April '19 ST Rules Revision Highlights

[Greg G.]

On 4/27/2019 at 10:55 AM, masterjr33 said:

move it to half inch on the vents.

so the 95% of people that already have them installed . will stay compliant.. 

Thanks. 

 

NASA Response:

I don't know if 95% would be compliant at 1/2", but if that were true (we think that it is actually probably already true at 3/8"--if you include all of the cars that don't have hood vents), we would definitely consider it.   If you believe what you read on the Internet, 60% + are not compliant, based on a survey of a few dozen folks who are on social media, some of whom have already been proven to be wrong by the manufacturer of their vents, and with probably 500 other competitors who don't get a voice.  We also think that many of those have compliant vents and louvers, but just not compliant Guerney lips in front of the vent(s).  NASA is going to do more investigation, but ultimately, there was never a rule that said that someone could put a (or multiple) Guerney lip(s) on their BTM Aero hood and call it a "vent".   There were numerous more conservative rules considered, including only letting vents with wire mesh or nothing at all under BTM Aero, with an additional Mod Factor for vents that have added guerney lips and raised louvers.   We opted for the middle of the road, where nobody can argue that wind tunnel testing is necessary to keep up with the revised wording, and that would permit louvers under the hood that don't perform any other function than venting, a decently strong surround to frame it in the hood, and if there happens to be a 3/8" high Guerney lip, then fine, we won't complain about it.  We figured that a driver using BTM Aero would rather do some grinding, cutting, re-mounting under the hood, or in some cases a simple disassembly of a Guerney lip than lose the BTM Aero Mod Factor, and those not using the BTM Aero Mod Factor would rather do some grinding, cutting, remounting under the hood, or disassembly of a Guerney lip than get assessed a new Mod Factor. 

 

To John at T.S.--appreciate your posts, and although NASA will likely not "pre-approve" any specific model by anyone, both your demonstration and explanation seem to hit the mark 100% as you stated.   I cannot see anyone with the vents with the Specs. you showed losing a protest unless they modified your design or did not mount them correctly.  Also, FYI, this rule only applies to BTM Aero in ST3/TT3 and ST4-6/TT4-6.  It does not apply to any ST1-2/TT1-2 cars or ST3/TT3 cars with Aero. 

 

With all of that said, we are looking into this again, and staying objective, balancing the wants of those who are currently not compliant, with the needs of all of those others who don't need to go out and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on hood vents to "keep up".   We have time before enforcement of this rule occurs, and we can extend that time if needed to make a thorough assessment.  Please continue to post photos of your non-compliant hood vents under the revised rule, along with accurate measurements.  NASA would always opt for the smallest possible measurement in terms of relation to the hood---so, should be the closest location to the vent.  Now, if the Guerney lip or louvers are curved and convex, then we would have to measure at the highest point on those pieces obviously.

Thanks!

 

[Race Louvers]

As another data point our louvers are offered in 3 different heights and those heights can be tailored to fit most any series rule sets around the world. At mid point in their range here are our overall heights including the flange/hardware/etc:

RS trim - 3/8" 

RT trim - 3/4"

RX trim - 1 1/2"

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Greg G.

[focusedintntions]

Getting fixated on parts that cost $2-300 is pretty absurd when you cite cost control. Vents are even cheaper than what people are paying (vraptor speedworks is a bargain at under $100) if they just diy'd them.   But we know for a fact there are cars with 10k 4 way remote suspension setups, 8k rear differentials, and sequential transmissions are all ok.  There are bigger areas where costs control could truly be implemented without these silly little minor fish fries.  Especially in the middle of a season.  These kinds of things are really starting to build dissent and frustration among many competitors on the east coast. 

[Savington]

My vents require at least a 3/4" allowance to remain legal. They are Singular V2 vents. 

This rule and the way it was implemented is beyond frustrating. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Savington

[03threefiftyz]

Greg, given that you seem to still be collecting info and don't really seem sure how you want to implement this....why not suspend it until it has a bit more thought and implement for 2020?  It's a sensible solution to a problem that didn't really need addressing mid-season...

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by 03threefiftyz

[sperkins]

ST4/TT4

1) Conversion from coil spring to coilover shock spring configuration is permitted.
 

Greg, please explain how it is legal to convert from a coil spring / shock design to a coilover, but it's not legal to convert from a leaf spring / shock design to a coilover.
In both scenario's, the spring has to be relocated.

"Corvettes are not allowed to run coilovers in ST4, as this constitutes modified suspension pickup points (vs leafs)." 

[focusedintntions]

From my understanding...it's legal on the rear of say a bmw, b/c the suspension attachment points aren't changing? I'm not sure if that different on a vette?

[sperkins]

2 minutes ago, focusedintntions said:

From my understanding...it's legal on the rear of say a bmw, b/c the suspension attachment points aren't changing? I'm not sure if that different on a vette?

There is no difference at all.

The BMW is moving the spring from the OEM location and moving it to the OEM shock location. The Corvette is moving the spring from the OEM location and moving it to the OEM shock location.

 

[focusedintntions]

3 minutes ago, sperkins said:

There is no difference at all.

The BMW is moving the spring from the OEM location and moving it to the OEM shock location. The Corvette is moving the spring from the OEM location and moving it to the OEM shock location.

 

Well then yeah....that's not cool

[jande063]

The other issue we run into with the Corvette is that there are no more suppliers of quality aftermarket leaf springs. So in effect, we are being limited to OEM springs, even though none of the damper mounting points change with a conversion to coilovers.

[Roman V.]

The original hood vent rule was never intended for allowance of gurney flaps on top of your hood or have vent louvers protruding past the hood surface. Moreover, calling a gurney flap a part of the hood vent was not in the spirit of the rules. ST4-6 rules contain a list of allowed Aero modifications. Gurney flaps are not on that list. The vent rule was used and abused over the years so NASA had to make a rule clarification for competitors. So now there is a clear rule in regards to hood vents. 

From pictures that have been posted in this thread, it appears that Singular V 2.0 vent is not compliant due to the tall gurney flap. Singular Motorsports in their install instructions states: "Version 2 louvers feature the gurney flap integrated into the louvers. Bend the forward most flap 90 degrees so it points vertical.  Bend the remaining fins behind this to the normal 45 degrees". Maybe bend them forward or a quick grind of the gurney flap would help solve the issue. 

Any other vents/hood combos that are not compliant?      

[Greg G.]

On 4/30/2019 at 9:55 AM, focusedintntions said:

Getting fixated on parts that cost $2-300 is pretty absurd when you cite cost control. Vents are even cheaper than what people are paying (vraptor speedworks is a bargain at under $100) if they just diy'd them.   But we know for a fact there are cars with 10k 4 way remote suspension setups, 8k rear differentials, and sequential transmissions are all ok.  There are bigger areas where costs control could truly be implemented without these silly little minor fish fries.  Especially in the middle of a season.  These kinds of things are really starting to build dissent and frustration among many competitors on the east coast. 

We agree Chris.  The few that are fixated on this just need to fix their parts that are non-compliant.   As Roman stated, adding Gurney Flaps (Spoilers) to the hood of BTM Aero cars and ST4-6 cars has never been permitted.  Aero mods are limited in these classes and with that Mod Factor in ST3, and I think the point that is being missed is that our revision is now actually allowing a "lip" that is up to 3/8" in height.   As far as costs go,  I'm sure that the silent 400-500+ competitors that don't have Gurney Flaps/Spoilers on their hoods don't have any problem not having to go out and purchase 3 or more of them each. 

In regard to your other cost issues, there are obviously differences between ST4 and ST5/6.  Feel free to post a new thread regarding any cost savings proposals for rules revisions for next year or 2021.  We are looking at some ideas with sequentials already. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Greg G.

[Greg G.]

On 4/27/2019 at 4:39 AM, f1honda said:

i agree with this part. If someone is not taking BTM Aero points, then they should be able to run taller vents. 

i'm running these vents which were pretty popular for e36. changing to a new hood vent design is not doable without getting a new hood, since the hood is already cut for one particular vents. most vents have a center support that has a fixed angle to the fins, so bending them is not easy also. so the only feasible option is to cut or grind them. the vents i'm using measure exactly 3/8 from the base of the vents, but since mine are top mount (like most are), they would be illegal if measured at the hood. top mount is easier to do and looks better. 

i think increasing the limits to 1/2" would make 90% of these aluminum type vents out there legal, and don't really have a huge aero advantage. as far as the rule not being strictly enforce, lets say at national event where there's a lot at stake, and someone wanted to protest, you can lose positions because the vents are 1/8 too high. 

http://vraptorspeedworks.com/bmwuniversal-hood-louvers/?fbclid=IwAR0e2-DRKtzGFHJlIgAqYBkQjTLAyigoKv18BzIiBklu01VSskeohgtFG_U

 

 

 

 

From the website:

"These are cut from .080″ aluminum and shipped flat.  While the panel is flat, use it as a template to mark the openings in your hood.  The individual louver blades must be hand formed to the proper angle (using the slots in the small braces as a guide).  Once all of the louver blades are formed to the proper angle, install the braces, seat them with a plastic mallet.  Once they are seated, I would recommend bonding the braces to the louver blades on the bottom side of the panel so that the epoxy won’t be seen from the top side of the hood.  We use 3M 8115 panelbonding adhesive to do this.  You can bond them and then have the panel powdercoated and the powdercoating process will not harm this adhesive.  Louvers can be surface mounted on the top of the hood, or could be mounted to the bottom of the hood skin and bonded in place for a cleaner look."

 

[Greg G.]

From NASA:

Folks, two weeks ago we asked for e-mails or posts here with photos and measurements of what were alleged to be 60% of our competitors with non-compliant hood vents with this rule revision.  We have seen I think four total, and three of them are the Singular V2 vents, where the vent itself is compliant, and the Gurney Flap/Spoiler integrated into it (that must apparently actually be bent to 90 degrees by the competitor to become a Gurney Flap/Spoiler in the first place), and the other is the one I just re-posted above, where the manufacturer website states that they can be mounted from the bottom of the hood for a cleaner look, and, that the louvers must be bent from being shipped flat (meaning that they can be bent to whatever is compliant in the first place).  We have seen two larger manufacturers confirm that their vents are compliant.  So far, our original estimates of the number of competitors that this would adversely affect (meaning having to purchase a new hood---not bending or grinding louvers or removing a part that was never permitted) seems to be confirmed by both the lack of additional input, as well as by actual numbers coming from Regional NASA ST and TT Officials.

There has been a lot of hyperbole regarding this issue, and unfortunately, much of it has been from hood vent dealers who are also competitors but did not represent themselves as vendors here or on social media sites, people who have not competed with NASA in many years, people who do not drive in any of the classes that are affected, and even a few people who work for other race organizations and do not run with NASA.  That is a sad fact.  But, it does not diminish that some of our ST/TT4-6 competitors will be affected by at least having to make some modification.  We are glad that we were able to find out about this growing issue and did not have to disqualify anybody at the Championships for having Gurney Flaps/Spoilers on their hoods in classes where they are not permitted.  Of course there are plenty of photos out there of ST cars with these, because they are perfectly legal in ST1-3 (as long as not ST3 BTM Aero).  Are there photos of them on GTS cars that also run in ST--possibly, but whether or not they were protested or found by a regional inspector to be non-compliant does not change that they were never compliant. 

With that said, we want to make sure that our affected competitors have plenty of time to make any necessary changes to their hoods, and we are going to change the implementation and enforcement date of this revision to July 1st, 2019.  But, we have not found any objective reason to change the wording of the rule revision.  In the meantime, over the next week, please feel free to answer Roman's question above about whether there are any other hood/vent combinations that are not compliant that we are not aware of.   Thanks!

Edited May 11, 2019 by Greg G.

[sperkins]

 

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 12:05 PM, sperkins said:

ST4/TT4

1) Conversion from coil spring to coilover shock spring configuration is permitted.
 

Greg, please explain how it is legal to convert from a coil spring / shock design to a coilover, but it's not legal to convert from a leaf spring / shock design to a coilover.
In both scenario's, the spring has to be relocated.

"Corvettes are not allowed to run coilovers in ST4, as this constitutes modified suspension pickup points (vs leafs)." 

I'm asking for the 3rd time for clarification on this rule. A lengthy discussion was had on one of the NASA ST4 Facebook pages regarding this, but it was deleted by a fellow BMW competitor once the loophole benefit was exposed. Greg, if this thread is only meant to discuss the hood vent rule, please let me know and I will create a new thread.

Thanks in advance.

Edited May 14, 2019 by sperkins

[Greg G.]

Hi Scott,

I'm not exactly sure what your question is, because the "how" is that it is written in the rules.  I assume you want an explanation of why.  There were competitors out there ready to protest others for moving coil springs to the coil-over location.  There was a lively internal e-mail debate between NASA Officials as to whether such a protest would be confirmed or denied, because it was never intended for that modification to not be permitted in ST4-6.  No NASA Official argued that a change from leaf spring or torsion bar suspension to coilover suspension was not a relocation of suspension mounting points (which is not permitted in ST4-6).  So in the recent revisions, we clarified that it was permitted for coil springs.  There was never an intention for a vehicle in ST4-6 to have a complete rear suspension redesign, such as transverse leaf spring to coilover or torsion bar to coilover, which clearly require bolted in parts to be removed from OEM mounting locations and a completely new spring design.   It is not the same thing as moving a coil spring on each side of the vehicle (generally not actually attached, but just sitting on a perch) to the coil-over position (can't really mount a leaf spring or torsion bar around a shock...).   From a performance perspective, there are advantages of both the transverse leaf spring design (reason that Chevy kept if for so many years) and the coilover design.  However, we have not found that these vehicles (or the 944's with torsion bar design) need any modification to the rear suspension to be very competitive in the ST4-6 classes.   So, there are no Officials who supported this allowance.  Of course, it is permitted in ST3 and above.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Greg G.

[Tansar_Motorsports]

944 driver here:

The interpretation of this rule is extremely frustrating for a number of reasons.

1. I don't see the practical difference between:
A.  removing a leaf spring / torsion bar (not using those factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)
vs.
B.  removing a coil spring (not using the factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)

2. You say that torsion bar and leaf spring cars can be made competitive without the coilover conversion.  Well in that case, I would argue that m3's etc could just as easily be made competitive using their factory coilspring location.  So then the coilover conversion should be illegal for everyone...

3. As has been pointed out, aftermarket leaf spring availability is poor, as is torsion bar availability.

4. All of the top typical suspension companies (MCS, JRZ, moton) only offer coilover rears for the 944.  So now I'm forced to either run a non competitive cheap koni damper, or spend even more money for a custom high end damper (penske etc).

5. without the coilover conversion: ride height adjustment, corner balancing, and spring rate changes are all exponentially more difficult / time consuming for torsion bar/leaf spring cars.

6. pretty much every track day modified 944 (myself included), corvette, etc is running a rear coilover.  So now the barrier to stepping up to racing or TT is significantly higher for those people.

7. Any GTS1/2/3 944, 968, etc is going to have rear coilovers, so now those cars cant easily convert / crossover to ST4/TT.  The same is true for any cars set up for PCA racing, SCCA, endurance racing, etc.

 

All rear coilover conversions should be legal, provided that they still use the factory shock mounting locations.  

Coilovers are just a cheaper, easier way to achieve the same handling performance for everyone.

Otherwise, may as well just change the name of the class to specE36 and we'll all go buy m3's and call it a day.

[esr]

On 5/10/2019 at 5:44 PM, Greg G. said:

We agree Chris.  The few that are fixated on this just need to fix their parts that are non-compliant.   As Roman stated, adding Gurney Flaps (Spoilers) to the hood of BTM Aero cars and ST4-6 cars has never been permitted.  Aero mods are limited in these classes and with that Mod Factor in ST3, and I think the point that is being missed is that our revision is now actually allowing a "lip" that is up to 3/8" in height.   As far as costs go,  I'm sure that the silent 400-500+ competitors that don't have Gurney Flaps/Spoilers on their hoods don't have any problem not having to go out and purchase 3 or more of them each. 

In regard to your other cost issues, there are obviously differences between ST4 and ST5/6.  Feel free to post a new thread regarding any cost savings proposals for rules revisions for next year or 2021.  We are looking at some ideas with sequentials already. 

Wonder how many are running sequentials?

curious to know what ideas you guys have about sequentials.

[jande063]

On 5/15/2019 at 9:04 AM, Tansar_Motorsports said:

944 driver here:

The interpretation of this rule is extremely frustrating for a number of reasons.

1. I don't see the practical difference between:
A.  removing a leaf spring / torsion bar (not using those factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)
vs.
B.  removing a coil spring (not using the factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)

2. You say that torsion bar and leaf spring cars can be made competitive without the coilover conversion.  Well in that case, I would argue that m3's etc could just as easily be made competitive using their factory coilspring location.  So then the coilover conversion should be illegal for everyone...

3. As has been pointed out, aftermarket leaf spring availability is poor, as is torsion bar availability.

4. All of the top typical suspension companies (MCS, JRZ, moton) only offer coilover rears for the 944.  So now I'm forced to either run a non competitive cheap koni damper, or spend even more money for a custom high end damper (penske etc).

5. without the coilover conversion: ride height adjustment, corner balancing, and spring rate changes are all exponentially more difficult / time consuming for torsion bar/leaf spring cars.

6. pretty much every track day modified 944 (myself included), corvette, etc is running a rear coilover.  So now the barrier to stepping up to racing or TT is significantly higher for those people.

7. Any GTS1/2/3 944, 968, etc is going to have rear coilovers, so now those cars cant easily convert / crossover to ST4/TT.  The same is true for any cars set up for PCA racing, SCCA, endurance racing, etc.

 

All rear coilover conversions should be legal, provided that they still use the factory shock mounting locations.  

Coilovers are just a cheaper, easier way to achieve the same handling performance for everyone.

Otherwise, may as well just change the name of the class to specE36 and we'll all go buy m3's and call it a day.

I can leave a leaf spring in place. Then in accordance with the fact that nothing says I cannot add additional springs within original mounting points, I will add coil springs over my dampers. These still utilize factory mounting points. Thus, we have a technically legal coilover conversion on a Corvette, because we have maintained all original mounting points, without adding others.

[jimgood]

I don't know understand why this is so difficult:

"Vent lips/louvers/vent insert mounting hardware must not protrude more than 3/8” from the hood surface."

Since the writers of the rule could not be bothered to use any commas or conjunctions in the statement above, the rule pertains only to the height of the mounting hardware; not the Vent lips/louvers/vent inserts.

That's how I read it.

[Greg G.]

55 minutes ago, jimgood said:

I don't know understand why this is so difficult:

"Vent lips/louvers/vent insert mounting hardware must not protrude more than 3/8” from the hood surface."

Since the writers of the rule could not be bothered to use any commas or conjunctions in the statement above, the rule pertains only to the height of the mounting hardware; not the Vent lips/louvers/vent inserts.

That's how I read it.

Well, you are reading it wrong.  The slashes mean that all of them are included.  And vent insert mounting hardware is a single entity.  Using your “reading”, you completely ignore that Vent lips and louvers are even in the sentence. ?

[Greg G.]

On 5/15/2019 at 6:04 AM, Tansar_Motorsports said:

944 driver here:

The interpretation of this rule is extremely frustrating for a number of reasons.

1. I don't see the practical difference between:
A.  removing a leaf spring / torsion bar (not using those factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)
vs.
B.  removing a coil spring (not using the factory suspension points), and replacing it with a coil spring on the shock (still using factory shock mounts)

2. You say that torsion bar and leaf spring cars can be made competitive without the coilover conversion.  Well in that case, I would argue that m3's etc could just as easily be made competitive using their factory coilspring location.  So then the coilover conversion should be illegal for everyone...

3. As has been pointed out, aftermarket leaf spring availability is poor, as is torsion bar availability.

4. All of the top typical suspension companies (MCS, JRZ, moton) only offer coilover rears for the 944.  So now I'm forced to either run a non competitive cheap koni damper, or spend even more money for a custom high end damper (penske etc).

5. without the coilover conversion: ride height adjustment, corner balancing, and spring rate changes are all exponentially more difficult / time consuming for torsion bar/leaf spring cars.

6. pretty much every track day modified 944 (myself included), corvette, etc is running a rear coilover.  So now the barrier to stepping up to racing or TT is significantly higher for those people.

7. Any GTS1/2/3 944, 968, etc is going to have rear coilovers, so now those cars cant easily convert / crossover to ST4/TT.  The same is true for any cars set up for PCA racing, SCCA, endurance racing, etc.

 

All rear coilover conversions should be legal, provided that they still use the factory shock mounting locations.  

Coilovers are just a cheaper, easier way to achieve the same handling performance for everyone.

Otherwise, may as well just change the name of the class to specE36 and we'll all go buy m3's and call it a day.

We are taking another look at this, but not sure it will change anything.  Thanks for your input. 

[jimgood]

13 hours ago, Greg G. said:

Well, you are reading it wrong.  The slashes mean that all of them are included.  And vent insert mounting hardware is a single entity.  Using your “reading”, you completely ignore that Vent lips and louvers are even in the sentence. ?

Thanks for pointing out that my reading comprehension is beneath your standards. That's the thing, Greg. It's not obvious that vent insert mounting hardware is intended to be one item. And I'm not ignoring that Vent lips and louvers are in the sentence. I'm just saying that it could be interpreted that mounting hardware could apply to all three of the previous "items"; vent lips, louvers and vent insert. This makes the assumption that anyone reading it is completely familiar with all things hood vent. But someone that doesn't yet have hood vents might go into the market place without understanding what it is that needs to be within the tolerance.

It would be completely clear if it were written...

The following shall not protrude more than 3/8" from the hood surface:

• Vent lips
• Louvers
• Vent insert mounting hardware

...if that's the intent. Frankly, I didn't even know that vents have lips.

 

[KW78]

On 5/9/2019 at 2:51 PM, Roman V. said:

The original hood vent rule was never intended for allowance of gurney flaps on top of your hood or have vent louvers protruding past the hood surface. Moreover, calling a gurney flap a part of the hood vent was not in the spirit of the rules. ST4-6 rules contain a list of allowed Aero modifications. Gurney flaps are not on that list. The vent rule was used and abused over the years so NASA had to make a rule clarification for competitors. So now there is a clear rule in regards to hood vents. 

Hi All,

I have read and re-read the rules and the st forum threads today because I am helping with a ST5 build from an existing spec miata.   I just wanted to make a comment about the "Style" of rulemaking here while referencing the quote above.   As I have no history in the class, I have no idea what the intent was, just what the rule says.   A gurney flap is specifically a product to help a wing, so a vertical fence in front of the louver blades of a given vent piece I would not recognize as a separate aero device that was not permitted.  Any good vent design will have this, and louver blades under the hood surface would just be a less open hole in the hood, and not an actual venting device.   My point is applying intent to the written word and spirit to the rule is why lots of people have left lots of kinds of racing.

My ST5 question is this, the floor rule for SM is slightly different than the floor rule for ST5 - both with the intent to allow the larger surround seats.  The miata kit however doesn't pass this part:    "When inspected from the underside, the OEM floor pan must be unmodified."

Has this exception been made somewhere I haven't discovered?  

Thanks!

Kyle

[Greg G.]

14 hours ago, jimgood said:

Thanks for pointing out that my reading comprehension is beneath your standards. That's the thing, Greg. It's not obvious that vent insert mounting hardware is intended to be one item. And I'm not ignoring that Vent lips and louvers are in the sentence. I'm just saying that it could be interpreted that mounting hardware could apply to all three of the previous "items"; vent lips, louvers and vent insert. This makes the assumption that anyone reading it is completely familiar with all things hood vent. But someone that doesn't yet have hood vents might go into the market place without understanding what it is that needs to be within the tolerance.

It would be completely clear if it were written...

The following shall not protrude more than 3/8" from the hood surface:

• Vent lips
• Louvers
• Vent insert mounting hardware

...if that's the intent. Frankly, I didn't even know that vents have lips.

 

Jim, we try and be as short and concise as possible in writing rules, as space and the length of a rule set partially determines the likelihood that it will be read.  If we wrote every rule as you demonstrated, it would literally double or triple the physical number of pages in the rules.  So, we do tend to shorthand when we can.  But, we can change this one to commas and an "and" if it is really that confusing. 

And, you are correct that vents by definition don't have lips.  However, once racers and race part manufactures get a hold of a word that isn't explicitly defined for them, "vents" can have lips, air dams, Gurney flaps.  Apparently, this phenomenon is not just limited to racers--there are some the Internet who would argue that chickens have lips too!