).
 
from an aero stand point, that provides no advantage adds some drag and probably creates a ton of turbulence...
 
According to Simon McBeath, the generation of vorticies may act as a side skirt.

What I want to know is, since my bumper cover has a round under side, can I add dive planes as long as they're below the side profile and no further out that the side of the tire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top