PDA

View Full Version : Weight added to BMW e36



RR
10-19-2004, 04:19 PM
I noticed a few months back, there was an article in SportsCar basically saying the BMW was an over-acheiver in ITS. Since that article, PCA's have been approved, and there is no mention officially that the minimum weight has increased, or did I miss something?

Geo
10-19-2004, 04:24 PM
You haven't missed anything.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

GKR_17
10-19-2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by RR:
I noticed a few months back, there was an article in SportsCar basically saying the BMW was an over-acheiver in ITS.

Interestingly enough, that article did not give any factual evidence to support that claim. And it seems that all of the regional results are conveniently omitted from Sportscar as well now.

Grafton

Jake
10-19-2004, 06:21 PM
According to a second-hand unnamed source:

"they are evidently recommending adding a BUNCH of weight to the E-36 ITS Bimmers."

from the same source on an unrelated issue:

"very interested in getting some equitable solution for the MR2's. There is a possibility we may get it classed into ITB at somewhere around 2500#."

lateapex911
10-19-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
According to a second-hand unnamed source:

"


Ooooo....very cloak and dagger!

Ok, lets start a pool. I'm in for 275. And I'm betting they talked realy seriously about 175 but with a restrictor, but decided against it cuz they didn't want to go there, and the weight is so much easier to check.

Winner gets ...well, we'll figure that out later.

Maybe Gregg will kick in an Isaac T shirt or something!


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-20-2004, 06:40 AM
Not trying to 'Price is Right' you Jake, but I was thinking 250# a while ago. Make it an even 3100#.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

dspillrat
10-20-2004, 09:42 AM
Hmmm.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif
Having a 3100- 3200 pound car running with my 2400# zcar is a somewhat concerning to me...I'm not one to do a lot of bumping, but the nudgability factor has got to be considered....
Restrictor and 100 pounds might not be so bad....but who will be knowledgable enough to determine a effective restriction, and shoot straight enough to share this info with rule makers and non 325 drivers.
Plus, what is the aero factor?..I got a filling the E36/46 is a slick puppy sitting low on the track, in IT trim. Top speed is where I've seen big difference, weight won't affect terminal velocity a whole lot..IMHO
David Spillman

SPiFF
10-20-2004, 10:09 AM
Probably opening a can of worms, but I don’t see anything wrong with the E36 in ITS—it is the rest of the cars which need help. Why do cars making 150-200 WHP need to weight 2700-3200lbs? Why should half of ITA run all over half of ITS? Give the rest of S some legs. Pull some weight off the rest of the cars and class these:

E30 M3, 300ZX NA, Supra NA, 3000GT/Stealth NA, Lexus IS300, GS300, SC300, Acura RSX-S, Celica GTS, Acura TSX, 1980s-ish 911, etc.


------------------
Zsolt - #18 H3 GSR
http://www.SouthEastHondaChallenge.com

[This message has been edited by SPiFF (edited October 20, 2004).]

Tom Donnelly
10-20-2004, 10:31 AM
I agreee with David. And it seems to me the BMW has some distinct disadvantages that just adding weight might worsen. Like tires going away towards the end of a race. Nothing like getting slammed by 3100 lbs of ungainly BMW that just wore out its tires on the last lap. JMHO. Its bad enough being hit by an RX7 while in a 240z, the BMW would be like getting hit by my tow vehicle. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Tom

JIgou
10-20-2004, 10:55 AM
300.

Bruce Shafer
10-20-2004, 11:14 AM
0, zero, none, zilch...

its66
10-20-2004, 12:54 PM
Just your unbiased opinion, right Bruce? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Jim
ITS66
(yep..mazda)

Bruce Shafer
10-20-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by its66:
Just your unbiased opinion, right Bruce? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Jim
ITS66
(yep..mazda)

Yes, that was my unbiased opinion.

My biased opinion is that the E36 needs to lose at least 100 pounds, perhaps twice that amount. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

erlrich
10-20-2004, 03:29 PM
Hell, I think they should just make them bolt an ITA MR2 (with driver) to the roof - that would raise the CG and CD (but only slightly) at the same time. We could kill two birds with one stone - the BMWs would occasionally loose, and the MR2 guys would start winning, and would quit bitching about moving to B!

JMHO of course...

------------------
Earl R
Aspiring 240SX pilot

gsbaker
10-20-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
...Maybe Gregg will kick in an Isaac T shirt or something!

T-shirt? Pffft. How about one of the new Isaac hats?

"ISAAC: For the head worth keeping"

We'll have the first samples tomorrow. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

BUMPnGO
10-20-2004, 05:12 PM
How's this for a new Isaacs T-shirt slogan: "You can always make more money, but you can't buy a new HEAD!!"

x-ring
10-20-2004, 05:37 PM
...but who will be knowledgable enough to determine a effective restriction, and shoot straight enough to share this info with rule makers and non 325 drivers.

Good question. Maybe we could ask some of those SSB Miata drivers who got their butts handed to them at the Runoffs by the Z4's with plates in place. Or maybe we could ask the member of the CRB who won a national race in Denver this summer (in SSB) while racing with his A/C on and his restrictor plate in place. Yeah, I'm sure we would get good info there.

Seriously, do plates really work that well at leveling the field? I understand that they work well for limiting top speed. That's well documented. But what about low speed torque? The torque that lets you pull out of the corner. It sure didn't look that way to me.

Why do cars making 150-200 WHP need to weight 2700-3200lbs?

I don't know about the 3000lb cars, I don't drive one, but quite a few cars are at or over minimum weight now with no ballast and nothing left to remove. Reducing their spec line weight is meaningless.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Jake
10-20-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by erlrich:
Hell, I think they should just make them bolt an ITA MR2 (with driver) to the roof - that would raise the CG and CD (but only slightly) at the same time. We could kill two birds with one stone - the BMWs would occasionally loose, and the MR2 guys would start winning, and would quit bitching about moving to B!

JMHO of course...



LOL!!! Can I hold the checker?!?

BTW - They bolted on 250lbs onto the Neon when they moved it from ITS - ITA, so I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a BUNCH of weight added.

And as for heavy and light cars on the track together? Give me a break. What about those Piggy Beetles in ITC? The ITS Supra weighs in at 3380, and they just classed the stratus at 3000. I'd be more worried about the Hummers on the street when you drive home.

JeffG
10-20-2004, 06:40 PM
E36 gets 175 , or 100 + restrictor
RX7 gets 70 lbs

Geo
10-20-2004, 06:49 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">My biased opinion is that the E36 needs to lose at least 100 pounds, perhaps twice that amount. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif </font>

No problem.

We'll require you to run w/o wheels and tires. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 20, 2004).]

Doug Ford
10-20-2004, 07:06 PM
IT advisory board recommended 300
no answer yet!

------------------
SpeedSource rx-7 ITS #12
1995 BMW 325is White
2001 supercrew white (tow vehicle)
Regional Executive Midsouth Region #66

Bill Miller
10-20-2004, 08:39 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why do cars making 150-200 WHP need to weight 2700-3200lbs</font>

Why should cars w/ this kind of delta in WHP run in the same class?? You've got cases where cars w/ a delta HP of 10-15 that run in different classes.

Oh, and they don't. Go race them in Prod, and they'll weigh 2/3 of that (or less).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-20-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Doug Ford:
IT advisory board recommended 300

We did?? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

I will say that not only is this incorrect, but basically a lot of people here being awfully sure of speculation that is incorrect. This is how dung gets flung around and then people believe what they want to believe and get all worked up.

Such speculation is counter-productive.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
10-20-2004, 10:55 PM
Easy George...only Doug is spewing rumour and innuendo! The rest of us are just having fun playing "The Weight is Right!".

However, at 300, I think I win the hat!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
10-20-2004, 10:59 PM
Sounds like the kind of rumor-mongering that we've seen in our local rag during this election season:

ITAC Member Denies Making Recommendation

Houston, TX - IT Advisory Committee member George Roffe today denied that he had participated in discussions leading to the recommendation that the ITS BMW 325 receive a weight penalty of 300 pounds.

While it has been reported otherwise, Roffe claimed to be uninvolved, going so far as to state for the record that he is "all worked up" about "how (expletive deleted) gets flung around."

It is not known whether Roffe will resign from his position on the ITAC, or if he will be forced out. Further, it is not known how true any allegations might be, regarding his possible links to known terrorist organizations.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Banzai240
10-21-2004, 12:10 AM
Ohhh, Ohhh-Ohhh....

Can I take a guess??? Can I??? Huh, Can I???

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

In all seriousness, one thing I think we can assure you is that any adjustments to any of these cars will get treated with the same level of consideration that any other car has been treated to over the past year...

The basic question comes down to "what would the specs be for this care were we to be classifying it for the first time..."

I guess, so long as you don't drive an RX-7 or an MR-2, that should be of some comfort to most of you... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
10-21-2004, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sounds like the kind of rumor-mongering that we've seen in our local rag during this election season:

ITAC Member Denies Making Recommendation

Houston, TX - IT Advisory Committee member George Roffe today denied that he had participated in discussions leading to the recommendation that the ITS BMW 325 receive a weight penalty of 300 pounds.

While it has been reported otherwise, Roffe claimed to be uninvolved, going so far as to state for the record that he is "all worked up" about "how (expletive deleted) gets flung around."

It is not known whether Roffe will resign from his position on the ITAC, or if he will be forced out. Further, it is not known how true any allegations might be, regarding his possible links to known terrorist organizations.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Typical press..... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Can't get the story straight. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
10-21-2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
The rest of us are just having fun playing "The Weight is Right!".

However, at 300, I think I win the hat!



But Jake - you overbid! I'm bidding 1 lb. Remember if you get it exactly you win both prizes. :?

p.keane
10-21-2004, 08:47 AM
Knestis, I think that is the funniest post you have ever writen. On the other matter, I have no comment.

gsbaker
10-21-2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by BUMPnGO:
How's this for a new Isaacs T-shirt slogan: "You can always make more money, but you can't buy a new HEAD!!"

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I like it!

Since this is a family-oriented, G-rated web site (George's potty mouth excepted http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ), we shouldn't get into the various ways the word "HEAD" can be used in a slogan.

Gregg

Doug Ford
10-21-2004, 11:58 AM
Rumors are flying.....

Let's just say if I were betting I would put my money on 300lbs but I don't bet. Another bet that I would be willing to take is that some of you guys take this way to seriously.

And I do appreciate all the work and effort that most of you do to answers questions with the most accurate information as possible including you George.

By the way when are going to have the 944 that you are working on done. I raced one for a race or two and it and I weren't very fast and I am waiting to see one that is prepared by a guy like yourself that seems to be very knowledgeable about racing and general car prep can do. When I was racing it I was one of the guys that was pushing for comp. adjustments for the car. Maybe after all is said and done with this the 944 will become competitive again.

Anyway I am getting of the subject, In my opinion which means absolutely nothing in the big picture with SCCA I think SportsCar needs to post regional race results again! oops, of the subject again!!!!!

Well anyway who's going to the ARRC? I bet car weights will be the hot topic of conversation there.

If anyone sees me I will be in a blue and silver speedsource rx7 with the number 4 and it says THE FORD FINANCIAL GROUP on the side. I will be paddocking with Bill Benton in a white speedsource rx7 with a big MEMPHIS on the side. Stop by and say hello I would love to put a name with a face.

RACE ON DUDES!!!!


------------------
SpeedSource rx-7 ITS #12
1995 BMW 325is White
2001 supercrew white (tow vehicle)
Regional Executive Midsouth Region #66

benspeed
10-21-2004, 04:37 PM
Go Doug! I will make an absentee cheer for ya! Looks like you have a spare bimmer waiting for conversion if you don't like the rex.

I vote for 301!

apr67
10-21-2004, 04:47 PM
Add 1000lbs to the BMW's.

Serves the Nazi's right!

chuck baader
10-21-2004, 05:01 PM
WHINE, WHINE, WHINE. If memory server me right, BMW won the ARRC last year, but someone tell me where in the country has this car "dominated" the ITS class. At the SIC the RX7s were first and second, and from what I read here, they hold most of the track records around the country. Prehaps weight should be added to them and the ZX since it wins too. My opinion is that nothing will change. That's my bet and I'm sticking to it.

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

mlytle
10-21-2004, 05:43 PM
dc region. two e36's in particular cut lap times 2 seconds faster than the rest of us at summit point. although, "the rest of us" includes the 4 other e36's that race in the region. that next bunch of cars behind those two e36's are within a few tenths of a second and include z cars, e36's and an acura.

the top ita cars are only a few tenths behind the front its pack. i agree with an earlier poster. instead of adding to the e36's, we should subtract weight from some other its cars to get them away from the ita pack. (its and ita run in the same group in the marrs series).

300lbs? sheesh, i would just about have to put the entire interior, including all that nasty sound insulation tar, back in the car! wait! hmmm, a/c, stereo...this might not be that bad!

marshall
e36

robits325is
10-21-2004, 05:44 PM
300lbs?? Thats crazy. I don't believe this will happen - if it does, then next season will be completely lopsided for the RX-7 to dominate.

I, or any other BMW driver, didn't dominate at any of the four major Northeast Tracks. As a matter of fact, the RX-7 holds track records at each track, NHIS, Lime Rock, Pocono and Watkins Glen. Three of those four records were set this season.

I think that everything should be left alone. Maybe some of the Mazda guys that are slightly off the pace should develop their cars to the extent of Nick Leverone's super fast RX-7. There is a lot of fast drivers in the NE Region but I do not feel that somebody with a $10,000 RX-7 should be able to keep up with someone in a fully prepared BMW or Mazda with three times that value invested.

Last year we had great battles at almost every race - the championship was decided on track at the Runoffs by ONE point. How much closer can it get?

Rob Driscoll
2004 N.A.R.R.C. Champion
93 BMW 325is 2851lbs.

Andy Bettencourt
10-21-2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
300lbs?? Thats crazy. I don't believe this will happen - if it does, then next season will be completely lopsided for the RX-7 to dominate.

I, or any other BMW driver, didn't dominate at any of the four major Northeast Tracks. As a matter of fact, the RX-7 holds track records at each track, NHIS, Lime Rock, Pocono and Watkins Glen. Three of those four records were set this season.

I think that everything should be left alone. Maybe some of the Mazda guys that are slightly off the pace should develop their cars to the extent of Nick Leverone's super fast RX-7. There is a lot of fast drivers in the NE Region but I do not feel that somebody with a $10,000 RX-7 should be able to keep up with someone in a fully prepared BMW or Mazda with three times that value invested.

Last year we had great battles at almost every race - the championship was decided on track at the Runoffs by ONE point. How much closer can it get?

Rob Driscoll
2004 N.A.R.R.C. Champion
93 BMW 325is 2851lbs.

Got MOTEC yet? I hope you guys get to the ARRC so you can see the sheer speed of the 'Ultra-Bimmers'. They walk from Big Blue.

Name one RX-7 that could beat you other than Nick if you had, say, less than 300 lbs but more than 50 pounds...

This year it will be closer, but we shall see how close!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited October 21, 2004).]

Geo
10-21-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Doug Ford:
And I do appreciate all the work and effort that most of you do to answers questions with the most accurate information as possible including you George.

Thanks for the kind words Doug. I wasn't trying to single you out (although effectively I did). You just provided a good lead-in.


Originally posted by Doug Ford:
By the way when are going to have the 944 that you are working on done. I raced one for a race or two and it and I weren't very fast and I am waiting to see one that is prepared by a guy like yourself that seems to be very knowledgeable about racing and general car prep can do.

I'm trying to get it done soon. I got the cage in early this year. I've worked on it while the temps weren't outrageous (it's hell in Houston in the summer). I've been unemployed for a bit over 6 months so the car has had limited investment during that time. But, since it's starting to cool off I'm getting back at it. Hope to have the engine and drivetrain out and suspension stripped soon and then get it painted. I was hoping to have it on the track this year, but unemployment has hurt matters as much as the heat.

Soon. Hopefully soon. May have to buy a couple of rides to keep my license current.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

robits325is
10-22-2004, 10:20 AM
>Crazy Andy Bettencourt wrote:
>Name one RX-7 that could beat you other
>than Nick if you had, say, less than 300
>lbs but more than 50 pounds...

Name one other RX-7 that has more than $12,000 invested? Spend $30,000 on a Mazda and a talented driver and they will run up front. Someone is a $60,000 BMW should dominate - but someone in a $60,000 RX-7 or 944s or Integra would also dominate too - if done correctly.

Name one other RX-7 developed to the extent of Nicks Big Blue in the Northeast? Nicks car is at least a second a lap faster at each track compared to Any other RX-7 Good driver combined with a well developed Mazda should be as fast as a BMW. The 325is isn't a overdog when compared to equally prepared Mazdas.

A few years ago Kip VanSteenberg won in the North East with his super-bimmer 325is - but does he have any track records? He was faster up here in his RX-7 than his BMW.

Super Swift
10-22-2004, 12:57 PM
Andy

I think I can name a few real fast RX-7 drivers other than Nick.

Northern Pacific
Randy Evans

North-east
Kip VanSteenburg
Mike Carr

South-east
Buzz Marcus
Chris Brubaker
Kent Thompson
Kevin Busler
Steve Eckerich
Marc Dana
Scott Richards
Mike VanSteenburg
Fred Ricart

Mid-West
Al Murdock

This is just a few there are still several more that merit mention.

The RX-7, 240Z, and the e36 should all get the same amount of weight if any is to be added.

jcmotorsports
10-22-2004, 01:42 PM
rob
rx7s in the northeast with more than $12000 invested: speedworkz#13(blue/white rx7 driven by marc cefalo), speedworkz#93(orange/white driven by mike cefalo)and my car #87(red/white) have significantly more than that invested. marc is pretty fast, but has been racing a national cat for the last 2 seasons. mike and i are slower, but still mid-pack. i just started driving last season so i plan on doing some advanced race schools to develope my driving. after that i plan on running up front!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
john costello

Bill Miller
10-22-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
> Someone is a $60,000 BMW should dominate


So much for 'low cost' and 'inexpensive'. Is it just me, or does anybody else think that $60k cars ($40k for that matter) have no business in IT?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

GKR_17
10-22-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Super Swift:

Northern Pacific
Randy Evans

North-east
Kip VanSteenburg
Mike Carr

South-east
Buzz Marcus
Chris Brubaker
Kent Thompson
Kevin Busler
Steve Eckerich
Marc Dana
Scott Richards
Mike VanSteenburg
Fred Ricart

Mid-West
Al Murdock


Don't forget Rob May and Jeff Hill.

Grafton

RSTPerformance
10-22-2004, 06:07 PM
Bill I agree 100%... The original IT was for regular guys/gals to go racing... Don't get me wrong I do like where it has gone but it isn't the same. I hope that ITB and ITC never get nearly as expensive as ITS or even ITA. (you can still spend $10,000 or less to run a full season (with repairs), and win in ITB and I would imagine ITC as well)

Raymond

cherokee
10-22-2004, 07:15 PM
ITB and ITC will get as expensive. As newer cars come in they will get more expensive. The only reason that they are less expensive is that they are "dinosaur" classes. And please do not tell me that people will not shell out big $$ to make a slow car go fast, the desire to win is still there.

seckerich
10-22-2004, 09:42 PM
I feel that I have as well "developed" an RX7 as anyone and I was pulled 15+ carlengths out of Oak Tree at VIR when I was ahead going in. This same BMW was 100+ pound over min weight at impound so weight will need to be PLENTY. Restrictors on the E36 will be a joke unless it is pretty small as they are limited by valve size and the intake system is huge overkill. After you pass the same car every lap only to have them drive into the sunset on the straights is not racing--it is a parade. As for lap records--not all BMW's have drivers as good as those that set the records in the RX7. Good driver + BMW = lap record. Check VIR

JeffG
10-23-2004, 09:32 AM
Yup, 15+ car lengths at Road America straights 1 and 2 by an E36 with a bimmerworld motor.

It's like running with slow AS and GT 3+ cars that can blow by in the straights.

Andy Bettencourt
10-23-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Super Swift:
Andy

I think I can name a few real fast RX-7 drivers other than Nick.

Northern Pacific
Randy Evans

North-east
Kip VanSteenburg
Mike Carr

South-east
Buzz Marcus
Chris Brubaker
Kent Thompson
Kevin Busler
Steve Eckerich
Marc Dana
Scott Richards
Mike VanSteenburg
Fred Ricart

Mid-West
Al Murdock

This is just a few there are still several more that merit mention.

The RX-7, 240Z, and the e36 should all get the same amount of weight if any is to be added.



No disrespect to any of those drivers intended. I was speaking specifically to Rob about his series, the NERRC/NARRC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Andy Bettencourt
10-23-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:


A few years ago Kip VanSteenberg won in the North East with his super-bimmer 325is - but does he have any track records? He was faster up here in his RX-7 than his BMW.

Of LRP and NHIS, he only ran LRP which is a known momentum track. In that time, I think kip lost *ONCE* at LRP, to another BMW.

Nick and I talk often about the times we think he could've run in the E36 at NHIS.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

lateapex911
10-23-2004, 09:34 PM
So, lets talk numbers:
E36: 225+ at the wheels, 2850 lbs, very good sups/handling, great torque and the ability to put it down.

RX-7: 175+- at the wheels, very good susp handling, 2530 lbs, torque deficient.

P/W ratios: E36- 12.66, RX-7- 14.45

In my mind it comes down to these two cars....the RX-7 is the best of the rest, although the Z car can still get it done...but their numbers are dwindling.

So, from a pure numbers equation, the BMW wins the HP battle, the torque battle, (by a MILE) and the P/W ratio, is close or ties in handling and braking, and is slightly inferior aerodynamically, which is not that big of an issue, and only then at limited tracks.

If the above assumptions are correct, then a properly developed, adjusted, and driven E36 SHOULD be in front of an equally prepped and driven 7...right???

Oh yea...one more thing...I've heard the stories about guys "developing" their car to the tune of $60K, or $75K, even $100K.....but spending money isn't hard if you have it...spending it wisely and effectively is the trick.

We all know that it doen't cost $60K to run in the front of ITS, if you know what to get, and how to spend the money.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 23, 2004).]

seckerich
10-23-2004, 09:43 PM
Your HP numbers are close but figure 235+ for the BMW and 175+ for the RX7. However the RX7 runs at 2680 so your hp to weight is off.

seckerich
10-23-2004, 09:47 PM
Your HP numbers are close but figure 235+ for the BMW and 175+ for the RX7. However the RX7 runs at 2680 so your hp to weight is off.

Andy Bettencourt
10-23-2004, 10:38 PM
Jake was talking WHP, your RX-7 number is on but even the wildest estimations don't have the BMW at 235whp.

My research has the full-bore, no expense spared versions at between 215 and 220whp.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

lateapex911
10-23-2004, 11:59 PM
oops...read the wrong line, sorry! My bad.

But...it makes the ratio even worse! Even with the lower BMW estimate that Andy mentioned, it's still a big gulf.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bruce Shafer
10-27-2004, 10:01 AM
Double post.


[This message has been edited by Bruce Shafer (edited October 27, 2004).]

Bruce Shafer
10-27-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
My research has the full-bore, no expense spared versions at between 215 and 220whp.

AB


What does your research consist of? Reading other threads on this forum? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Try 190 RWH for the E36 325i M50 in IT trim.

Greg Amy
10-27-2004, 10:35 AM
Hey, Bruce, grab your checkbook and give James Clay a call...

its66
10-27-2004, 10:57 AM
deleted

[This message has been edited by its66 (edited October 27, 2004).]

Bruce Shafer
10-27-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Hey, Bruce, grab your checkbook and give James Clay a call...

James already has my first born!

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
James already has my first born!

Throw in your second born and get the good stuff! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Seriously, if you have a relationship with James, ask him what a no-expense spared set-up can produce.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

seckerich
10-27-2004, 09:04 PM
I May race an RX7 but I have BMW's as well and an average E36 makes 199 to 205 RWH with a chip in the factory computer and I won't quote the numbers with Motec. James will fix you up with your second born!!

BMW RACER
10-27-2004, 09:37 PM
A stock E-36 is rated at 189 hp at the flywheel. I doubt that any chip will give you 205 at the rear wheels.
John Norris
'93 325is ITS

Andy Bettencourt
10-27-2004, 09:57 PM
I don't think he is talking JUST a chip.

An 'average' BUILT motor.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

mlytle
10-28-2004, 09:08 PM
i guess a motec must be worth 20-30hp? my fully built m50 (minus motec) is in the same range as bruce's...191 rwhp.

mlytle
10-28-2004, 09:14 PM
<deleted>

[This message has been edited by mlytle (edited October 28, 2004).]

ITSRX7
10-28-2004, 10:14 PM
Do me a favor - list everything to had done to your engine to make it 'fully' built. I would think you should have no problem with this - I think your motor is underbuilt...I have seen dyno sheets in the 208 range before MOTEC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

GKR_17
10-29-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I have seen dyno sheets in the 208 range before MOTEC.


That dyno sounds optimistic to me.

Grafton

mlytle
10-29-2004, 05:52 PM
the list would be long. the short version is that it was complete rebuild by a very well known successful specialist in bmw racing engines. work order was for maxed out legal its engine. only option box i didn't check was motec. it was tuned on a mustang dyno.

Andy Bettencourt
10-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by GKR_17:
That dyno sounds optimistic to me.

Grafton

Understandable. I doubt it however. This was one of the top 3 cars at the 2002 ARRC before the ballast issue took it out.

I think this is why some of the top engine builders in the country are in business. They just do it better.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

10-31-2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
WHINE, WHINE, WHINE. If memory server me right, BMW won the ARRC last year, but someone tell me where in the country has this car "dominated" the ITS class. At the SIC the RX7s were first and second, and from what I read here, they hold most of the track records around the country. Prehaps weight should be added to them and the ZX since it wins too. My opinion is that nothing will change. That's my bet and I'm sticking to it.



SO-PAC DIVISION DRIVER,JOHN NORRIS 95%+ OF RACES ENTERED.
http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/2004/200...ts_10_10_04.htm (http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/2004/2004r_points_10_10_04.htm)



------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)

EP this summer

Ron Earp
10-31-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by GKR_17:
That dyno sounds optimistic to me.
Grafton

I would think that completely in the realm of possibilities. The motor is 189 as delivered from the factory, at the crank? Open the exhaust up, pay attention while building, port work/matching, 0.5 compression hike - no doubt the cars could make 220 at the crank I would think, easily. Add in some fancy tuning playing with timing/fuel/VANOS and rev limits I'd suspect that 230 is possible, and more.

There are a couple of street 325s that have been dynoed at the shop on a dynojet and have nice numbers on the board the shop keeps. Chip, intake, full exhaust and these fellows are making 185 and 193 at the wheel. That seems to indicate about 210-220 or so at the crank. Pretty good for not opening the motor and doing anything.

Strong motors with lots of possibilities. What happens when the 330i comes? Wasn't it 225 at the crank? Some are five years old very soon...

Ron


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Bill Miller
10-31-2004, 01:11 PM
I'm still surprised that this wasn't in the Dec. FasTrack. Plenty of other reclassifications w/ weight adjustments. If the E36 wasn't the poster child for PCA's, I don't know what was. Would seem like that was the first car that would be addressed, once PCA's were approved.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
10-31-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
i guess a motec must be worth 20-30hp...

I just don't buy that any particular engine management system alone is going to make that much difference, relative to other options that get the big stuff right - like killing vehicle speed or rev limiters.

Over stock? MAY-be.

K

Banzai240
10-31-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Would seem like that was the first car that would be addressed, once PCA's were approved.


You are forgetting the lag time of events here...

All of those reclassifications that were approved "pending" PCAs were recommended and announced earlier in the year... so they were already on the schedule...

NOW that PCAs ARE officially approved... we can start applying them where applicable... but there is still a lead time once a recommendation is accepted by the CRB... usually at least a month or so...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

BMW RACER
10-31-2004, 02:13 PM
Daryl. Thanks for the props. But the numbers decive. Yes, I won every race in Cal Club, but look at the lack of competition. Bryan Lampke came in second. He's a good driver but he's driving a 240z on Toyos. I did venture out of region once to Laguna Seca and got beat twice by Randy Evans. And what does he drive? Why it's a second generation RX7!
I will agree that the 325 is a great car ( I love mine) And thanks to Bimmerworld it's very well prepared, I still think a well preped, well driven RX7 is a match for the BMW.
I hope to see you next weekend at the Western States Championships. I'm coming up and I'm prepared to get spanked.
John Norris

Banzai240
10-31-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
SO-PAC DIVISION DRIVER,JOHN NORRIS ...

Unrelated to anything in this conversation...

When I purchased my 240SX, I took it home and the first thing I did was scrape John's name off the side windows...

Apparently, he was partially responsible for beating the crap out of it in some enduro for a Road & Track article that was being done, just prior to me purchasing the car! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Scirocco#28
11-01-2004, 05:15 PM
I'd seriously consider swapping our full load Sunbelt M54 WC motors for these 235whp M50's you guys are talking about....Someone needs to recalibrate their dyno.

BMW RACER
11-01-2004, 05:15 PM
Hey that was a fine car, only driven on Sundays. Good to see it's still working for you. I occaisionally get to drive the sister car we built for Automobile magazine. Great car.
Cheers.
John

Andy Bettencourt
11-01-2004, 05:37 PM
"WC" standing for World Challenge? Our 328i WC with the restrictor makes that easy...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Scirocco#28
11-01-2004, 06:36 PM
I was being sarcastic.

chuck baader
11-02-2004, 10:25 AM
With John Norris's comments I still don't see where the e36 is such an overdog. Give CAs to cars that are dominating---CRX in ITA? and let people develop new cars then make adjustments. CB

Andy Bettencourt
11-02-2004, 10:37 AM
Chuck,

It's interesting that you would use the CRX as an example of a dominat car. The CRX is just ONE of a 4-car mix currently in ITA. It, along with the Integra, the 240SX and now the Miata have proven all to be in the same 'zone'.

The issue with the BMW is simple. It's potential power output was seemingly underestimated by a significant margin when intially classified. In order for it to be where it should be, some think changes shouldbe made to it's spec weight. The cars above in ITA do not show this sort of disparity.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

robits325is
11-02-2004, 01:03 PM
Is everyone supposed to drive cars from the 70's and 80's forever?? Times change and so do the cars. The BMW isn't an overdog at all.

We already had our ABS removed - while almost every car sold in the USA today has it standard. It's time for everyone else to catch up - don't hold back technology.

lateapex911
11-02-2004, 01:30 PM
By "holding back" that part of technology, the ITAC has avoided obselescing (sp?) about 75% of the current fields. (Asuming that ABS is an advantage, which most agree it is) And by requiring it to be removed, it also removes the possiblity of further electronic "tinkering".

One of the great things about IT is the diversity of cars, both in manufacturer and model diverstity, and in relative age. Old vs. new is cool!

There are other categories that are more appropriate places for "technology", in my view.

Does WC allow ABS?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

mlytle
11-02-2004, 01:43 PM
old vs. new is cool until the new has to be dumbed down too far to play with the old. let the capability of a class of cars increase incrementally over time as technology moves on.

how about decrease the age limit on it cars. over 20yrs and you have to go play in vintage.

or (even though there is no guaranttee of competitiveness in it) only attempt to keep the most recent 15yrs of cars at a competitive level. beyond that, well, it is fun to race anyway.

or just shuffle more slower cars further and further down the class structure (s,a,b,c...)over time.

just some thoughts.

x-ring
11-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Ah, this is the main problem as I see it with IT today. I think of it as 'Speed Creep'.

Some people here, including at least one ITAC member, seem to think that currently classified cars need to be obsoleted and the bar moved up on a continuous basis in each class. Why? Can't we set a performance standard for each class and hold to it? If faster cars want in, maybe we need to add a faster class above S. When that class (ITD? ITF?) has reached it’s potential, and all the 330’s, Z32’s, last gen Rx7’s, etc. are ‘too slow’ add another class above it. If the slowest, or the in-between, classes thin out so be it. A regional class doesn’t have to ‘make the numbers’ to keep its official standing.

As things are now, a racer that wants to be competitive is forced to change cars every few years, effectively flushing his past effort and dollars. Maybe the rest of you can toss your car for new a $30K ($40K, $50K?) race car every couple of years, but I can’t. The $10K or so I spend per year on tires, travel, fees, bank money for rebuilds, etc., etc., is about my limit.

I'm always hearing 'them' moan about member loss to other clubs, the ‘graying’ of the SCCA, and so forth. Am I too far off base to think that chasing out all but the most well off isn’t the way to make the club grow? Follow that to its absurd conclusion, and you’ll eventually see two billionaires racing each other. After a while they’ll get bored and go home.

One man’s opinion, take it for what it’s worth.

On edit, I think it was Chris Camadella who posted (somewhere in the 'New Beetle in ITC thread') to the effect that it is inevitable that speed creep (aka class creep) will have newly classified cars push currently classified cars out of the running. I want to know why it must be this way. If I’m wrong about who said that, someone please correct me.

------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[This message has been edited by x-ring (edited November 02, 2004).]

chuck baader
11-02-2004, 05:05 PM
Andy...POTENTIAL????? A lot of cars have potential BUT, until proven, it is pure conjecture. My point...CRX over the last few years has --per this forum-- won just about everything. No one has clamored for added weight. The BMW may or may not win everything...my point is we need to wait and see, not penaltize based on POTENTIAL!!!

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

lateapex911
11-02-2004, 07:19 PM
The CRX does very well, but like the RX-7 of old, isn't the DOMINANT car that many seem to think it is. It does well due to it's popularity, but I guarantee you that if Bob Stretch shows in his 240, or Anthony Serra (to name one) in his Integra, any CRX will have their hands more than full. They may win, but they won't dominate and run away.

The RX-7 did very well, but an RX-3Sp could always handle a 7 in the right hands.

I think the ARRCs might be interesting. Nick Leverone and his RX-7 will be there. He's pretty equal to Kip VanSteenburg, so we should consider him representative of what a top flight RX-7 can do. How will he fare against the BMWs????

We'll know in 4 days!

Predictions??

I'll go out on a limb and predict he will be 1.6 off the pole, which will be an E36.

What do you all think?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

chuck baader
11-02-2004, 08:27 PM
I'll predict the pole will also be a BMW at a new track record of under 1:40!!

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

Knestis
11-02-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
...CRX over the last few years has --per this forum-- won just about everything. No one has clamored for added weight. ...


Very true. Instead, a bunch of us were clamoring LOUDLY to get other cars added to ITA that (a) would be competitive with the CRX, and (B) should in many cases have been in the same class with it in the first place.

That option isn't practical for the e36 325 at this point. There isn't a class above it, full of cars with similar power/weight ratios and other qualities.

K

Andy Bettencourt
11-02-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by x-ring:
Can't we set a performance standard for each class and hold to it?

In case you haven't read every thread on this forum, this is EXACTLY what is happening now, including the consideration of an additional class.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Andy Bettencourt
11-02-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
Andy...POTENTIAL????? A lot of cars have potential BUT, until proven, it is pure conjecture. My point...CRX over the last few years has --per this forum-- won just about everything. No one has clamored for added weight. The BMW may or may not win everything...my point is we need to wait and see, not penaltize based on POTENTIAL!!!



Well, I disagree to some extent. All cars are classed initially based on potential. An educated guess is made based on a ton of factors. We feel now that the process is MORE educated, MORE consistant and extreamly defencible.

The extreme examples of the BMW have shown that their performance envelope is far beyong what was originally intended.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

jlucas
11-02-2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Does WC allow ABS?

Last time I looked (~2 seasons ago), there was a weight penalty for ABS.

Why not just do that?

Knestis
11-02-2004, 11:09 PM
...because ABS is evil. It allows any driver, no matter how inept, to brake as effectively as the most talented driver out there.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

K

jlucas
11-03-2004, 07:36 AM
something about this sounds familiar.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

chuck baader
11-03-2004, 09:05 AM
Andy...you are correct that all cars are classified by SWAG "poetntial". Until this year we had no mechamism to adjust mistakes. However, my original premis is that the e36 is not an overdog in general..that may be in part because there are small numbers running at this time. I think one should consider the the car's performance nationwide, not just in a region. As we all know, dominating in a region may or may not indicate an overdog...adjustments, unless we give rewards weight to specific cars, must be fair and equal.

------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
Andy...you are correct that all cars are classified by SWAG "poetntial". Until this year we had no mechamism to adjust mistakes. However, my original premis is that the e36 is not an overdog in general..that may be in part because there are small numbers running at this time. I think one should consider the the car's performance nationwide, not just in a region. As we all know, dominating in a region may or may not indicate an overdog...adjustments, unless we give rewards weight to specific cars, must be fair and equal.



Chuck,

Again, good points. However, I disagree to some extent. While the E36 is not dominating Nationwide, it may be becasue, as you say, there are not that many out there. Of those few, even fewer are built to the extent of the rules. 'Full-bore' cars if you will. Those are the cars (Vansteenburg, Clay, Thomas, Whittle, York, etc) that you have seen and are seeing dominate. My point is that when you compare these full-bore examples to each other with top drivers in them, the Bimmers are in a class by themselves on all but momentum tracks, which are equalizers.

ITS has a target performance envelope that the ITAC has developed for the current class and any new cars considered. The E36's power potential (documnented) far exceeds this envelope and the 'FB' examples are proof. They may not be the majority but you have to class based on these cars (and the Speedsource RX-7's, Rebello powered Z-cars, etc) because they CAN GET THERE.

Classing and weight must be done based on ultra-prepped examples, not the average guy in a Regional. If you did it the latter, then the ultra-prepped cars would be unbeatable.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

x-ring
11-03-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
In case you haven't read every thread on this forum, this is EXACTLY what is happening now, including the consideration of an additional class.

AB



I do read pretty much every post on this forum; I visit at least once each weekday. Yes, you and some others seem to think that speed creep isn't inevitable, yet there are others that insist it is. Wasn’t it Chris that essentially said to get a newer, faster, car or get comfortable at the back of the pack? Or Mlytle’s suggestion that 21 year old cars be banned from IT? This attitude infuriates me.

I suppose that if you live in the rust belt all you see are new cars, but here in the sunny southwest there are still plenty of 12A Rx7’s and S30 Z’s still on the road.

Don’t take this as a shot against you. I really appreciate all that you have done for the IT community, I just hope that the old guard doesn’t eventually notice what’s going on and undo all of your work.


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by x-ring:
Yes, you and some others seem to think that speed creep isn't inevitable, yet there are others that insist it is.


Actually, I had hoped my last post demonstrated otherwise. I DO think speed creep is inevitable. Cars get older, parts get scarce and new stuff must be allowed in.

The two ways to do this are simple:

Slowly eliminate the competitiveness of the older stuff by pushing cars down the food chain to make room for the newer, more powerful and better designed stuff in SS right now

OR

Develope a new class above ITSto have aplace for these cars to run while still maintaing the current competitive babalce as best as possible.

Interestingly, we have had some feedback that keeping the same amount of classes is fine and that the only thing we are doing by 'protecting' ITB and ITC is creating a vinatge class within IT...has SOME merit but I think we can do more.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

mlytle
11-03-2004, 12:57 PM
i agree with both your proposed simple solutions andy. either one of them is better than trying to dumb down modern technology so that 30yr old cars can still be competitive.

can't wait for the future discussions over how to dumb down an impluse or warp drive so that an internal combustion engine can be competitive! ;-)

marshall

x-ring
11-03-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Actually, I had hoped my last post demonstrated otherwise. I DO think speed creep is inevitable.

Maybe speed creep isn't what I'm against. I'm starting to think class creep is a more descriptive phrase. On this premise I'll accept that speed creep is inevitable. Newer, faster stuff is sold each year; eventually they should end up in IT. What I don't like is the idea that current cars should be pushed out to make room for newer cars.



Cars get older, parts get scarce and new stuff must be allowed in.

No argument here. Z cars are still fairly cheap and plentiful, at least in the desert southwest, but this may not be true for other cars or in other parts of the country.



The two ways to do this are simple:

Slowly eliminate the competitiveness of the older stuff by pushing cars down the food chain to make room for the newer, more powerful and better designed stuff in SS right now

What end is served by pushing cars, and thus members, out? Unless you mean taking currrently competitive cars and moving them down a class, but is that any different than:



Develope a new class above ITSto have aplace for these cars to run while still maintaing the current competitive babalce as best as possible.

I don't particularly care if my car has an S or a V or a whatever on the side if I believe have a reasonable chance each time I go out.



Interestingly, we have had some feedback that keeping the same amount of classes is fine and that the only thing we are doing by 'protecting' ITB and ITC is creating a vinatge class within IT...has SOME merit but I think we can do more.

AB



I do to. I can't think of a damn thing I can do about it, but if you do please let me know.


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

x-ring
11-03-2004, 01:39 PM
nevermind.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by x-ring:
What end is served by pushing cars, and thus members, out? Unless you mean taking currrently competitive cars and moving them down a class, but is that any different than:

No end is really served, it's just a fact of life. If you keep the same amount of classes AND move cars down as faster stuff hits your 'fastest' class, the competive nature of the slowest cars suffers.

For example: There are some mid-pack ITC cars right now. As the trickle-down happens, the slower ITB cars get dropped in. The weigh adjustments made to them put them in the top 3rd of choices. That 'pushes' the lower cars further down.

That exact thing is happening to the ITA RX-7 right now as the slower ITS cars move down...

Not an idea solution, don't get me wrong, but just the facts as I see them.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

chuck baader
11-03-2004, 03:57 PM
Andy, I think your logic is flawed when you want to punish a complete line of cars because several drivers in the country..as you mentioned..have the money and desire to spend 50-75k developing a car. Speedsource cars were probably the starting point, and possibly the Robello Z cars. The fact remains, however, that given equal drivers, he who spends the most will most likely win. What we have here (E36) are very good drivers that are able to outspend the average racer. Are we to penalize everyone when only several can excell? I am soooo glad I am not on the committee trying to weight these questions. Chuck

Greg Amy
11-03-2004, 05:26 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Are we to penalize everyone when only several can excell?</font>

We are not "penalizing" them; they penalize themselves by failing to prep their vehicles to the fullest extent that the rules allow.

Rulesmakers must consider is that someone - at least one person - will prep to the fullest extent allowed and have the best driver, thus showing the true potential of the vehicle. Short of restricting specific prep to specific vehicles (a la World Challenge VTS sheets), there's really no other equitable way to do it. - GA

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2004, 05:31 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself, Greg.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

GKR_17
11-03-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
That exact thing is happening to the ITA RX-7 right now as the slower ITS cars move down...


Don't forget that the 1st gen Rx-7 used to be an ITS car as well.

ChrisCamadella
11-04-2004, 08:11 AM
Yes the 1st gen RX-7 certainly used to be an ITS car.

When I first started racing IT (a LONG time ago), I raced a Porsche 914 2.0 4-cyl, which was an ITS car, and not a very good one at that.

The following year, the car got moved to ITA, where it still had no real chance, and finally, we have moved it to ITB, where it may possibly have a remote chance of doing well.

lateapex911
11-04-2004, 10:24 AM
And don't forget that many cars were thrown in S when the category was MUCH smaller, and it was done in a "lets see how it does" manner.

Also, the whole trickle down thing makes sense when you remember that the number of ITC cars is the smallest, and the number of ITC backmarkers is smaller than that! Therefor, moving cars down will penalize the smallest group possible. Besides, there is the possiblity that certain examples could be given breaks of some nature, but the numbers of car that will suffer are very small.

On the other hand, when you have a car that is clearly head and shoulders above its well developed competitors it marginalizes an entire class....the numbers of competitors who suffer is far greater.

Trickle down should benefit the most competitiors, and hurt the least number.

IMO, it's the best compromise if done proprerly.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bruce Shafer
11-04-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
The E36's power potential (documnented) far exceeds this envelope and the 'FB' examples are proof.



How about sharing your documented evidence with the forum?

Andy Bettencourt
11-04-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:

How about sharing your documented evidence with the forum?

In what format?

I have seen dyno sheets from a top-3 ARRC car in the 208rwhp range. Head taken off and found in compliance.

Top engine builders are now quoting 'ABOUT' 15 more WHP since that car was built. The 208 figure was WITHOUT MOTEC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bruce Shafer
11-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
In what format?

I have seen dyno sheets from a top-3 ARRC car in the 208rwhp range. Head taken off and found in compliance.

Top engine builders are now quoting 'ABOUT' 15 more WHP since that car was built. The 208 figure was WITHOUT MOTEC.

AB



Please email the dyno sheets to the email address below or scan and post to the forum. If this is what is being used to base decisions affecting a lot of people, it should be public information.

Mzealot(@)Bellsouth.net

"And engine builders are quoting", doesn't exactly sound like documented evidence to me.

Asok #25
11-04-2004, 12:24 PM
Andy

Maybe you need to read Jake Glick’s protest story again.

Andy Bettencourt
11-04-2004, 01:31 PM
Bruce,

The dyno sheets are not my property. Why would I post something that wasn't mine. If you don't believe me, that's fine. As far as your hearsay comment, call Bimmerworld and ask them for a quote. It's gonna cost you but the ponies are out there.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Andy Bettencourt
11-04-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Asok #25:
Andy

Maybe you need to read Jake Glick’s protest story again.

Except this was at the ARRC.

It's funny to me that all the BMW guys don't believe the numbers when they HAVEN'T spent the money it takes to get the power. I am looking for cars with a CUSTOM header, full Rebello build and machining AND MOTEC...ya'll out there?

There is a 8whp difference in our equally prepped Speedsource motors. Not that you can do much to these things internally but it just exemplifies the differences between motors.

It's also well documented that some of these top engine builders only give the ULTRA good stuff to the top drivers. A well known PSM driver spent over $10k each on his motors...whats the difference? Your guess is as good as mine.

Seems like this is just like drivers. "I am driving at 100% of the cars ability - so I must be getting beaten by that car or a cheater." 9 times out of 10 that mid-pack driver will get a nice reality check when he has a top 3 driver run his car.

Sorry to ruffle any feathers but the power is out there. These are awesome cars with awesome engines. I wish I had the E36 M3 back that I drove at the 1997 Solo 2 Nationals.

AB

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited November 04, 2004).]

ITANorm
11-04-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
A well known PSM driver spent over $10k each on his motors...

9 times out of 10 that mid-pack driver will get a nice reality check when he has a top 3 driver run his car.


On item 1: It'll cost you that for a true limit of the rules engine in about any car - the 4AG in the ITA MR2, for instance, is no exception.

On item 2: That's why a "top 3" driver will drive my limit-of-the-rules car as soon as I get it sorted. In all fairness, I'm a fair driver, but I'm no Andretti. The MR2 is too fast for ITB at its current weight, but with an extra 150# or so it would fit right in. Same with the 12A RX-7's. And lightening it enough to make it competitive in ITA is not doable under the current rules.

I DO have to give the ITAC credit - Darren and Chris have been working with me on this for a while - and I believe that the proper decision will be made when all the "Test data" is in.


------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

Geo
11-04-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Bruce,

The dyno sheets are not my property. Why would I post something that wasn't mine. If you don't believe me, that's fine. As far as your hearsay comment, call Bimmerworld and ask them for a quote. It's gonna cost you but the ponies are out there.

AB



Yeah, I have to back Andy up 100% here. Anybody who expects us to have copies of dyno sheets from the best builders of their best work are on another planet.

Look guys, we all would like us to have all the very best information with 100% legal cars, blah, blah, blah. We on the ITAC would as well. But as is nearly always the case in racing, we have to get the best information we can and very rarely does it come with indisputable proof. But we still have to make decisions and sometimes make our best guesses. I think generally we can get reasonably reliable information and can get a pretty good gut feel for the BS.

But Andy is right. If you don't go all the way with your engine build and prep, don't tell me what cannot be done. Heck, two great builders and get very different hp from a "to the limit of the rules" engine, so just because some people are getting what others are is not a reason to believe it cannot be done.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bruce Shafer
11-04-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Yeah, I have to back Andy up 100% here. Anybody who expects us to have copies of dyno sheets from the best builders of their best work are on another planet.



Andy wrote that he had documented proof of legal M50 motors making at least 208 RWHP. The fact of the matter is he doesn't. The only thing anybody on this forum can provide is more conjecture regarding this engine.

GKR_17
11-04-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Except this was at the ARRC.


They are no better at the ARRC, I've previously posted 2 examples.

Grafton

Andy Bettencourt
11-04-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Andy wrote that he had documented proof of legal M50 motors making at least 208 RWHP. The fact of the matter is he doesn't. The only thing anybody on this forum can provide is more conjecture regarding this engine.

Actually Bruce, if you read carefully, I believe I wrote that the power potential WAS documented and that I had SEEN the sheets. I never said I HAD any documents in my posession.

BTW: congrats on your short-course track record at Sebring...that Dean motor must be strong!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Banzai240
11-04-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Andy wrote that he had documented proof of legal M50 motors making at least 208 RWHP. The fact of the matter is he doesn't.

Do you have any documented and postable proof that this engine DOES NOT make 208 RWHP???

It goes both ways... Just because you claim it can't, doesn't make it so...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Actually Bruce, if you read carefully, I believe I wrote that the power potential WAS documented and that I had SEEN the sheets. I never said I HAD any documents in my posession.

BTW: congrats on your short-course track record at Sebring...that Dean motor must be strong!

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

AB



Andy, your welcome! The lap record is news to me.

For the record that is the same motor that was only able to finish 2nd in ITS at Homestead several weeks prior the Sebring race. I lost to a well driven and well prepared RX7, no surprise there.

JeffYoung
11-05-2004, 02:06 PM
Bruce/Grafton, this is going to sound more confrontational than it should -- I just want a better understanding of the issue.

It seems to me that most S cars are classed at or slightly less than their curb weight (the rough idea being that you take the curb weight, subtract a few hundred pounds for interior materials and add back 150 or so for the cage). I may be wrong, but this is my general understanding.

The exception to this is the 325, which has a curb weight of around 3100 (is that right?) and a race weight of 2800.

By this rough estimation, the "correct" race weight for the 325 (results aside) would be 3000 lbs.

Interested in your thoughts on this, and just looking to be more informed about the issue.

Thanks.

Jeff

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 04:51 PM
Jeff, not confrontational at all.

I have no idea what BMW claimed for the weight of the E36. A quick Google search didn't turn up much. Somebody needs to come up with a brochure or information from '92 and see what BMW claimed for the E36 at that time.

The GCR weight for the E36 is 2850.

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Do you have any documented and postable proof that this engine DOES NOT make 208 RWHP???

It goes both ways... Just because you claim it can't, doesn't make it so...



Darin, interesting that you ask. I have an appointment to take my car down to a reputable BMW tuner in Miami on Tuesday, 11/09/04 for a dyno session. The car is exactly as it came off the track at Sebring with the exception of a new water pump and thermostat. I have experienced intermittent overheating problems all summer and again this past weekend at Sebring.

I would be more than happy to share the information that I obtain with the Club Racing Board or anybody else in the position to make Competition Adjustments. I would like to put an end to this hysteria once and for all with some cold, hard numbers.

Greg Amy
11-05-2004, 05:42 PM
MSN's Carpoint, which I've found to be reasonable consistent and fairly accurate (I suspect the data is based off of manufacturer's data sheets), indicates the curb weight of the '95 325is was 3087 pounds (oink!)

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Ext...VIP&tab=2&sub=3 (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?modelid=169&trimid=-1&src=VIP&tab=2&sub=3)

For comparison, Carpoint indicates the curb weight of the '91 RX-7 was 2787 (ITS legal weight, 2680); the '93 Acura GSR was 2657 (ITS legal weight, 2680), and my '92 NX2000 at 2472 (ITS legal weight, 2490).

GA

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 05:45 PM
You need to get the weight of the '92, the car that was initially classified.

Curb weight '92 manual 3020 lbs on the MSN.autos website.

Based on these numbers, the Mazda RX-7 runs at 96% of its estimated curb weight. The E36 runs at 94%.




[This message has been edited by Bruce Shafer (edited November 05, 2004).]

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 06:45 PM
Check out this link:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/re...#specifications (http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2117#specifications)

1992 to 1998 E36 Curb weight: 2866.

Banzai240
11-05-2004, 07:00 PM
Guys,

I can honestly tell you that Curb weight has very little to do with the classification weight, other than to make a santity check on whether the car will be able to make the specified weight...

Cars are being considered based on their performance potential and their weights set accordingly. The only time curb weight is looked at is when we check to see if the specified weight is realistic. And, even then, I personally, have been looking at the Touring car specifications first, if applicable, to see what weight the car might have been raced at in the past...

At the end of the process however, the weight specified is based on performance potential, and has little to do with factory weight, so there really is no correlation between spec weight and curb weight... or at least not one that means anything...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bruce Shafer
11-05-2004, 08:57 PM
Darin, surprised you missed one of my previous posts. Let me post it again...

Darin, interesting that you ask. I have an appointment to take my car down to a reputable BMW tuner in Miami on Tuesday, 11/09/04 for a dyno session. The car is exactly as it came off the track at Sebring with the exception of a new water pump and thermostat. I have experienced intermittent overheating problems all summer and again this past weekend at Sebring.

I would be more than happy to share the information that I obtain with the Club Racing Board or anybody else in the position to make Competition Adjustments. I would like to put an end to this hysteria once and for all with some cold, hard numbers.

Greg Amy
11-05-2004, 09:31 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...looking at the Touring car specifications first, if applicable, to see what weight the car might have been raced at in the past...</font>

From my copy of the 1995 GCR:

- '92-93 SSA BMW 325i and is, 2910#
- '91 SSA RX-7, 2600#
(SSA Delta = 310#; current ITS delta = 170#)

Andy Bettencourt
11-05-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Check out this link:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2117#specifications[/UR L]

1992 to 1998 E36 Curb weight: 2866.

Weird. The E36 cars are way heavier. My 1995 M3 (ordered car with no sunroof, no leather and no trip computer) weight in at 3097 on certified scales.

Edmunds shows what most of the data here shows - over 3000lb curb weight.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1992/bmw/3seri...sidenav..6.BMW* (http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2117#specifications)

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
[url]www.flatout-motorsports.com

mlytle
11-05-2004, 11:57 PM
well, if bmw's are supposed to be so dominant, it certainly ain't showing in the arrc qualifying results. top 4 cars are within less than a second of each other. two bmw's, a 240z and an rx7.

sure looks like there are other cars with a lot of performance potential too.

Banzai240
11-06-2004, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Darin, surprised you missed one of my previous posts. Let me post it again...



Bruce... WHAT makes you think I missed that...??? I'm happily awaiting the results... Until then, what could I possibly have to say about the subject??



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bruce Shafer
11-06-2004, 09:55 AM
Thanks Darin. I just wanted to be sure you read the post. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Bruce Shafer
11-06-2004, 09:56 AM
Posted twice!

[This message has been edited by Bruce Shafer (edited November 06, 2004).]

Andy Bettencourt
11-06-2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by mlytle:
well, if bmw's are supposed to be so dominant, it certainly ain't showing in the arrc qualifying results. top 4 cars are within less than a second of each other. two bmw's, a 240z and an rx7.

sure looks like there are other cars with a lot of performance potential too.

Yup. The fastest RX-7 and the fastest Z in the country.

Any addition in weight will just bring the car in line with everything else in the class. A BMW has run a 1:40.8 at RA this weekend. 1 full second is the current delta. Not huge, but a significant data point non-the-less.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bruce Shafer
11-06-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Yup. The fastest RX-7 and the fastest Z in the country.

Funny I don't see the #70 SpeedSource Car on the entry list.



Any addition in weight will just bring the car in line with everything else in the class. A BMW has run a 1:40.8 at RA this weekend. 1 full second is the current delta. Not huge, but a significant data point non-the-less.

AB



I guess math isn't your strong point. Looks more like .6 seconds to me.

Pos No. Name Class Overall

1 56 EDWARD YORK ITS 1:40.890
2 11 CHET WITTEL ITS 1:41.183
3 12 JOHN WILLIAMS ITS 1:41.527
4 04 NICK LEVERONE ITS 1:41.827

robits325is
11-06-2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Yup. The fastest RX-7 and the fastest Z in the country.

Any addition in weight will just bring the car in line with everything else in the class. A BMW has run a 1:40.8 at RA this weekend. 1 full second is the current delta. Not huge, but a significant data point non-the-less.

AB

Andy Bettencourt
11-06-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
I guess math isn't your strong point. Looks more like .6 seconds to me.

Pos No. Name Class Overall

1 56 EDWARD YORK ITS 1:40.890
2 11 CHET WITTEL ITS 1:41.183
3 12 JOHN WILLIAMS ITS 1:41.527
4 04 NICK LEVERONE ITS 1:41.827



Bruce:

Got all the info? Getting reports from the event? Nope.

BMW ran 1:40.8 in test session. That was the reference point to the RX-7 time.

Is it Syl in the RX that you need to see?

Either way, it will be a fun race to watch and draw paranoid conclusions from! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

AB

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

bldn10
11-08-2004, 12:12 PM
"Funny I don't see the #70 SpeedSource Car on the entry list."

Sadly, I believe the famous 70 car was totalled and parted out some time ago. Syl was at the ARRC in '01 in Marcello Abello's No. 48 car and did a 1:41.5.





------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

GKR_17
11-08-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by bldn10:
"Funny I don't see the #70 SpeedSource Car on the entry list."

Sadly, I believe the famous 70 car was totalled and parted out some time ago. Syl was at the ARRC in '01 in Marcello Abello's No. 48 car and did a 1:41.5.



Syl qualfied the 48 car at a 140.372 in 2001, which is faster than any E36 has done at the ARRC, in any year.

ChrisCamadella
11-08-2004, 05:21 PM
Enlighten me, someone - What year did Road Atlanta get its current configuration - I mean the complete current configuration, including the removal of the dip, the addition of the HUGE runoff curb at the exit of the esses, etc.

You can't compare lap times unless it was on the exact same track configuration...

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

oanglade
11-08-2004, 06:45 PM
It was already like that in 2001.


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

seckerich
11-08-2004, 09:46 PM
If you watched the start of the race Chet made a STRONG move at the start to pass on the outside into turn 1 and pulled way out front by lap 2. York fell out and he dropped 2 seconds off his lap times and did just enough to win. Can you say sandbagging??

JeffG
11-08-2004, 11:20 PM
Holding up a single race as THE data point is futile, even if it is the ARRC. It seems clear from any number of anecdotal descriptions that a fully built E36 motor can pull the same built RX7 by many car lengths in a straight. It's like racing with AS or GT3 cars that are not pushed to the limit.

How many years did it take SpeedSource to get to where they were in 2001. Great drivers with RR shocks and a crew to make significant changes quickly.

We are only starting to see the ultimate potential of the E36. With a clearly dominant wt/hp edge, the rest of the package will continue to evolve for some time to come.

Super Swift
11-09-2004, 08:44 AM
Jeff

What tire did the SS guys run in 2001?
the old hoosier.

I am yet to be told the old tire is faster than the new. In fact...

seckerich
11-09-2004, 08:55 AM
The number that keeps out of these discussions is TORQUE, and the E36 has 35 - 40 percent more than the Mazda. Put Sylvain in a BMW and you would see EP times at the ARRC. Rules on shocks have changed to slow the cars now and the track surface was new when sylvain ran those times. Apples and oranges.

kthomas
11-09-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by JeffG:

How many years did it take SpeedSource to get to where they were in 2001. Great drivers with RR shocks and a crew to make significant changes quickly.


It was the RR Shocks! Thank God we banned them! That sure rearranged the Grid! Oops, Chet won again. Well at least it wasn't in a 240Z with RR shocks! I feel a whole lot better now knowing he didn't spend a bunch of money on RR shocks and instead spent it on an E36.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

------------------
katman

kthomas
11-09-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
Rules on shocks have changed to slow the cars now

Sorry, all that rule did was make the guys that had them spend money to covert to something else. Didn't slow us down. It was a tax on rich people...

------------------
katman

mlytle
11-09-2004, 01:47 PM
gotta love the comment about "sandbagging". hmm, if you are in front by a comfortable margin, why would you keep pushing a car to the absolute limit and risk a problem. build a lead and hold a constant gap to the next competitor. sheeesh.

[This message has been edited by mlytle (edited November 09, 2004).]

chuck baader
11-09-2004, 03:35 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, BUT...Chet broke his track record held in his Z with a 325 last year? 1:4-.3xx? CB

Geo
11-09-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by kthomas:
Sorry, all that rule did was make the guys that had them spend money to covert to something else. Didn't slow us down. It was a tax on rich people...



Really? Then why did you need them in the first place?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

mlytle
11-09-2004, 08:54 PM
i though when i read the ra track record site the other day it said rx7 at a 1:40.8. looking at it again just now it says chet in a z at 1:41.0 in 2001. now that the race results have been posted looks like chet in his bmw dropped it to 1:40.9. except for chet, the top cars had pretty similar fast laps. when they broadcasting the race on speed? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif we wish!

wburstein
11-09-2004, 08:59 PM
Let me see if I have it right.

Chet Wittel won the ARRC twice in a row in a 240Z. He then sold the Z to Larry Stepp.

Flash forward to the 2004 ARRC. Wittel wins followed by Stepp, both in E36 cars. Anyone want to guess why they are in BMWs?

Can a well prepped Z or RX-7 get close to an E36/46? Sure, in the right situation. At an even level (not cost!) of preparation, the BMW will win just about every time with equal drivers. Note that 7 of the top 10 at the 2004 ARRC were BMWs. What was once an even playing field for 240Z, RX-7, 944 and E30 is now pretty much a one car class. If you don't believe me, ask Chet Wittel or Ed York (2004 ARRC ITS pole).

I am not sure that minimal weight penalties and/or restrictor plates will fix this.

We do need to adjust this disparity in ITS before the attrition damages the class any worse. In the WDC region, our ITS fields have dropped from an average of 25 cars to less than 15 since the BMW E36 was introduced. I attribute that to many folks not wanting to race when they do not feel they have a chance to win.

I agree that the way to correct this is through reorganization of the class structure, rather than penalizing the BMWs. The last thing we want to do is to take new, exciting cars and cripple them.

We also don't want to force people in a regional class to have to buy new cars every few years just to remain competitive. IT was designed to be a relatively low cost place for older Showroom Stock cars to play. Minor competition adjustments make sense to me, but not ones as large as is necessary to bring the BMWs down to the level that ITS was before they were classed.

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10
www.mountainmotorsports.net (http://www.mountainmotorsports.net)

[This message has been edited by wburstein (edited November 09, 2004).]

Ron Earp
11-09-2004, 09:36 PM
Are there enough cars for a new higher class? What cars would be in such a class?

If so throw in the late model naturally aspirated 300z and the 79-82 Porsche 928, should help things out a bit and give the BMW a run for the money.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

11-09-2004, 10:54 PM
I think the E-36, Z32 N/A 300ZX's and perhaps early 928's would be a much better fit in D/P if it comes to fruition.

Do we really want an IT class that costs more than what is being spent to run up front in ITS right now?
I'd have to vote no on that one.

Banzai240
11-09-2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Are there enough cars for a new higher class? What cars would be in such a class?


Well, let's see...

The "problem" currently with ITS is that the performance envelope keeps getting raised with all the newer, 170+ stock hp cars coming into the class. One could argue that if the "top" were lopped off of ITS a bit, then some of these higher hp cars could be classified up a class at a more reasonable weight. Can you get a '98 Prelude to 2600lbs? Can you get an Integra GS-R to 2400lbs??

If one sets a wt/pwr goal that makes these kinds of classifications achievable and creates a class above ITS, some of the pressure to move cars down from ITS to ITA would be alleviated, as the class benchmarks would come back to the RX-7 and 240Z, etc... Cars with 160hp or less in stock form and can be classified at a reasonable target weight. Cars like the GS-R, E36, etc., which could be made legally lighter, would then be classified in "ITU" at a more reasonable weight at a lower wt/pwr ratio. Imagine an E36 classified at 2700lbs... Or a GS-R at 2425lbs, etc... (all assuming, of course, that research shows that these weights are achievable...)

Here is a sample of cars that might be able to fit the mold of "ITU"... Feel free to suggest more...

[list]
Make Model Version Acura Integra GS-R (92-93) Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99 Acura RSX Type-S 2002 Acura Integra 97-99 Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) BMW M Coupe 98-99 BMW M3 95-99 BMW 328ci/i 1999 BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98 Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 Ford Mustang V6 1999+ Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) Honda Prelude V-Tech Honda S2000 2000 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88 Nissan Maxima 89-94 Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32B) Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 Porsche Boxter S 2000 Porsche 968 1995 Porsche 944S (4V) (87-88) Toyota Supra 1998 Toyota Supra 95-97 Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) Volkswagen Corrado SLC Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995 Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96)

[list]

Little research has been done to make any determinations on how these cars would fit, but it's a start... about 12 of these cars are currently classified in ITS, but at pretty high weights...

Anyhow, it seems to me like an idea worth investigating...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

mlytle
11-10-2004, 12:58 AM
hi wayne!
lets not ignore the 4th and fifth place cars that were rx7's. the first of which turned in the third fastest race lap, about a half a second slower than the first place bmw.

the track record by a z car was only one tenth of a second slower than the winning bmw's time.

having 7 out of the top ten being bmw's only means there were a ton of bmw's entered. it appears the ultimate potential of the rx7 and z cars is in the same ball park as the bmw's. any gap between these cars seems to be a whole lot smaller than the gaps in the potential of the rest of the cars in the class. if any weight is to be added to the bmw, then the rx7 and z cars need to take a hit too to bring everyone down to mercedes and honda range....;-)

marshall

Ron Earp
11-10-2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Feel free to suggest more...

Don't forget the Porsche 928, 79-82. Has less hp than many on the list and doesn't have a lot of room for improvement as it is sort of stuck in time if the model years are limited. Also would suggest 82-84 (maybe 85) Ford Mustang 5.0L since it will fit in here just fine.

I always sort of wondered about the 968 and where it could fit in IT, this would be a perfect place. There are lots of these around for fairly cheap money and they are great cars.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

kthomas
11-10-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Really? Then why did you need them in the first place?



That's my point. Didn't need them. Still go just as fast, just takes more effort and money to get there. Once you commit to optimizing your shock package it was cheaper in the long run to buy the multi adjustable RR shocks than to buy/revalve/swap/buy/revalve etc like we do now. Like I said, that rule was just a tax on rich people. Didn't change the grid one iota.

wburstein makes a good point re: Wittel and Stepp converting from 240Z's to E36's. In the Southeast Region the hp and brakes on the BMW outclass the Z for those tracks, but I suppose in other regions with shorter, tighter tracks the weight of the BMW might overshadow its other attributes and better handling cars like the Z and RX-7 could be the cars to have.

------------------
katman

[This message has been edited by kthomas (edited November 10, 2004).]

Diane
11-10-2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by kthomas:
That's my point. Didn't need them. Still go just as fast, just takes more effort and money to get there. Once you commit to optimizing your shock package it was cheaper in the long run to buy the multi adjustable RR shocks than to buy/revalve/swap/buy/revalve etc like we do now. Like I said, that rule was just a tax on rich people.


Correct. Not being rich and running a car with no aftermarket, we didn't have a lot of suspension options.

It was considerably more expensive to get our struts custom made with the sleeves. In addition, because of the sleeves, they are non-adjustable. If we had been able to get threaded-bodied ones that were more or less off the shelf, they would have been adjustable (not RR either). So now we have to pay to have them revalved as we develop the car.

Diane
ITB Escort #21 NER

mavis
11-10-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by mlytle:
hi wayne!
lets not ignore the 4th and fifth place cars that were rx7's. the first of which turned in the third fastest race lap, about a half a second slower than the first place bmw.

the track record by a z car was only one tenth of a second slower than the winning bmw's time.

having 7 out of the top ten being bmw's only means there were a ton of bmw's entered. it appears the ultimate potential of the rx7 and z cars is in the same ball park as the bmw's. any gap between these cars seems to be a whole lot smaller than the gaps in the potential of the rest of the cars in the class. if any weight is to be added to the bmw, then the rx7 and z cars need to take a hit too to bring everyone down to mercedes and honda range....;-)

marshall

I'd agree with the above posts regarding the RX7 and Z cars. An additional suggestion would be to take off some of the weight of the Acuras and Hondas instead of making THEM add a large amount of ballast as is already the case. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

chuck baader
11-10-2004, 10:51 AM
With competition adjustments, the SCCA will try to establish parity between the makes within a class. IMHO, parity already exists when the best prepared "S" cars in the country -- three separate makes -- run within 1/2 second of each other at the ARRC. Why would the competition board want to upset apparent parity? CB

Bruce Shafer
11-10-2004, 11:25 AM
Where can I find the name and address of the Chair of the Club Racing Board or what ever it is called these days? I've checked SportsCar and the SCCA website and didn't find what I was looking for.

I have the baseline dyno information to share. A couple HP more than I thought, but easily less than 200 RWHP and nowhere near the hysterical claims found on this forum.

Ron Earp
11-10-2004, 11:35 AM
Mustang Dyno or Dynojet Dyno? I've only seen Dynojet rear wheel numbers for E36s, Mustang Dynos produce lower numbers than the Dynojets do, but it doesn't really matter since in most cases all anyone is interested in is differences from modifications.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Bruce Shafer
11-10-2004, 11:54 AM
Mustang Dyno

Banzai240
11-10-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Where can I find the name and address of the Chair of the Club Racing Board or what ever it is called these days?



I agree that the SCCA site is difficult to navigate, but all the "Boards and Committees" information can be found at the following link:

Inside SCCA => Boards and Committees (http://www.scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=015BDC-68EC270&x=080|070&~=)

The CRBs address is: [email protected]


So, you were complaining about the Andy not posting the dyno sheets from his sources... Are you willing to post yours? Open communication goes both ways...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 10, 2004).]

ITANorm
11-10-2004, 12:15 PM
From what I've seen, Mustang #'s run 14 - 24% lower than Dynojet #'s for the same car. My only #'s are off a Mustang, and comparison with cars whose engines were built the same and by the same builder bears this out (91.3 on the Mustang vs. 106.8 on the Dynojet). FWIW, Dyna-Pak numbers are much more similar to the Mustang.

So, if your Mustang #'s are below 178, you might have a case.

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited November 10, 2004).]

Greg Amy
11-10-2004, 12:23 PM
I applaud your offering dyno info, Bruce, but I'm certain it will be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure you can understand that offering up personal info with no oversight and no knowledge of prep (and your self-recognition that your car is not prepped to the extreme of possibilities), your data will be seen as self-serving and is, honestly, tainted.

However, this is the proper way to begin the dialogue.

Chuck, I see where you're getting at, however I don't agree with your conclusion. I wasn't there, so all I have for evidence is the results sheet. Even so, it seems pretty obvious to me.

The top three cars were all BMWs, within a half-second of each other. Of the top-ten cars, 70% were BMWs, whereas less than half the field was a BMW(11 of 28 starters). Let's not forget that had Ed York finished the race, there is NO DOUBT he would have been top-5, so the score would have been 8 of the top-ten cars for BMW. Of that same top ten there were two RX-7s; we don't know Rick's times, unfortunately, but Nick best was within a half-second (we'll call it) of the leader.

No disrepect or minimization of the others' work, but if we want to do a good tete-a-tete, I'd suggest we compare Nick Leverone to Chet Wittel. Both are accomplished drivers in (I believe) top-prep cars.

Given that, there's one little piece of data that you're overlooking: the margin of victory. Chet Wittel won the ITS race with a nearly 8 second margin of victory over the second place BMW. The results sheet doesn't show it, but what was Chet's margin over Nick Leverone? Was it even close? I really doubt it.

There's no disagreeing that Nick and Rick did a fantastic job placing top-5 in their RX-7s, but I don't think there's a reasonable person in this forum that has any doubt that the BMW has a distinct and obvious competitive advantage. - GA

Bruce Shafer
11-10-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
[email protected]

So, you were complaining about the Andy not posting the dyno sheets from his sources... Are you willing to post yours?



I stated several pages ago in this thread that I would share my Dyno information with the Club Race Board. Once the board has had ample time to review, I will post them to this forum.

BTW, I wasn't complaining, Andy was throwing out outrageous HP numbers like it was fact. I called him on it. Turns out, his numbers couldn't be substantiated. Mine can.

Bruce Shafer
11-10-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
(and your self-recognition that your car is not prepped to the extreme of possibilities

Where was it ever stated that my car is not prepped to the extreme? The only item I don't have is MOTEC. Don't make assumptions.

The car was dyno'd exactly as it came off the track at Sebring setting the short course record (as Andy and his sources claim).

I expected the dyno results to be diminished by the sycophants, so I haven't been disappointed. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif This is all I have to say on this subject on this forum at this time.

Greg Amy
11-10-2004, 12:44 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Where was it ever stated that my car is not prepped to the extreme? The only item I don't have is MOTEC. Don't make assumptions.</font>

I didn't make assumptions: you have now (twice) admitted your car is not prepped to the extreme of possibilities. When you do that, feel free to resubmit your results for peer review.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I expected the dyno results to be diminished by the sycophants...</font>

I race a front-wheel-drive 135hp Nissan in (now) ITA; I have no need to curry favor with you or your competitors. And, unlike you, I have no ulterior motives or agenda.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This is all I have to say on this subject on this forum at this time.</font>[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt that.

Geo
11-10-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
I wasn't there, so all I have for evidence is the results sheet. Even so, it seems pretty obvious to me.

I was there. Didn't look like parity to me.

Also, despite the attempt of some to spin PCAs as comp adjustments, they are not. Yes, they are a mechanism to adjust weights, but this will not be a annual process of adjustments (although initially some weights may be tweaked for a year or two), but PCAs are there to correct some errors of the past.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

mlytle
11-10-2004, 12:53 PM
quote: "Of the top-ten cars, 70% were BMWs, whereas less than half the field was a BMW(11 of 28 starters). Let's not forget that had Ed York finished the race, there is NO DOUBT he would have been top-5, so the score would have been 8 of the top-ten cars for BMW."

hmmm, so say if an rx7 finished first and a 240z finished second and the rest of the top 10 were bmw's, then bmw's would still be the bad overdog just because there were a lot of them in the top ten?

the number of bmw's in the top ten is completely irrelevant to this discussion. that is only a quantity measure. the discussion here is around the potential of a type of car. only the top examples of each kind of car are relevant.

robits325is
11-10-2004, 12:56 PM
What about driver experience? The top three positions at the ARRC were local drivers from Georgia. Bring those same three cars and same drivers to Lime Rock or NHIS and watch Nick walk away.

Set-up and experience make a big difference.

mlytle
11-10-2004, 01:03 PM
excellent point about set up and the drivers. it also leads to the "margin of victory" point someone else was making. someone who is very familiar with a track is generally going to make fewer mistakes over the course of a race. consistently leads to larger margins just as much as car prep does.

Ron Earp
11-10-2004, 01:19 PM
As one that has dynoed a lot of cars of the years on dynos all I can say is that that thing has 185-190hp (guessing from his post) rear wheel hp on a Mustang Dyno, then it is a very strong engine. Mustang dynos do indeed read lower than Dynojet dynos. Dynojet numbers are the ones I refer to in my posts on rear wheel hp and are the numbers that most people refer to when quoting rear wheel numbers since there are many of them around the country.
Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 10, 2004).]

Tom Donnelly
11-10-2004, 01:23 PM
When Chet won the ARRC in a 240z against Syl in a Speedsource RX-7, the margin of victory was more like .00008 sec than 8 seconds. They were side-by-side thru turn 12 at the end.

How's that for a fair comparison? It showed parity between the 240z and the RX-7. Very few BMW's that year. It must have been the RR shocks.

Tom

chuck baader
11-10-2004, 01:33 PM
I think the proper statement is: "what goes around comes around". Not being around when the 40k Speedsource 7s were dominating, I assume there was a lot of discussion about their performance. Fast forward to Chet's and John William's Z cars that started dominating. Next fast forward to the current BMWs that the fast/moneyed boys have gone to. (Money buys speed, how fast do you want to spend?) Now this new car becomes the dominate make. Next year...who knows? Assuredly something will come along that the fast/moneyed boys will switch to that will become the dominate car.

Really, 8 of the first 10 cars one make...sure it should win!!! If a Z or 7 car had won it would be an upset based on pure odds! Chuck

Banzai240
11-10-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
I stated several pages ago in this thread that I would share my Dyno information with the Club Race Board. Once the board has had ample time to review, I will post them to this forum.

Alright, I guess I'll just have to wait for the CRB to forward your letter to the ITAC... Looking forward to seeing the information...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
11-10-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
Assuredly something will come along that the fast/moneyed boys will switch to that will become the dominate car.

Yep. They boys who must write a big check to go racing will probably seek a new car. The E46 323i.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

wburstein
11-10-2004, 05:27 PM
I want to address a number of points made on various posts:

- The reason that there are more BMWs than other cars at the ARRC is due to its performance potential. Lots of folks have either switched over or did not show up due to the performance disparity. The comment about a BMW winning due to the number of cars makes no sense to me.

- A comment was made that the top ITS finishers were local racers. What about Ed York, an out of region racer, being on the pole. If his engine had not failed, he should have been in the running for the win in a BMW.

- As for comparing dyno results taken on different days on different dynos, the engineer in me says that any conclusions made on that data are suspect.

- Finally, the comment was made that perhaps the BMWs are especially competitive at Road Atlanta because it is a horsepower track. At Summit Point, which is more of a handling track, Ed York holds the track record with a 1:24.886. The best ITS time that I know of by a non-E36 car in the highly competitive MARRS series is a RX7 at 126.037 with the best 240Z time of 126.902. Considering that the EP track record is 1:22.719, it appears that the E36 is pushing into production prep level times!


------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10
www.mountainmotorsports.net

JeffYoung
11-10-2004, 05:32 PM
And Wayne, to back up the EP comparision, Wittel ran a 2:12 in qual, EP track record is 2:09.3.

Amazing that ANY IT car could be that close to an EP car.

GKR_17
11-10-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by wburstein:


We do need to adjust this disparity in ITS before the attrition damages the class any worse. In the WDC region, our ITS fields have dropped from an average of 25 cars to less than 15 since the BMW E36 was introduced. I attribute that to many folks not wanting to race when they do not feel they have a chance to win.


Seems to me that the drop in IT fields directly relates to the rise in Spec Miata, in the Southeast, I'd say it hurt ITB the most, not ITS.

Grafton

GKR_17
11-10-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Yup. The fastest RX-7 and the fastest Z in the country.

Any addition in weight will just bring the car in line with everything else in the class. A BMW has run a 1:40.8 at RA this weekend. 1 full second is the current delta. Not huge, but a significant data point non-the-less.

AB



Actually, Jeff Hill turned a faster time in an Rx-7 that same weekend, with a lot more traffic to deal with.

Nick: 1:41.827
Jeff: 1:41.558

Grafton

Bill Miller
11-10-2004, 08:37 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Geo: Also, despite the attempt of some to spin PCAs as comp adjustments, they are not.</font>

Actually George, they are referred to as such in the Dec. FasTrack. So, looks like you're wrong yet again!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
11-10-2004, 08:59 PM
C'mon Bill.....Who cares what the silly typo said?? Call 'em IT comp adjustments if you want, they're a whole different deal than Prod Comp Adjustments! Let's not start that "he said-she said- you're wrong again" thing and ruin a good debate, ok?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

ITSRX7
11-10-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by GKR_17:
Actually, Jeff Hill turned a faster time in an Rx-7 that same weekend, with a lot more traffic to deal with.

Nick: 1:41.827
Jeff: 1:41.558

Grafton

Nick ran a 1:41.458 in the race. Commented that he would lose 5 car-lengths on the back straight to the BMW's.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
11-10-2004, 10:17 PM
For what it's worth, the ITAC was informed today that PCA adjustments were NOT going to be used for the purposes of speeding cars up or otherwise as a "competition adjustment"...

They are going to be utilized, exactly as we described and have told you all over and over again, to correct classification errors, which included reigning in overdogs that have shown more competition potential than was originally anticipated on initial classification.

The only allowed method of "competition adjustment" is still a reclassification, as is STILL stated in the ITCS, even with the change in wording. The only difference now is that there is a mechanism in place to make adjustments to the weights should they be deemed to have been selected in error, based on the criteria listed in the wording...

So, you can think that they are whatever you like, but the fact of the matter is that the CRB are the ones that are actually going to implement these PCAs, so their interpretation is all that really matters. The ITAC will make recommendations based on the CRB's interpretation.

Enjoy!


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 10, 2004).]

Geo
11-10-2004, 11:05 PM
[edit] removed redundant post

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited November 10, 2004).]

lateapex911
11-11-2004, 12:00 AM
That makes sense Darin....and it's right in line with my idea of the concept two years ago....no sense making an entire class spend $ to raise the game, much easier (and cheaper) to slow one car down.

So, do I have it correctly that you can recommend:
1- That a certain model have weight added or a restrictor added to bring its performance potential inline...
2- That a certain model may be moved down a class where it fits better
3- A certain model may be moved down a class, AND have weight added if needed?

And 4- a certain model can me moved UP a class, and have it's weight adjusted if needed?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
11-11-2004, 07:11 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Banzai240:The only allowed method of "competition adjustment" is still a reclassification, as is STILL stated in the ITCS, even with the change in wording.</font>

Where is it still stated Darin? The way I read the Dec. FasTrack, those words were removed.

Jake,

You don't think pushing all those cars down into ITA isn't going to make people spend more money? Darin has alredy stated that they're using the top cars in a class to define its performance envelope. How does adding more cars at the 'top' do anything but push existing non-'top' cars down the grid, or make them spend more moneey to move up (or stay where they are)?

And Darin, you've finally come out and said what I knew was going to happen all along. The cars that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down a class will be essentially told to pound sand (since PCAs won't be used to speed cars up). I'm sure the gen. 1 RX7/AW11 MR2/Rabbit GTI/etc. folks will be happy to hear this! But hey, they're all ~20 years old, so who really cares? The people that want to win can just buy/build new cars!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
11-11-2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Where is it still stated Darin? The way I read the Dec. FasTrack, those words were removed.

Have you actually put two and two together Bill to see what was ADDED in place of the word "reclassification"??? Here, let me refresh your memory:


Originally posted in the November Fastrack:

And bunch of mumbo-jumbo about initial vehicle classifications and their specs over the first 4-years....

...

Then...


On rare occasion and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class.


The CRB has stated that "restoring equity within the vehicle's class", means to reign in the overdogs in the class, NOT to speed up the underdogs to meet the overdogs. How that is a bad thing I just don't know. Apparently, you do... As I truely HAVE stated MANY times, these are NOT PROD STYLE COMP ADJUSTMENTS... they are NOT meant to SPEED CARS UP. If you all recall, one of the MAIN fears most people had in responding the PCAs was the idea of using them in a Production style, aka: speed up this car, slow down that one, allow something on these ones, etc...

The whole PCA concept is to prevent things like the CRX in ITA and the BMW in ITS, etc. from happening.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bill Miller:Darin has alredy stated that they're using the top cars in a class to define its performance envelope. </font>

Like to know when I said that... In ITS, for example, the "definition of the class" comes in the form of the 240Z... Hardly the "top car".


Originally posted by Bill Miller:

And Darin, you've finally come out and said what I knew was going to happen all along. The cars that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down a class will be essentially told to pound sand (since PCAs won't be used to speed cars up). I'm sure the gen. 1 RX7/AW11 MR2/Rabbit GTI/etc. folks will be happy to hear this! But hey, they're all ~20 years old, so who really cares? The people that want to win can just buy/build new cars!


Awe.... such are the words of those that think THEIRS are the only solutions...

Paint whatever picture you like, Bill. There are several other solutions to the "problems" you mention. What you claim to know is solely based on your own bitterness towards this club, and doesn't scratch the surface of what gets discussed or what might actually be done. And, as has always been the situation with IT, there is NO GUARANTEE OF COMPETITIVENESS. We'll do our best to get the mechanical specs of the cars inline within a class, but we are not going to throw nit-picky adjustments to every example of a car in an attempt to levy complete and utter parity in a class. This would be the Production way, and PCAs were sold with the idea that this is NOT what was going to happen. Every class has an "envelope of performance", hopefully within which each car in the class "should" fit. Some will be toward the upper end, and some toward the lower. Sorry Bill, but that's just the way racing works. Unless you want WC style weight adjustments, that's how IT is going to work.

WE needed a mechnism to correct gross errors that throw off the balance of a class, and now we have that mechanism. It's a good thing and it won't destroy the purpose and intent of IT, which was an overriding theme of many of the letters we received as feedback prior to PCAs being implemented.

Enjoy spreading the doom and gloom, however. When the sky stops falling, perhaps you can go out and enjoy some racing...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 11, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 11, 2004).]

Greg Amy
11-11-2004, 09:52 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The CRB has stated that "restoring equity within the vehicle's class", means to reign in the overdogs in the class, NOT to speed up the underdogs to meet the overdogs.</font>

Darin, knowing that we consistnetly face rules interpretations that may fly in the face of the original intent, and knowing that ideals and attitudes change with administrations, I think it would be a FINE idea to specifically put this intent in the rules NOW. Otherwise, 10 years from now we may see a devolution into true comp adjustments, with the basis of "well, we don't KNOW their intent, so we just have to go by the stated rule and adjust for parity (or allow spherical bearings, or allow intake porting, or allow MoTec ECUs, yada, yada, yada...)

GA

JeffG
11-11-2004, 03:53 PM
Darin - Thanks for all the clarifications. Is 2005 done, or can more adjustments be implemented?

Banzai240
11-11-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by JeffG:
Darin - Thanks for all the clarifications. Is 2005 done, or can more adjustments be implemented?



I've been told that "rules season" is over for the year, and in reality, since the GCR is already on it's way to the printers, I don't know if you'll see anything big happen for next season..

That being said, there may be some things that get done by the end of the year, because the CRB/BoD still have one more "voting" session... either later this month or in December to take care of some final details...

I'll try to find out more when we have our next con-call...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
11-11-2004, 07:35 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required.</font>

Gee Darin, sure looks like more than one option to me. :roll:


Like to know when I said that... In ITS, for example, the "definition of the class" comes in the form of the 240Z... Hardly the "top car".


Guess I'll have to dredge up the "NB in ITC" thread, as well as a thread or two about the ITS cars that were getting moved to ITA. And the ITS comment is weak Darin. The 240Z is certainly one of the 'best of the rest' after the E36. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use a car that's viewed as an obvious overdog, as the benchmark.


Awe.... such are the words of those that think THEIRS are the only solutions...



Yeah, that's it Darin.

So Darin, let's discuss those 'several other solutions'. I'd be curious as to what, besides reclassifiction or a reduction in weight, you see as options for those three cars. One assumption that we're operatining under, for purposes of this discussion, is that the cars in question are deemed 'too fast' to be moved down a class. That's been stated in black and white (one's and zero's??) for the GTI, and I believe for the RX7 and MR2 as well. So, that would seem to leave a reduction in spec. weight. You've stated (ad nauseum) that PCA's won't be used to speed cars up, so I guess that leaves out a weight reduction.

Help me understand Darin, what else is there?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
11-11-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Help me understand Darin, what else is there?



You can slow down the "overdogs"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

mlytle
11-11-2004, 11:32 PM
so how do we define overdogs? of the dozens of cars classified in its, there are basically only three cars that win races. rx7, z's and e36's. all the rest sort of "fill the field". if the intent of pca's is serious (and not just the e36 witch hunt it appears to be), then ALL of these "overdogs" would be being considered for more weight. yes? no?

lateapex911
11-11-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
.... all the rest sort of "fill the field". if the intent of pca's is serious (and not just the e36 witch hunt it appears to be), then ALL of these "overdogs" would be being considered for more weight. yes? no?

Some of them have been moved to A...but what about the rest? How many of them (& which models?) have received the development that the front runners have?



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
11-12-2004, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You can slow down the "overdogs"...



Ok Darin, can you please tell us which overdogs you're looking at for ITA, ITB, and ITC?

But honestly, how is slowing down 1 or 2 cars per class (at least I don't think there are more overdogs, per class, than that) going to help the 'tweener' cars?

Also, since you've said that the 240Z defines the upper end of the performance envelope for ITS, can you tell us which cars you're using to define the upper and lower bounds of the performance envelope for all the classes?

And if there was never any intent to reduce the weight of slower cars (speed them up), why did the PCA rule say weight adjustment? That term implies that the weight could go up or down.

Based on your comments, the new PCA rule does nothing more to stop the marginalization of the slower cars in a class.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Rick_htm
11-12-2004, 10:04 AM
The atlanta region web site has the new RA track records. Chet turned a 1:40.2 I believe earlier this year. The 2:12 he ran at VIR in qualifying was 2 to 3 seconds faster than any one had ran there.
The problem I see as a non-BMW driver is that there are a few BMW's that are wicked fast and untouchable, then the rest seem to run with the RX-7's. The real question is what seperates the two groups. Are Sunbelt and Bimmerworld engines that good. Or is it suspension or driver. I think its mostly engine with a little bit of the others added. But I wouldn't want to be in the position of asigning a wieght value to it. By the way, good job to everyone at the ARRC. The lap times were fast, most of the races were close, and the driving was clean.
Rick Harbaugh
ITS# 2

wburstein
11-12-2004, 11:08 AM
While most of the discussion has been related to how the 240Z and RX7 perform compared against the E36, there used to be some other competitive cars in ITS.

Well a few years ago (before the E36 came to ITS), the 944 and E30 BMW were competitive in ITS. In one year of the MARRS series, we had wins by RX7, E30 and 240Z, as well as track records set by RX7, E30, 240Z and 944. The racing was awesome, the fields were large, and things were good.

Fast forward to 2004 with 9 MARRS races, 9 wins by E36s (4 different drivers), and a track record set by an E36. If anyone thinks that is parity, they need their head examined!

Banzai240
11-12-2004, 11:25 AM
I think if you take a hard look at all of the classes, you'll find two things.

First, you'll find a LOT of car makes/models that are capable on a given day of competing amongst one-another. If properely prepared and driven, any number of car makes/models in any of the IT classes can do battle with each other.

Second, however, you'll find a small number of cars, usually (though not always) recently introduced, that clearly are at the top of the class. There are a LOT fewer of them, than of those in the paragraph above.

Perhaps looking at the situation in this light could bring about an alternate solution to trying to move or otherwise make the "marginalized" cars more competitive by speeding them up.

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 12, 2004).]

chuck baader
11-12-2004, 12:42 PM
Someone said "you can't go back" and that is very true in SCCA racing. Large fields of yesteryear have been diluted by new classes such as spec Miata. Look at how many front runners in ITS also ran a spec Miata or have moved to that class altogether. Money has also worked to reduce the ITS fields. The current perception is that you have to have a 45k car to be competitive. Fact is, you had to have that for the last umpteen years! The difference is that many more top drivers have the means to build that class car or have moved to a perceptionally cheaper class.(actually I think you could build a front running SM for around 35k) I don't think we will ever see the very large ITS fields we once saw, even with comp adjustments to even the playground. I think the new large fields will be ITA...mainly because so many cars have been moved there... and ITB-where a sub 10k car can be a top finisher. CB

wburstein
11-12-2004, 01:13 PM
Chuck,

My point is that within the last five years, we had fields that were twice as large as today, and the reason for the large fields was that there was a choice of cars to run competitively.

In the DC region, many more ITS drivers have decided to leave their cars at home in the garage than have switched to SM or another class. It is frustrating to be a front running driver with a previously competitive car and go the the track knowing that short of attrition, there is little you can do to be in the top three.

ITS has never been a cheap class, at least for IT standards. I seriously doubt that it is significantly more expensive to race an E36 today than it was to race an E30 five or ten years ago, at least if you factor in todays generally higher overall costs.

To me, the key issue that keeps more people from developing the previously competitive models is that to go a little faster with a well developed car is quite costly. People are willing to spend those large amounts only when they feel they have a reasonable chance of success (i.e. winning). With today's ITS situation of being pretty much a one car class, the competitors of other brands first slow up their development programs, and then gradually stop coming to the track at all. I have seen it happen to many good drivers in the MARRS ITS race group, and would like to see that trend reversed. The drivers and cars are out there, just waiting for a chance to come back competitively. If we provide it, I am pretty sure that ITS will return to larger, more competitive fields.

apr67
11-12-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
(actually I think you could build a front running SM for around 35k)

Chuck.

You could probably spend $35k building a front running SM, or buy Jim Dainel's 2004 ARRC winner for $25k.

Still a lot cheaper than a winning E36. Hell, whats an E36 street car in decent shape cost?

mlytle
11-12-2004, 05:55 PM
i can't agree with your logic wayne. to say the e36 is the evil killer of its fields is kind of a big stretch. in that same time period sm has exploded and the economy has gone downhill big time. both of those are big factors in the high dollar its class. people moved to cheaper cars or just couldn't afford to come out to all the races.

and the "won't compete because i can't win" concept is a little thin too. many folks have continued competing for years with no hope of winning. racing is fun whether you win or not. i have a mega-dollar e36 in the marrs series (at 3x the price of my e30!). do i have a chance of winning? nope! not with ed york and sam asinugo running in our marrs series. that puts me in the same position as all the other "uncompetitive cars". do i keep coming out to race every year? absolutely! it is a blast! yes, i did win the last race of the marrs series this year, but only because ed and sam didn't run. that race was the closest of the year. at the finish, the second place acura was less than a second behind me and a z car was the same distance behind him. you should have been there! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

maybe some discouraged drivers are staying away from its because they can't win, but i doubt it is the big reason for the its field geting smaller.

mlytle
11-12-2004, 05:58 PM
e36 street car in decent shape is in the $4-6k range.

11-12-2004, 06:02 PM
The saddest part of all this is some of you guys talk about 25K-45K like it's nothing, to run in a REGIONAL ONLY class.

I can think of dozens of competitive Production cars that are for sale right now for less that would take a decent driver to a chance to compete at the Runoffs. I can think of a few Pro series cars that you could buy for the same investment.

The majority of drivers Wayne speaks of, that I also know quite well, would rather park their cars than have to spend a National budget to race for a chance to take home a cheap trophy in a Regional class. We sit around the paddock remiscing about the "good old days" of IT racing, where anyone could buy or build a car (for less than the price of a new minivan) and go out and have at least a chance of coming away with a trophy.

I quit ITS about the same time that Wayne had joined the class in the DC region, and at that time I was driving a car that I built myself and had about 8K into it and was able to run in the top 15 overall in a ITS/ITA group and was only 4 seconds off the ITS lap record at Summit. Now people with cars that have twice as much money and time invested into them are lucky if they can come within 8 seconds of the current lap record.

You want larger fields and bring in new members? It's got to be worth the investment, no matter how much the investment is, if they don't get the "bang of the buck" they won't join or stay.

lateapex911
11-12-2004, 06:11 PM
A year or two ago I said that 90% of the classification problems in IT were caused by 10% of the cars.....and fixing those 10% will help the marginalization of the entire class.

After watching the E36s for years, and watching them run in Atalnta, it is very hard not to think that they aren't just a little stout for the rest of the class.

Are they the villian of IT?? Of course not! Nothing in life is B&W, and the "demise" of ITS can't be placed on one cars shoulders. However, I am sure that some drivers who were once competitive have rethought their programs when they are faced with the "unsurmountable odds" of beating the well prepped and driven versions of the E-36.

AS I see it, the car has evn more potential. The ITAC and the CRB need to decide to either cut bait, drp the weight 150 or so and put it into a new class on top of ITS, or suck it up and slow it down just a bit.

Either way, it's time to piss or get off the pot, so to speak.

That said, I know it's an ongoing process....and they are debating it monthly, no doubt! My vote is for a new class...lets see what these things can really do!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
11-12-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I think if you take a hard look at all of the classes, you'll find two things.

First, you'll find a LOT of car makes/models that are capable on a given day of competing amongst one-another. If properely prepared and driven, any number of car makes/models in any of the IT classes can do battle with each other.

Second, however, you'll find a small number of cars, usually (though not always) recently introduced, that clearly are at the top of the class. There are a LOT fewer of them, than of those in the paragraph above.

Perhaps looking at the situation in this light could bring about an alternate solution to trying to move or otherwise make the "marginalized" cars more competitive by speeding them up.



Darin,

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Almost sounds as if you're saying that people can race w/ someone else for xx place (but not on the podium), and they'll be happy.

But please, enlighten us w/ this alternate plan that you're hinting at.

And in case you missed it, I'll ask again. How about sharing the cars that define the performance envelope for the various classes.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
11-12-2004, 08:18 PM
lemme guess..
ITS- the RX7 and Z car
ITA The Integra, the CRX and the 240 SX
ITB- The Volvo
ITC- The CRX

OK, how'd I do?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
11-13-2004, 08:24 AM
Jake,

That's probably pretty close, but IIRC, the 510 and Rabbit 1.6 were also in there for ITC. Not sure what else would be used for ITB. Maybe the Audis.

Pretty easy to define the upper bound, but how about the lower bound???

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
11-13-2004, 09:03 AM
The bottom of B is defined by the top of C and similarly, the bottom of A is defined by the top of B. (That's not an overly simplistic way to look at it, I don't think.)

The bottom of S is poorly defined at this point but that's an example of why it is inherently tough to benchmark an appropriate lower bound - there are just too many variables and not enough datapoints to make decisions confidently:

If there is one AMC Matador six running in ITS and it's at the back of the pack all the time, is it because of attributes inherent to the car's design?

K

(who is still a little anxious that people will get in the business of making PCAs based on anecdotal on-track performance "data")

apr67
11-13-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
I can think of dozens of competitive Production cars that are for sale right now for less that would take a decent driver to a chance to compete at the Runoffs. I can think of a few Pro series cars that you could buy for the same investment.


A competitive production car that could compete at the runoffs for $25k? By compete you mean 'run around at the back of the pack'?

And Pro car for 25K.. What, hopping you can get a top 40. That might work for music group, but it doesn't work for most of us.

Beyond that, a Prod or Pro car is going to cost a lot more to run. Most IT cars don't need two motors to go a season. Hell some winning ITB cars that I know of won with 100 RACES on the motor.

Alan

OTLimit
11-13-2004, 11:37 AM
I really don't think we have $25K of hard dollars in our GP car (but I could be wrong), but then again, I don't REALLY think we are competitive yet. I know people will say, Hey, you finished 4th this year, but that's not the whole picture, especially when you look at lap times. And I think that putting a price on a car is really difficult, especially the limited prep cars.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

lateapex911
11-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Well, it's just like IT....when a friend asks about what it takes to go racing, the smart answer starts by telling him about the THREE vehicles that are needed that will get him or her home at the end of a bad day...the trailer, the tow vehicle and finally the race car!

In other words, the cost of the race car itself is only the tip of the iceberg. Pro? AS in SpeedTouring for example? Prepare to part with upwards of 300K to have a reasonable chance of TV exposure for reasons other than crashing.

And as it's been pointed out, prod cars require more maintenance, (AKA expensive parts and machine work) in general than IT, if you want to be competitive. And because of sketchy local fields, I am referrring to the Runoffs as the place to be competitive. Perhaps Limited Prep will change that, we shall see.

Interesting, isn't it, the liited prep movement? I sometimes wonder if IT is morphing....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
11-13-2004, 01:31 PM
Alan,

That's a myth that keeps getting perpetuated. You can pick from several top Prod cars for around $25k. Larry Dennis sold his full-prop GP 510, that Kevin Allen put on the podium at the '03 Runoffs, for $20k IIRC. Kevin Allen is selling his GP Spitfire for $15k. This is a car that's been on the pole 3 times at the Runoffs, and holds track records at 6 or 7 tracks. Bill Blust was selling his 2-time FP National Championship Midget for around $20k. Karl McColl is selling his GP 510 for $18k, including all the spares. Steve Burkett has a full-blown EP 1st gen. RX7 package (tons of spares) for $19k. John Weisberg is selling is EP 2nd gen. RX7 for $22k. This car won the NE Div 3 times. Runs 1:36 at M-O, :59 at LRP, and 2:12 at WGI (long course). Spend $30k and get Doug Piner's EP 240Z w/ a dozen wheels and an extra motor/tranny. And the list goes on.

These are all solid, National-level, Runoffs vetrans, that aren't running around at the back of the pack. It's not true that Prod costs any more to run than IT, these days. Not if you want to win.


Jake,

Limited-prep IS the future of Prod. The CRB has come out and stated that those are the only cars that will be classified, going forward.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

apr67
11-13-2004, 05:20 PM
And when you break a MG crank, how much is it?

The myth is not a myth. If it were, Production would not have required the prop up by the limited prep cars. Everyone would have stayed.

Ask Chris Albin if Prodcution is more expensive than IT. He runs both, can win most any ITB race, and the same can not be said in production (yet). He's told me several times its much more expensive.

But hey. Have fun!

Bill Miller
11-13-2004, 07:39 PM
Alan,

You implied that you couldn't get a competitive Prod car for $25k. I simply showed you that there were several that were currently available for less than that. Can you build one from scratch for that? Probably not, but we all know that you lose 1/2 to 3/4 of the value of the cost to build a car, when you go to sell it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

JIgou
11-15-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
...actually I think you could build a front running SM for around 35k...

I would hope that, if anyone spends 35k to build an SM, they don't have any dirt under their fingernails at ANY point in the process....

Jarrod

apr67
11-15-2004, 05:25 PM
You implied (in my mind) that a $25K prod car was equal to a $25k it/sm car.

It's not. A 25k front running production car is going to require a much higher $/hour of run time than an IT/SM car.

In a race of 50 SpecMiata, how many will loose an engine?

Bill Miller
11-15-2004, 06:46 PM
Alan,

That's the beauty of the limited prep cars. Most of the EP cars are limited to 12:1, and the small-bore (FP-HP) are all <11:1. Couple that w/ stock cranks, IT-prep heads, etc. and you certainly don't have the 15:1 hand grenades that were the stock and trade of Prod 10 years ago.

And I never implied that a $25k Prod car was the same as a $25k IT car. I simply pointed out that you could get National-level Prod cars for $25k (or less). These were cars thaat would be competitive at the Runoffs, not running around at the back of the field, as you claimed.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

OTLimit
11-15-2004, 06:55 PM
Alan,
I'm not sure if he would say that EXACTLY. Certain things are more of a problem. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif But I'm not sure you can keep including the price of expendables every time they have to be replaced. There is just more routine check/replace items on the G car.

Besides, you are making an assumption that Chris KNOWS how much he spends on either car. Sometimes I just think he doesn't realize how much he is spending; there is a difference. But I still don't think that we have that much more in the GP car than the IT car.

And to respond to the three car mentality... of course it takes three: tow, trailer, and race. But we were talking about the cars themselves.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

apr67
11-15-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Alan,

That's the beauty of the limited prep cars.

I wasn't talking about limited prep. I haven't seen a whole bunch of Runoff winning LP cars yet, much less for sale.

Alan


[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 15, 2004).]

ShelbyRacer
11-15-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Darin, knowing that we consistnetly face rules interpretations that may fly in the face of the original intent, and knowing that ideals and attitudes change with administrations, I think it would be a FINE idea to specifically put this intent in the rules NOW. Otherwise, 10 years from now we may see a devolution into true comp adjustments, with the basis of "well, we don't KNOW their intent, so we just have to go by the stated rule and adjust for parity (or allow spherical bearings, or allow intake porting, or allow MoTec ECUs, yada, yada, yada...)

GA

Well, I for one can believe that we're much less likely to see that now, since we actually have a club that is working to make long-range plans. Instead of working on anecdotal problems, SCCA is actually trying to formulate changes that will set trends rather than react to circumstances. I'll be the first to admit that the process still needs improvement, but I would hope that the guys here in the AC's and CRB can attest to finally working along a true philosphy (not that mythical class-philosophy thing they always cite when shooting down the battery relocation thing though...)

I'm just hoping the trend continues.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

seckerich
11-16-2004, 12:48 AM
It does seem like reality is finally setting in for the comp board. The entire comp meeting was always the members rangling to get an advantage for their particular car in prod for the next runoffs and the IT crowd gets screwed with "not consistent with class philosophy". We spend our money with this club just like them and now we want some time spent on some rules that allow the IT classes to grow and be competitive. With the large amounts of ballast that will be added with reclassification and PCA's we need to allow this to be added in a safe way. Grand Am has the weight in a box in the original passenger seat area and provides a safe, secure, and realistic mounting location instead of in the footwell where it will kill any chance of balancing the car. These are race cars after all!! Rules creep is a crock, allow normal race car mods and get on with it.

Bill Miller
11-16-2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by apr67:
I wasn't talking about limited prep. I haven't seen a whole bunch of Runoff winning LP cars yet, much less for sale.

Alan


[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 15, 2004).]

Alan,

As I stated before, l-p is the future of Prod. The CRB has said that they will no longer class full prep cars. They're not phasing out the ones that are there, but there won't be any new ones. Also, IIRC, EP was won the last 2 years by a l-p car (Miatas). And I see you've gone from just being competitive to wanting a Runoffs' winning car. Any, this discussion is pretty pointless.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
11-16-2004, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
Grand Am has the weight in a box in the original passenger seat area and provides a safe, secure, and realistic mounting location instead of in the footwell where it will kill any chance of balancing the car. These are race cars after all!! Rules creep is a crock, allow normal race car mods and get on with it.

I'm not sure weather you are supporting opening up the weight rules, or are in favor of keeping the weight in a box on the passenger floor, but I can tell you this...

The weight is being added to COMPENSATE for a predicted performance advantage the car has over other cars in the class. It's not there to help "balance out" the chassis... That would be a performance ENHANCEMENT. The idea is to slow the car down, take away some of it's handing, braking, accelleration, etc...

As for getting "balance"... I sincerely doubt you are going to see weights exceeding 200lbs too often, and all that's going to do is offset the weight of the driver and steering column...

Rules Creep is real, and it's what makes classes like SS evolve into Production. If you want to keep this class around, we have to keep a cap on how far we allow people to mess with things. If you need a higher level of prep, the SCCA provides ample opportunity to move up, which really is the idea...

When you are ready to do more, check out Production or GT...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

seckerich
11-16-2004, 09:36 AM
I have run production for 15+ years and was very familiar with the cost of full prep compared to limited prep, and the comparison to IT. I currently run a limited prep EP Rx7 as well as my ITS car. I agree that the weight will be added to slow the cars down, and I was only pointing out that the intent is not to totally kill the handling with the weight location. It is SENSIBLE to locate the weight safely across from the driver in the beefed up portion of the floor where the seat was mounted. The ballast will slow the acceleration and kill tires and brakes plenty from there and still allow the driver some balance to drive at the limit. Isn't that what racing is about, not driving a pig that flies down the straight?

Geo
11-16-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by seckerich:
It is SENSIBLE to locate the weight safely across from the driver in the beefed up portion of the floor where the seat was mounted.

Darin, have the new ballast rules been published yet? It's getting hard to keep up with what has become public and what hasn't.

As for the comment "these are race cars" that just doesn't fly. Sorry. These are still production based cars with limited modifications. The "these are race cars" theory has been presented to allow all sorts of things that don't fit class philosophy. That's just the way it is. For those who want to make their car "more of a race car" there is limited prep Production. Not trying to be a smarty pants, but it would be very easy for these cars to effectively become l-p Prod cars if we buy into that line of thinking. And it's the feeling of the bulk of the IT community that this line of thinking is what pushed Prod down the wrong path.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
11-16-2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Darin, have the new ballast rules been published yet? It's getting hard to keep up with what has become public and what hasn't.


George,

The 100lbs limit has officially been removed... We'll inquire about the rest on Monday nights con-call... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg