PDA

View Full Version : January FasTrack is up!



Bill Miller
11-23-2004, 06:17 PM
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...01-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-01-fastrack.pdf)

Let the games begin!

Here's a tidbit, SM goes National in '06!

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

JeffG
11-23-2004, 06:35 PM
E36 gets restrictor plate

Bill Miller
11-23-2004, 06:59 PM
What's the stock bore on an E36 throttle body?

Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? I'm surprised that they would go this route, rather than adding some lead to the car first. I forget, did Darin or any of the other ITAC members post what the process-derived weight for the E36 325 would be?

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

Greg Amy
11-23-2004, 07:22 PM
Items of note:

- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.

- Why wait 'til 2006 for the crankshaft pullies?!? This is not a major deal; make it available upon publication date! This is certainly less of a deal than the BMW t-body restrictor note. Frustrating.

- I'm glad to see the B14 200SX SE-R moved to ITA from ITS. However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)

- Creation of a Spec Miata Advisory Committee. Love to be a fly on the wall for those meetings.

- BMW throttle body restrictor: uh, like, wow. Cool? Not totally surprising but that kinda came out of nowhere. Or did it?


[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited November 23, 2004).]

pgipson
11-23-2004, 07:27 PM
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)

JeffG
11-23-2004, 07:35 PM
I think the restrictor is a great call by the ITAC!! The E36's I've seen can already be hard on tires and brakes. The issue was primarily power related. We'll see how it turns out.

I assume the ITAC had access to a wide variety of past data on the effect of restrictors when making this decision.

Knestis
11-23-2004, 10:16 PM
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:

SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.

Things about this that are bad...

1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation

2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be

3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.

I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.

I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?

K

C. Ludwig
11-23-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Items of note:

- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.

Exactly! See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory.



------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

Bill Miller
11-23-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.



Kirk,

I agree, but only after all the cars in the ITCS have been run through 'the process', and everyone's had the same chance to get their spec weight set the same way. And if you're going to not allow member-initiated requests for weight reduction, you should also not allow member-initiated requests for reclassification. They both fall under the PCA umbrella.


Couple of other interesting observations:

It'll be interesting to see how the new pace/start rule plays out.

Looks like SSB/C could become T4/5

Interesting that only the Beetle 1.8T cars were classed in T3 (or did I miss the Golf/Jetta/Passat being classed their earlier?)

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

timrogers
11-23-2004, 11:06 PM
Greg Amy wrote:
"- However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)

Retract away, Greg! :-) The B14 chassis used the smallest brakes of all the SE-Rs. In fact, upgrading a 200SX SE-R to the NX2000 brakes is one of the more popular mods for the street.

Tim Rogers
-Future ITA NX2000 racer

rjohnson999
11-23-2004, 11:25 PM
So, the engineers have finally revealed their intolerance for the messier aspects of the club. The suggestions to not allow a member to make a request of the CRB and to not allow the CRB to reply are exactly the kind of thing that gives internet forums a bad name.

Your way or the highway, eh, boys.

Andy Bettencourt
11-23-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:

SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.

Things about this that are bad...

1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation

2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be

3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.

I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.

I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?

K

I wouldn't worry about the making a decision like that.

I will disagree however on your request scenario. Th ITAC WILL review and consider each letter it receives. Just because you can request it certainly doesn't mean it will be approved.

AB

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

Catch22
11-24-2004, 12:23 AM
Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations?

Well, the E36 IS and extreme situation. It wins everywhere, all the time. The frontrunning cars at the ARRC were in cruise mode from the green flag. I'll bet my next paycheck that both of the ARC Motorsports cars (found legal after a lonnngggg time in impound) could go alot faster. They just didn't have to.
Many folks agree that the car shouldn't have been classed in IT in the first place, so measures had to be taken and taken NOW.

The other stuff...
As Andy mentioned, I like the fact that changes are member driven and apparently now all letters get read and get some sort of response. Members should be allowed to ask for anything, no matter how silly or unfounded, and we have to trust the ITAC and Board to do the right thing.
Plain and simple.
Trust me, neither you nor your wallet wants it any other way.

The SCCA, like our government, might not be perfect, but its damned sure the best thing out there. And its getting better every day lately.

mlytle
11-24-2004, 12:35 AM
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?

lateapex911
11-24-2004, 02:18 AM
I think everyone who posts here needs to have the car they drive in their sig.

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

Bill Miller
11-24-2004, 07:46 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? </font>

I wrote that because I assumed (we all know what happens when you assume), based on the way the PCA rule was written, that lead would have been the preferred route. Usually, "most extreme" measures are used after other measures do not achieve the desired effect. Couple that w/ the fact that the E36 runs so far below its curb weight, I would have thought they would have thrown some lead at it first.

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

/edit for typo

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited November 24, 2004).]

JeffYoung
11-24-2004, 08:02 AM
Same here Bill, pretty shocking to me. Thought things like restrictors weren't to be used in IT, and that the pretty clear solution was to (in my view BMW guys, I know you may disagree) correct the weight.

Ron Earp
11-24-2004, 08:03 AM
Bening new, but having attended a few IT races and seen some mighty fast BMWs, it seems weight would have been a better route. When I started looking at race weights for my own car on another thread then looked at racer jakes (?) website with IT cars listed the BMW is odd in that it races a good 300-400 lbs below the curb weight. I wasn't around years ago but I understand it used to race at a higher weight.

I suppose water under the bridge now, but, from my experience with many SB Fords I've owned a stock 302 (plus headers, no cats, 42lbs fuel pressure, 16 deg tim, 8.4 comp, stock cam) that breathed through a 55mm tbody has put down more than 250hp to the wheels. Sure, not the same motor or comparison, but similar and maybe the plate won't be a big deal when all said and done. Sure hope they hooked one up to a dyno and tested it or had a good engineer runs some numbers on the size before putting it out there.

------------------
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 24, 2004).]

Andy Bettencourt
11-24-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by mlytle:
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?

SCA Pro has years of experience with the BMW I-6 in World Challenge and most recently in SSB with the Z4 (all pertaining to restrictor plates and equity). There is plenty of info to draw upon.

AB

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

Greg Amy
11-24-2004, 09:39 AM
Tim, so noted on the SE-R! Whew, my plans for world dominance continue onward...! <grin>

As to the BMW restrictor: well, it's really specious for me to say something like this, because I don't drive one. However, if I did, and if I had to accept that *something* was going to be done to my car to slow it down, then I would much rather have a t-body restrictor than lead.

What's the root "problem" with the car? Too much power. Do I hear any complaints about its handling or braking advantages? Nope. So, what's the obvious solution? Less power. How to do it? Restrict airflow.

Lead, on the other hand, not only affects acceleration but it affects braking, handling, tire wear, etc. I'd personally rather drive a lighter, less powerful car than a heavier, powerful car.

Frankly, given that *something* was going to be done, this is the best way to do it. Choke the airflow on Goliath a bit and watch a handful of the best-handling GT cars available duke it out nose-to-tail. Adding a t-body restrictor is a direct answer to the root issues "we" have with the car.

Well done, guys.

GA

Knestis
11-24-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
... The ITAC WILL review and consider each letter it receives. Just because you can request it certainly doesn't mean it will be approved.



Not arguing with Andy - just with the concept.

Okay, guys, Please explain again how PCAs are different than "competition adjustments." This might seem like picking nits but I'm going to put on my symbolic interationist poofy hat again and beat on the point that it DOES matter how these policies are worked out in the real world.

If someone is systematically looking at cars (all of them, samples, outliers, whatever) and asking whether the spec weights "make sense," relative to some standard or process, that is an inherently benign process. (Even IF there are subjective factors in the process, by the way.)

They system is more or less transparent, repeatable - as long as there is some continuity or overlap in the people doing the decision making - and relative easy to defend from accusations of favoritism.

Perhaps more importantly, the on-track performance of small samples of car/driver/budget factors are less likely to influence decisionss. Finally, it is relatively harder to make a change so while change IS possible, it is "damped" in that adjustments won't be made often.

This is in contrast to the way that CAs have traditionally been applied in club racing. The point at which I can say, "Please take some weight off of my car - or add some to Bob's - because I can't beat him" is the point at which all of the good attributes of the PCA concept, as it was described, go out the window.

Because it's how our brains work, decision makers are encouraged to go looking at easy samples - like the RubOffs - as they try to make "objective" decisions. These data are easy-to-understand but TINY, inappropriate indictors of what might or might not actually be happening across the space in which the policy is getting applied.

If I rationalize my request with math - power/weight or whatever - rather than with, "Wah! Bob beats me all the time" - my motivation is STILL the latter, regardless of how I make my case. Like a little girl who wants a pony, if I ask long enough, loud enough, and with enough support, I will eventually find someone willing to give me what I want.

Now Bob sees how the system works and applies the same strategy. (Or someone else does, when Bob loses interest and sells them his car.) People discover that having friendly ears in the right places DOES make a difference or, more likely and potentially just as damaging, people see the appearance of this going on.

The system loses credibility, performance creeps upward in a given class, decisions get made based on ARRC finishes, slow people driving the same car as the "fast guy" get lead meant for him, rare cars become wild cards, and weights become a moving target.

I would rather have the ossified, pre-ITAC system than that.

K

tdw6974
11-24-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by pgipson:
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)

Thats what it looks like to me. So we get to continue on our merry way. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

------------------
Tom Weaver: Logistics & Technical Support Manager IE truck driver for 1980 RX-7 ITA #63
"Hemi Haulin' Rotary"

Ron Earp
11-24-2004, 11:57 AM
*something* was going to be done to my car to slow it down, then I would much rather have a t-body restrictor than lead.

Lead, on the other hand, not only affects acceleration but it affects braking, handling, tire wear, etc. I'd personally rather drive a lighter, less powerful car than a heavier, powerful car.
[/B]

I think you're hitting on something I was wondering about.

And, it leaves me thinking.

When I looked at the list for a car to build and asked questions like "What about this car, it is pretty cool, decent motor, might be fast" sometimes the car I picked was heavy. The reponse I got was "it'll be rough on brakes, handling, tires, and tramission, you'd best pick another one".

So, the BMW at a race weight near it's curb weight would be heavy as you mentioned, and be rough on parts, as you mentioned. But, it'd be like other heavy cars on the list. So be it - if it is heavy then you have to take it as it is and the good with the bad.

Instead of the BMW racing like that, as other cars do, the BMW got weight cut off to make it competitive and allowing it to race well below curb weight. Why would this car get that type of treatment but the others race near curb weight?

And in doing so now at the low weight the car suddenly became an overdog. The fix implimented is a restrictor plate, but to me the logical choice would have been to put the weight back to the point where it was or should have been at the beginning. Seems odd to me, but as I've mentioned before I don't know the history of the series nor how things like this came to pass in the first place.

Ron


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

bldn10
11-24-2004, 12:01 PM
Chis Ludwig: "See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory."

Chris, I think no one responded because this topic had already been covered in another post and several people including me touched on the subject of your query. There is no intent to "make it hard" - the intent is to try to maintain the "stock" fiction of the IT class philosophy, with which I agree. Line drawing is always subjective but they settled on the harness. Frankly, I don't think they contemplated entire EMSs inside the box; they were thinking of chips, programming, etc. The error here is the words "or replace" in 17.1.4.D.1.a.6 not the restriction to use the OEM harness. Indeed, look at 17.1.4.D.1.s, which appears to be a redundant and inconsistent ECU rule that does NOT allow replacement of the ECU! I say "outlaw it all together."

As to the resistor, I suspect some people were trying to bootstrap the ability to add a resistor [where is that - not in my 2004 GCR?] into a feigned necessity to then modify the harness. And there you go. However, I think what they actually mean is that you cannot modify or replace the harness plugs at the ECU - you simply find the sensor wire in the harness and splice in the resistor. I did that w/ the water thermosensor.


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

Marc Henry
11-24-2004, 12:19 PM
I have a question. How is the restrictor plate going to be policed? Is tech going to inspect after each race, or once a weekend, or only at annual? I don't drive a BMW, In fact I drive a 280Zx,but can already see opportunity for plates with different sized holes for tracks that are lax with inspections. Maybe i'm thinking as someone who would take any advantage to win. just my thoughts



------------------
Datsun 280ZX #12 WMR

Joe Harlan
11-24-2004, 12:36 PM
My guess is the restrictors will not get measured unless a competitor asks them to be checked(Protest) That is the downside to them instead of weight. Tech can see right away if a car is too light.
The only way our rules will work is for people to ask for these things to be checked. Allowing even 1 illegal car to compete throws the whole system out of balance....What I see happen when it comes to rules is this. If there is one fast model in the country all the others are held to that standard.....That may be OK as long as we know that 1 unit is completely legal. The MR2 is a perfect example of this. I have to assume that somewhere in history somebody got their ass handed to them by a really fast one and thats why the car is treated like a redheaded step kid by the SCCA...The question is if that was the case, Was the car legal?

Catch22
11-24-2004, 01:18 PM
A former World Challenge driver, who has lots of experience with constant adding and removing of weight, explained it to me this way...
Unless you're talking about HUGE amounts of weight (over 300lbs) the lead addition will not really slow the car down. What it will do is wear brakes and tires faster, but in 30 minute sprint races that might not even matter. They also found that weight addition actually made the car faster at the end of some straights, especially if it was down hill (like Road Atlanta or VIR for example).

So... Weight = More wear and more broken parts but really not that much slower.
Restrictor = Slower without breaking the bank on tires and brakes and half shafts.

Looks to me like the board tried to get this one right on the first shot instead of plucking at it for 2 or 3 years. I'm perfectly OK with that.

Oh, I drive an ITC Civic. I'll put that in my sig.

chuck baader
11-24-2004, 01:21 PM
A restrictor plate is very easy to police. What people are not realizing is that every ECU must now be reprogrammed to lean the mixture to compensate for less air flow. I know the chassis dyno people are thinking BONUS!!!!

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

Ron Earp
11-24-2004, 01:57 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Unless you're talking about HUGE amounts of weight (over 300lbs) the lead addition will not really slow the car down. [/B]</font>

But, wouldn't 300-400 lbs get it back close to its curb weight? What I was wondering is how it was allowed to drift so far off of its curb weight in the first place?

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

Joe Harlan
11-24-2004, 02:04 PM
Here is the truth about weight. If it is going to be just weight added then it takes a lot of weight to do the job...If it is going to be penalty weight then make it a penalty....75lbs hanging under the front mounted radiator is going to do more than 150lbs in the passenger seat.

chuck baader
11-24-2004, 03:41 PM
Actually I think the Restrictor is the way to go. Added weight...to an already heavy car...makes the car use brakes and tires quicker. Adding the restrictor will kill some of the "excessive" horsepower without upsetting the chassis.

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

Knestis
11-24-2004, 04:31 PM
Trust me on this, Ron - trying to make spec weights relate to curb weights is going to drive you mad. One just doesn't have anything to do with the other.

K

Bill Miller
11-24-2004, 05:47 PM
I understand people's comments about the restrictor, it's just that I thought the spec weight would have at least been adjusted to what the process showed it to be. I thought that one of the ITAC guys said that the current spec weight was below what the calculated weight was.

Kirk,

You hit the nail on the head as to why I've advocated a set, open process for classifying cars.

And it seems like "fits the performance parameters of the class" is the new catch-all. Easy to use, especially if nobody knows what those parameters are.

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

Quickshoe
11-24-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...seems like "fits the performance parameters of the class" is the new catch-all. Easy to use, especially if nobody knows what those parameters are.

Yeah, but...

On the other hand if those parameters were made public then there would be an endless flood of letters and 300+ post threads about how certain adders/subtractors weren't backed up with enough conclussive data to support their value. These adders have to be educated guesses (not WAG as some might suggest). How can they scientifically be anything but?

Even with the best intentions the HP guess could be off 5% or more. That skews the bottom line by a similar amount (dependant on magnitude of adders). 5% on a 2000-3000# IT car is 100-150# so arguing about whether a Carb vs FI, Live Axle vs. IRS, Strut vs. Double Wishbone, or FWD vs. RWD should be a 50, 75 or 100# adjustment is really a mute point.

I feel that we should just accept the efforts of the ITAC to make things better without putting their efforts under a microscope...if it makes sense build the car, if it doesn't don't.

--Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D-13 Vintage FVee.

lateapex911
11-24-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Yeah, but...

I feel that we should just accept the efforts of the ITAC to make things better without putting their efforts under a microscope...--Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D-13 Vintage FVee.

I'm with you on those points..

I think the BIG issue here is that the car has become such an overacheiver..much more power than was expected. I like the move. In the BMW thread, I was betting they would add a little weight AND a restrictor...

But I think that in this case the restrictor is the way to go. It would have needed a lot of weight, and it seems to be on the money in the braking and handling areas as is.

I remember talking about the whole "limited" concept with someone (in a decision making position)a long time ago, and the restrictor was discussed...as an "extreme" item the ITAC could have in it's back pocket to use if needed. Then we talked about the E36.



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

Geo
11-25-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
A restrictor plate is very easy to police. What people are not realizing is that every ECU must now be reprogrammed to lean the mixture to compensate for less air flow. I know the chassis dyno people are thinking BONUS!!!!



I don't believe that to be the case with the E36. IIRC it has a MAF which will automatically adjust for changes in air mass.


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

ITANorm
11-25-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
My guess is the restrictors will not get measured unless a competitor asks them to be checked(Protest)

Don't bet on it.

lateapex911
11-25-2004, 11:42 PM
Since the spec line for the car will list its weight and it's restrictor, it is more likely to be checked in impound than anything other than weight.

It will happen a few times, but not often.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited November 25, 2004).]

Bill Miller
11-26-2004, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Since the spec line for the car will list its weight and it's restrictor, it is more likely to be checked in impound than anything other than weight.

It will happen a few times, but not often.




Jake,

When was the last time you saw anything, other than weight, checked in impound, at a Regional race?

It will be interesting to see what kind of penalties are handed out to cars that are found 'out of compliance' w.r.t. the restrictor. And unlike weight, checking for compliance is an 'invasive' procedure. The bond should be pretty low though.


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

dominojd
11-26-2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

When was the last time you saw anything, other than weight, checked in impound, at a Regional race?

It will be interesting to see what kind of penalties are handed out to cars that are found 'out of compliance' w.r.t. the restrictor. And unlike weight, checking for compliance is an 'invasive' procedure. The bond should be pretty low though.




They should just check them at the annual and tag the motor. Just like WC. No tags at post race tech = DQ. Easy enough.



------------------
Crazy Joe
#7 ITS
Nissan Sentra SE-R

RSTPerformance
11-27-2004, 04:06 AM
Does anyone know what the chart on page 4 is refering to? Are these cars to be classified in te future?

Stephen

(I am interested in the Audi 80 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Bill Miller
11-27-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Does anyone know what the chart on page 4 is refering to? Are these cars to be classified in te future?

Stephen

(I am interested in the Audi 80 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


That chart confused me too, but I'm pretty sure those are Solo II cars.


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

Joe Harlan
11-27-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by ITANorm:
Don't bet on it.


As A Driver and Tech Official and Car builder I will lay money on it any day. This will not be a regualr proceedure unless the Restrictor is placed forward of the TB..(Which is not gonna happen) Sealing the thing would be the right way to go but there is no rule to make that happen. So we are left with competitors policing this deal. I will be purchasing a large quantity of E36 TB gaskets and spending a few bucks in my area to show people this is as serious making weight. Having run a T2 car for a couple of years now I have never seen the Throttle restrictor checked at a national without a protest to see it.

Ron Earp
11-27-2004, 02:06 PM
With all the discussion of this particular topic, that is restrictor plates, it is apparent that a lot of people are interested in this topic. About the only people I don't see here are the people it affects, the BMW 3-series racers. What is their take on this, that is, the rule making restrictors maditory and how do they think it will affect them? Expect it? Like it? Hate it? Think it unfair? Maybe some of you are 3-series racers, but without cars in the sig lines or knowing you I cannot tell.

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

lateapex911
11-27-2004, 02:16 PM
Hence my comment regarding sigs.

So far E36 driver commentary here has been minimal. "Skeptical" would be a good description of what has been written here by guys who are E36 drivers, to the best of my knowledge.

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

robits325is
11-27-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Hence my comment regarding sigs.

So far E36 driver commentary here has been minimal. "Skeptical" would be a good description of what has been written here by guys who are E36 drivers, to the best of my knowledge.



I think this is a joke. The only car that is allowed to be a dominate car is the RX-7? If the E-36 is an overdog than what about the Mazda? If adjustments were made on the 325 why wern't they made to the RX-7 too?

This rule change might make competition equal for some drivers at a few tracks but over all it is very bad for the class.

So if a Mazda wins every race at every track will that end this witch hunt? Why can't there be different 'penalties' for different cars at different tracks? Example: Restrictor plates at fast tracks with long straights like Road America or Atlanla?

This will equalize the 3 or 4 super E-36s in a few regions across the country but virtually eliminate the close racing everywhere else.

Any of the mid pack E-36 drivers hoping to advance to the front of the pack next season just had the rug pulled from under their feet.

I'm glad I sold my E-36 ITS car before the rule change.

Rob Driscoll
ex:E-36 ITS Racer

ed325its
11-27-2004, 03:49 PM
I think Rob has spoken for many E36 drivers. From my point of view it appears that a few ITS owners took the entire IT group down the path of Performance Adjustments which will only hurt the class. Each class has always had high achievers and under achievers. The E30, 944, and 240/260z have each had there days at the front of the pack. Now it's the E36 and RX7's and soon to include 944S and Acura.

I have but two questions.. (1) Where are the adjustments for the RX7 and 944S? and (2) Where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate and how was it analized?

The latter question has been asked in this thread previously and is yet to be answered. Are there any members of the ITAC on this list to answer mlytle's question? I believe all members of SCCA have the right to know how their cars are classed and why.

As to the results of PCA I think each BMW racer has to decide whether to race elsewhere, race less, or spend more money on development. Although I have not yet made my decision it appears that Rob may have. Rob, sorry to hear you sold your car. You have been racing BMW's in IT for many years and I was looking forward to another year of competition.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

mlytle
11-27-2004, 04:15 PM
as a mid pack e36 racer, i would say the restrictor sucks. all the scca did was add a restrictor of a certain dimension, with no explanation of where the dimension came from. i asked these question up near the top of this thread..
"so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?"

just because scca pro has experience with restrictors doesn't mean any of that experience was used in this decision.

i have to wonder if any testing was done. the rule now also allows a spacer to clear the throttle "if necesary?. well since all the tb's should be the same, the spacer is either needed to clear or it is not. did they even check?

let's see in the open what went into the decision. rather than wondering what the e36 racers think is going to be the result, how about scca telling us precisely what result they are looking for.

and what about the adjustments for the rx7's and z's to slow them down so we can all be competitive with 190's and the hordes of other relatively uncompetitive cars in its?

not directly scca's concern, but the rule change probably killed the its prepped e36 in bmw club racing competition. before this change we could be competitive with e36's prepped to bmw jp rules. not any more. i am probably one of a few its e36 drivers now considering dropping out of scca to prep the car for bmw club racing instead. one of the draws of the e36 in its trim was that it was competitive with multiple sanctioning bodies. now it may have to be a choice of one or the other.

marshall
oh yeah...E36 325IS ITS/JP #64

Ron Earp
11-27-2004, 05:35 PM
before this change we could be competitive with e36's prepped to bmw jp rules. not any more. i am probably one of a few its e36 drivers now considering dropping out of scca to prep the car for bmw club racing instead. one of the draws of the e36 in its trim was that it was competitive with multiple sanctioning bodies. now it may have to be a choice of one or the other.


Like you, I am looking to why the restrictor and wanting to know more about the decision process. Mainly about the decision process, since I don't race a 325, race against 325s, or even race in IT yet.

I am curious though. Having a restrictor plate hardly makes you non-competetive for club racings or making you choose between on or the other. A restrictor is easy to remove, so, since no other changes were made for your car in IT trim just pull it off and go club racing. As I recall on my own E36 tbody swaps were about a 5 minute activity and the restrictor should be just as easy. Put it back on and go IT racing. Why would prepping the car for IT trim make it not suitable for club racing? You've got a fantastic ECU setup even with the stock system as it is a hot wire MAF system that can easily compensate for the difference in flow to provide proper mixture.



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

Andy Bettencourt
11-27-2004, 05:39 PM
No disrespect intended to the BMW guys - because I know some of you and I know you are good people...BUT:

This is sour grapes. The cars at the top prep level are very powerful. MORE powerful than either yours Rob or yours Ed. Nick has the on-track data to prove that. He loses 5 car-lengths to the fast Bimmers on the back of RA but loses nothing to your car at Pocono...without MOTEC etc, you just aren't making the power that is possible with these cars.

It saddens me that someone would opt out of SCCA because there car lost it's competitive advantage. The goal was to bring the E36 power levels back to where they should be in order to have them 'fit' in ITS again.

The CRB made the call on the resrictor and size. They have hours and hours of dyno experience with the Z4 and it's restrictor implementation for this year to draw of off. Sorry if that's not good enough, it's all I have.

The bottom line is that the 'mid pack' BMW guys are complaining. Guess what? Your mid-pack car was better than any other mid-pack car out there. Each make and model has owners/drivers who don't care to or who can't afford to bring the car to 10/10th's. When you compare 10/10th's Bimmers to everything else, there is a MAJOR HP disparity - and this move brings the car back into the ITS 'ZONE'.

AB

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

Knestis
11-27-2004, 05:45 PM
I'm 'fraid that I agree with Andy on this. If we accept the concept of adjustments (and that's a pretty big IF), people are going to base their decisions on on-track performance so the only real indicators that come into play are at the top of the scale.

I'm still not sure that I like where this logically leads but it's the deal we have at this point and I THINK that it's better than the old non-system.

Kirk

------------------
PhilsTireService.com Team GTI - ITB Class Winner, 2004 13 Hours at VIR (http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/enduro04.php) - Tuned with Cobalt Friction (http://cobaltfriction.com/) brake pads, KONI (http://www.koni-na.com/racing.html) racing struts, and quality OE Volkswagen and racing parts from Bildon Motorsport (http://www.bildon.com/)

TOYO and HOOSIER Racing Tires available at Phil's Tire Service (http://www.philstireservice.com/)

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 27, 2004).]

dspillrat
11-27-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
The cars at the top prep level are very powerful. MORE powerful than either yours Rob or yours Ed. Nick has the on-track data to prove that. He loses 5 car-lengths to the fast Bimmers on the back of RA but loses nothing to your car at Pocono....



I'll bet that the 5 car lengths advantage was is in their draft.... Add a 3-4 more when coming from behind you...Please correct me if I'm wrong Nick..
My concern with restrictors, is will they be effective at ITS RPM ranges...I'm not familiar with what World Challenge rpms are, but if the pro data is with higher RPMs 7000 plus ..then restrictors may not be an effective HP equalizer
David Spillman

ed325its
11-27-2004, 08:22 PM
Andy,

You and others continue to make statements about the potential of the E36 as if they are fact. Despite requests by others I have seen no proof to back up those statements on this forum. I'm all for an even playing field, just someone, anyone, show me the proof.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

Ron Earp
11-27-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Trust me on this, Ron - trying to make spec weights relate to curb weights is going to drive you mad. One just doesn't have anything to do with the other.
K

I am still interested in how it got to such a low weight. Did someone write the board and say "it says here in this magazine that it weight XXXX, so there". If so, they were dead wrong.

Back when I went to the drag races a lot there were track scales and they were accurate, just like in tech now. Those E36 BMWs of all types went across there, usually 323s, 325s and M3 in the mid-90s, later the 328 cars. They always went across the scales anywhere from 3175-3350lbs (and more) depending on car, equipment, driver, how much they had paid attention to drop things like spare tires, etc. They are not light, never were. I suppose when you gut them of all the power stuff they might be, but I didn't think race weight was decided on "how light can it get". If that is the case I bet my car can get to 1800lbs light. But, I am at curb weight. If the BMW had been left at curb weight you wouldn't need resitrictors, I think, and this discussion wouldn't be happening.

R



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

Andy Bettencourt
11-27-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by ed325its:
Andy,

You and others continue to make statements about the potential of the E36 as if they are fact. Despite requests by others I have seen no proof to back up those statements on this forum. I'm all for an even playing field, just someone, anyone, show me the proof.



As it should be Ed. A black E36 that ran with us in 2002 and won every "Pro" race at LRP dynoed at 208hp to the wheels after thousands of dollars in tuning time. Remember how fast that car was? A top East Coast tuner is quoting 15 more WHP today than in 2002. Figure CONSERVATIVELY 215whp and up to 220ish. Obviously dyno number differ from dyno to dyno but this was a top 3 ARRC car that year as well.

Does anyone else find in interesting that none of the top BMW guys/tuners are refuting these numbers? Only the guys who have 8-9/10ths built stuff are.

AB

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

Knestis
11-27-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I am still interested in how it got to such a low weight. ...


We'll never know at this point. The process has been different depending on who was making decisions and what information they were provided with the application.

It would be REALLY groovy if there were a file kept, with all of the notes and documentation for each classification, to maintain a paper trail on the decisions that led up to each listing.

The problem is that there are natural disincentives to do this kind of process. I can totally appreciate how the current ITAC doesn't want members at large picking apart the math that they use to recommend decisions like we have here. It'd be like a Florida presidental race where the degree that you approve of a process will depend strictly on whether it produces the outcome that you favor.

If someone WERE to publish the documentation that led to the restrictor diameter decision, I can guaran-damn-tee that e36 BMW owners would find it completely flawed and other ITS entrants would think it was pretty good - so there is NO point in elaborating on it. The tally is always going to be wrong in a tight race, if your guy don't win...

K

------------------
PhilsTireService.com Team GTI - ITB Class Winner, 2004 13 Hours at VIR (http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/enduro04.php) - Tuned with Cobalt Friction (http://cobaltfriction.com/) brake pads, KONI (http://www.koni-na.com/racing.html) racing struts, and quality OE Volkswagen and racing parts from Bildon Motorsport (http://www.bildon.com/)

TOYO and HOOSIER Racing Tires available at Phil's Tire Service (http://www.philstireservice.com/)

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 27, 2004).]

lateapex911
11-27-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I am still interested in how it got to such a low weight. Did someone write the board and say "it says here in this magazine that it weight XXXX, so there". If so, they were dead wrong.



No, I doubt it...I *bet* they did some research (years ago, remember) about what the engine could make in IT trim based on it's stock specs, thought about the chassis and brakes, then set a weight they thought would make it fit the class. And I further bet they tired to make it run with the Z's and the 7s.

Here's where it went wrong: The stock HP is considered to be a bit conservative, and the engine responded better to an IT build than anyone anticipated.

That said, the current weight DOES seem to be proper for the car from a handleing and braking standpoint. So, adding weight was probably not the ideal move.

As a racer I was stuck behind a guy with a much stronger motor at RA. At teh begining of the stright I would gain, but by the end, he would have 5 or 8 car lengths on me...every lap. Veeery tough to get around. When I did, I was able to move ahead and put seconds per lap on him.....

Equalizing the power, to some degree was the right move here.

(I do hope that the "character" of the car remains...I consider it to be *slightly* inferior to the other leaders in the corners and under braking, but strongly superior under power. I hope the new balance changes the "strongly superior" to a "slightly superior"....)

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

lateapex911
11-27-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
I think this is a joke. .....

Any of the mid pack E-36 drivers hoping to advance to the front of the pack next season just had the rug pulled from under their feet.

I'm glad I sold my E-36 ITS car before the rule change.

Rob Driscoll
ex:E-36 ITS Racer

As in all of racing, mid pack cars need to do their homework, just as they needed to before...

I strongly suspect the fast BMWs will continue to win.......perhaps not as often. And the "mid pack" BMWs will continue to be mid pack...unless they do more homework.



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

seckerich
11-27-2004, 09:14 PM
It is bad that all BMW drivers will get the restriction necessary to bring the 10/10ths and in some cases 12/10ths BMW's in line with the class, but those are the breaks. I have to run with these cars all the time and can tell you that I loose 10 to 15 carlengths down the back side of VIR. I ran with Nicks RX7 driven by Kip at Roebling Road recently and his car is very close to mine and you state his car is considered the benchmark in his area. I tried to tear down the "Super Bimmer" earlier this year and got screwed in the teardown bond process when the bond was pushed out the roof. I finally realised that I was wasting my time and should just let it get the weight it deserves. If the fast cars are legal they needed the restrictor, and if they are not the BMW drivers should tear them down for their own good. If the RX7's I race against get too fast, I speak to them myself. The rules are set for 10/10ths preperation and anything less is asking to run mid pack, I did for years. And I didn't spend near 30 grand as has been quoted for a Speedsource car. The money you spend with Speedsource, Bimmerworld, etc is for a restoration quality car. The extra money is for cars to be proud of that are well prepared. The same work can be done by yourself for much less if you are willing to do some hard work. The parts that make these cars fast are only half the cost.

Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Southeast

mlytle
11-27-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:

I am curious though. Having a restrictor plate hardly makes you non-competetive for club racings or making you choose between on or the other. A restrictor is easy to remove, so, since no other changes were made for your car in IT trim just pull it off and go club racing. As I recall on my own E36 tbody swaps were about a 5 minute activity and the restrictor should be just as easy. Put it back on and go IT racing. Why would prepping the car for IT trim make it not suitable for club racing?




why? because of the the intricacies of bmw club rules. you can run either to the letter of scca its rule or the letter of the bmw prepared rules. either or, can't mix. if you prep your car to its rules, you have to leave the restrictor in, and may have things like brake valves and spherical bearings in your suspension. in bmw prep rules, you can't have those things, but can run hot cams and big brakes.
simply pulling the restrictor plate is not an option. end result...no more ability to have decent racing in both groups with same car. gotta choose.

mlytle
11-27-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
As in all of racing, mid pack cars need to do their homework, just as they needed to before...

I strongly suspect the fast BMWs will continue to win.......perhaps not as often. And the "mid pack" BMWs will continue to be mid pack...unless they do more homework.



oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.

Ron Earp
11-27-2004, 09:35 PM
That said, the current weight DOES seem to be proper for the car from a handleing and braking standpoint. So, adding weight was probably not the ideal move.[/B]

Jake, I respect your opinion but I disagree on the weight. If one takes a look at "Racer Jakes" IT list (I don't have a GCR handy) then one could find a lot of cars that could benefit from a "weight adjustment" such as what the BMW got. From a new guy that doesn't know squat it appears to me that someone decided to make the BMWs competitive, for whatever reason I do not know. If it raced at 3000 to 3200 lbs, slightly LESS than street weight like the other cars, I don't think it'd be an IT overdog and it'd have some inherient problems, like a lot of the other cars on the list.

As it stands, at 2850, the weight masks the problems and allows it to shine. I wonder if some other folks would like to have a chance for their car to shine?

I wonder if the following would like 100-200lbs shaved off?

VR6 GTIs
MX-6 Mazdas/Ford Probes
I bet 100lbs off a 240sx would do wonders
VR6 Jettas sure look porky (owned one of these)
V6 Ford Contours (Good motor)
Supra - I'd say it is racing at street weight. Hmmmmmm...

And then other cars that aren't classed but could do battle at lower weights but nobody would think of running them since 3300+ is way too high. But, it wouldn't be too high if there is a weight adjustment for them.

I do not mean to cause trouble, I'm just trying to make some sense of a single car that seems to have caused a lot of people to write a lot of posts over the short time I've been on the board.

I would be cool if there was a sort of "formula" to get an idea of where a car should be classed. Water under the bridge I suppose, but, the next IT race I attend to watch I'll be maying attention to where the BMWs are. The last few races I've been to (since June 2003 off and on) they have been way up front with only a 2nd Gen RX7 within striking distance.




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

Andy Bettencourt
11-27-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by seckerich:
I have to run with these cars all the time and can tell you that I loose 10 to 15 carlengths down the back side of VIR. I ran with Nicks RX7 driven by Kip at Roebling Road recently and his car is very close to mine and you state his car is considered the benchmark in his area.

Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Southeast

Steve,

Excellent factual info. As you know, Kip is an excellent driver and Nick's car is within 2-3whp of ANY numbers we have had quoted by Syl at SpeedSource. Good racing at Roebling. The RX-7 is at Sebring this weekend.

AB

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

Andy Bettencourt
11-27-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.

How is it different for the RX-7 guys, or the E30 guys, or the GSR guys? It has cost many thousands of dollars trying to keep up with the E36. When you throw a car in that disrups the class like this, the whole class suffers, not just YOUR wallet when the playing field gets leveled.

If you actually think that your E36 has LOST value because of this move, then it MUST HAVE BEEN an overdog. To have a car be 1 of a few legitimate choices in a class should keep it's value right where it belongs.

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 November 27, 2004).]

ed325its
11-27-2004, 10:46 PM
Andy,

You agree with me, make additional statements, and still provide no proof. What documentation exists that Kip's E36 dyno'ed at 208 Whp? What documentation exists that an East Coast tuner is quoteing 215Whp - 220 Whp?

I disagree that the ITAC and/or the CRB should not reveal the data, method, and end goal used in this process. No commitee of this club should operate in secrecy. The results either stand on there own or they don't. Those methods should then be applied to all auto's and not just the percevied overdogs. Otherwise the process remains very political.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

mlytle
11-27-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
when the playing field gets leveled.




when the playing field gets leveled...that is pretty funny. there are what? three cars that are in the "competitive" group in its out of the couple pages that are classified? putting a restrictor plate on just e36's ain't helping that situation. those three cars are the only ones the top ita cars can't beat. some wholesale reclassing is in order, not just a targeting of the e36.

wburstein
11-27-2004, 11:35 PM
Boy, I just got back from vacation and see I missed quite a bit ;-)

I think some of you are mixing apples and oranges. A 10/10ths RX7 or 240Z cannot run with a 10/10ths E36 under the pre-2005 rules. That has left the 8-9/10ths E36 drivers competitive with the 10/10ths Datsun, Mazda, Porsche and Acura drivers. Hopefully, the new restrictor plate for the E36 cars will bring them into the same performance envelope with four or five other cars and avoid us having a one car class (with similar drivers). It will probably take a couple of years for this to shake out, but I suspect that the E36 will remain the best car in the class, but only by a tiny margin.

There is nothing more frustrating than buying an engine from one of the best builders in the country, dyno tuning it, and having an inexperienced driver decimate you on the track due to acceleration on the straights. At VIR, one of James Clay's (rented) cars was leaving Oak Tree at least five miles an hour slower than I was, but still pulling me by over 10 car lengths at the end of the straight. It took laps to get by him and I was HOT under the collar by then...

I also wanted to point out that mlyttle has many other issues besides the restrictor plate if he wants to run both SCCA and BMWCCA events. From his post, the restrictor plate seems like the least of his worries in coming up with a common configuration or making easy changes between events. Since both of us race in the same series, along with a couple of the top E36 cars in the country, it should be interesting to see what effect the new rule has.

For the record, I would have preferred that the SCCA develop a new IT class for the cars that have too much performance potential for the rest of the cars in ITS.

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net (http://www.mountainmotorsports.net)

[This message has been edited by wburstein (edited November 27, 2004).]

seckerich
11-27-2004, 11:56 PM
I read all the posts that ITS is a 3 car field as far as front runners but don't see the proof to back it up. At the SIC we had BMW, Mazda, Prelude's,240SX, and Z cars all in the hunt. The 240SX is really getting fast in the hands of good drivers as proved at Roebling recently. We had 4 cars never seperated by more than 200 ft the whole race. Thats a far cry from what this year has been.

Steve Eckerich
ITS Speedsource Mazda RX7
Southeast

Andy Bettencourt
11-28-2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by ed325its:
Andy,

You agree with me, make additional statements, and still provide no proof. What documentation exists that Kip's E36 dyno'ed at 208 Whp? What documentation exists that an East Coast tuner is quoteing 215Whp - 220 Whp?

I disagree that the ITAC and/or the CRB should not reveal the data, method, and end goal used in this process. No commitee of this club should operate in secrecy. The results either stand on there own or they don't. Those methods should then be applied to all auto's and not just the percevied overdogs. Otherwise the process remains very political.



Ed,

What proof do you need? When Kip has his 944S out next year, pull him aside and ASK him what his E36 put to the ground. He will tell you. He will also tell you how he got the power, where he dynoed the car and how long it took him to get it there. I know his dyno guy. I will ask him if it's ok to contact him and see if he has the files available.

As far as the DIRECT quote from the East coast tuner, do you want it in transcript form or an actual taped phone conversation? We can get with Kip on that one too. Seriously, if you don't believe the numbers, just say so. THEN tell us all what you have done to your motor and we can compare line by line what the difference is between the 10/10ths stuff and the 9/10ths stuff.

If you think the members on this board are acting in secrecy, then I hate to think what the perception was in the past. How is this:

The E36 was classed in ITS. After some initial weight shuffling, it settled in at 2850.

Rumors of very powerful cars started surfacing. Lap times and straight-away speeds started validationg those rumors.

Top drivers in RX-7's and 240Z's started migrating to the E36. Top tuners started perfecting their formulas for power.

3 years in a row E36's have dominated the ARRC (in 2002 the top cars were booted for a ballast technicality, domination none-the-less).

Dyno sheets and conversations with tuners have confirmed power outputs. Very powerful and expensive RX-7's, 240Z's and GSR's get eaten alive on long straights. A combination of an under-estimation of the stock power level and, it would seem, an under-estimation of the power potential in IT trim have created an overdog, not a perceived one, but an actual one.

In IT trim, the Bimmer has a power to weight of 11.4. The RX-7 is 13.0. Others are worse than that. That is a 15% difference in P/W. HUGE.

Again, I am providing NUMBERS based on information. Tell me how you would like to see the proof and I will work on it. I certainly understand that people may want to know but until you have gone 10/10ths, I don't feel anyone has grounds to dispute the data we have HONESTLY obtained, until they can provide some to the contrary. You have the RIGHT to do anything, but in good faith, I say no.

AB

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

ed325its
11-28-2004, 12:57 AM
Andy,

I am confused. I stated that I did not agree, as some on this thread have suggested, that the committe should be allowed to operate in secret. I made no statements that I believe they do now or have in the past, and I truly hope you nor any of the committee volunteers did not think I did.

All I am asking for is the knowledge and documentation the ITAC board used in their deliberations. Driver's statements of comparison perceptions and conjecture about the level of preparation of specific cars is not proof nor documentation. You again state that dyno sheets exist. Do you know if they were seen and considered by either committe? If so, should they not be public? Is there a club policy against them becoming public? Perhaps I do not understand the method and operation of this group. If they are not to become public then tell us all and the thread is ended.

I have not in my posts disputed the data. I have seen no data to dispute. As a club member I do not believe the opportunity to understand the process and see the documentation should depend on the perception that I have met the 10/10ths level of preparation. So, I guess I'll have to do more engine development than just changing the oil and the spark plugs.

If you would like to continue this off-line please feel free to contact me.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

Bill Miller
11-28-2004, 08:35 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by mlytle:before this change we could be competitive with e36's prepped to bmw jp rules. not any more.</font>

Marshall,

Not for nothing, but what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.

Andy,

I'm really not trying to make this argumentative, so please don't take it that way. You stated that the CRB made the call on the restrictor and the size. You make it sound as if that was not necessarily the recommendation of the ITAC. I'm not sure why the CRB would analyze data from Pro (WC), rather than pass it on to the ITAC. And while I'm not up on SS, didn't they only take one swipe at the restrictor on the Z4 this year, and will now reduce it, in size, even further for '05, due to JL's performance at the Runoffs this year?

And while I'm sure there's lots of WC data, is it really a valid correlation? If you look at the WC data against the SS data, do you see a similar regression line? After all, WC and SS both have different prep levels than IT. For example, I'm guessing that the SSB Z4 was already flow-restricted on the exhaust side, which is why the restrictor that was added for '04, didn't really slow the cars down that much.

I'm not convinced by the arguement that the restrictor was the right way to go, because the power was what needed to be brought into line. Let me explain why I think that way. Obviously, the current brake system is up to the task of the ~220 whp that the top cars are believed to be making. If not, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. The suspension system is what it is, and has a performance boundry that is not impacted by how much slower/faster the car is, or what the brake efficiency is. You've got to get the car slowed down to w/in the performance boundry, or you're not going to make the corner. Granted, an increase in weight will probably lower this boundry.

Now, on to the brakes. Since they are currently adequate at xxx terminal velocity, using only a restrictor to reduce that terminal velocity, will, in fact, make the brakes 'better'. If it takes the car zzz feet to go from xxx mph (terminal velocity) to yyy mph (determined by the suspension performance boundry), it will take <zzz feet to reach that reach that same yyy "cornering speed", if the terminal velocity (zzz) is reduced, given no change in the car's weight.

Sure, the cars won't be going as fast at the end of the straight, but they'll be able to brake deeper. Not to mention that the brakes will be doing less work, as they have a smaller delta(speed) that they have to achieve. So, while lap times may go up, they may not go up as much as expected, as the increase in lap time attributed to lower terminal velocity will be offset by the improved braking and subsequent ability to stay at terminal velocity longer.

I'll ask the question again, what's the target weight for the car, as predicted by the process, assuming the 'normal' power gain by IT prep? Pretend that you don't have any idea what the real whp number is, and treat it as if it were just being classed. This should at least get us closer to understanding if the initial weight was truly off, or that the car really does make that much more power than you would expect.

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

Geo
11-28-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'll ask the question again, what's the target weight for the car, as predicted by the process, assuming the 'normal' power gain by IT prep?

Bill, I understand why you wish to know, but really, publishing that would now be very much counter-productive. There is lots of second-guessing going on and that's be to understood I think. But to discuss alternatives considered after the fact is probably not the best thing at this point. Remember, PCAs allow further adjustments if we feel the first one does not meet expectations.

This is not so much a matter of secret back-room meetings, but the fact that A) we could beat two horses to death on this matter and then beat them again B) this is not necessarily played out (ref. previous mention of how PCAs work). I think you will find that the ITAC and CRB will continue to monitor this situation and will follow discussions on it. But I honestly don't think we'll put current thinking on an active subject out in public.

It may not be the answer you would like to hear for one or many reasons. But it's an honest answer Bill.


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

Bill Miller
11-28-2004, 10:38 AM
George,

This is EXACTLY why I support an open, published classification process. As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board.

Your response has also opened the door for lots of speculation.

Opt. 1 - Don't want to publish it because the current weight is below what the process would predict, and don't want people asking why it wasn't brought up to that weight first.

Opt. 2 - Already above what's predicted, and don't want people complaining that the car is already too heavy (Don't see this as being valid in light of how PCA's are supposed to work).

Opt. 3 - At the predicted weight (+/- 50#), see Opt. 2.

IMHO, by keeping this stuff under wraps, you open yourself up for a lot more grief than if it's out in the open.

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

Geo
11-28-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

This is EXACTLY why I support an open, published classification process. As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board.

Your response has also opened the door for lots of speculation.

Opt. 1 - Don't want to publish it because the current weight is below what the process would predict, and don't want people asking why it wasn't brought up to that weight first.

Opt. 2 - Already above what's predicted, and don't want people complaining that the car is already too heavy (Don't see this as being valid in light of how PCA's are supposed to work).

Opt. 3 - At the predicted weight (+/- 50#), see Opt. 2.

IMHO, by keeping this stuff under wraps, you open yourself up for a lot more grief than if it's out in the open.



I firmly believe that no matter what goes/went into the decision, there will be plenty of grief to go around. The other option I suppose is to just totally ignore your request for that information and not give you an honest answer. That would also be a source of grief. I'm not complaining mind you, I'm just telling you what I personally think.

As for being above board, I think the current ITAC has been about as above board as such a committee can be and actually accomplish something. So far it seems the membership has been largely happy with the changes that have been made to IT. We always knew this issue would be one that would raise a lot of discussion regardless of what decision was taken. And we don't know if this issue is fully played out yet.

If nothing else, I think 2005 is going to be an exciting year in IT.


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

JeffYoung
11-28-2004, 12:04 PM
Do I disagree with some of the changes made for 05? Yes. On the whole, am I pleased that we are no longer in "stasis" in IT, and we have an ITAC that will spend hours discussing things with us? HELL YES.

Rock on boys, and good job.

Bill Miller
11-28-2004, 01:08 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Geo:As for being above board, I think the current ITAC has been about as above board as such a committee can be and actually accomplish something.</font>

George,

First off, I said perception. Also, your comment incates that you don't believe that a committee such as the ITAC can be totally above board, and get anything accomplished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just the way I read it.

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

Quickshoe
11-28-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.


I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I relate it to the choice I made when purchasing my FFord (and my Vee). I bought a model (Crossle 32F) that was eligible to race with the Vintage club in my area (VARA) and was very competitive there, while also being able to race with SCCA (SF in CSCC region) if I chose to, a very competitve model there as well. Not only did having that option give me some flexibility, it also meant that when I sold the car I would have twice the potential market. Not a bad thing and certainly weighed my original decision to purchase that cars. If VARA implemented a rule(s) that would not allow my car to also participate in the SCCA at a similar competitive level than I would have made a choice to run with one series or the other.

Granted, I don't believe that the SCCA has a responsibility to its' members to maintain dual eligibility in its' rules. Nor should they make rules that aren't in the best interest of the majority of their members for the benifit of the minority. They do need to be aware, however, when fighting for the racers dollars (a battle that they are losing out here) how such decisions may affect their entries.

-Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D13 Vee



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 28, 2004).]

Ron Earp
11-28-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
[B] I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I didn't get that. I responded to his first post about with the restrictor then he couldn't run both. I pointed out that you could easily pull it off, then he mentioned bearings, cams, etc.

Well, different cams weren't legal before the restrictor plate and aren't legal now, so that makes no sense. One single rule change with a restrictor plate should not preclude someone from running in both series, providing the car is legal in both to begin with. It is a 5 minute job to pull the plate on and off, no problem.

One may have to accept that fact that a single car may or may not be competitive in both series when prepped to the lowest common demoninator.



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

Ron Earp
11-28-2004, 05:20 PM
Double post

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 28, 2004).]

Bill Miller
11-28-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I relate it to the choice I made when purchasing my FFord (and my Vee). I bought a model (Crossle 32F) that was eligible to race with the Vintage club in my area (VARA) and was very competitive there, while also being able to race with SCCA (SF in CSCC region) if I chose to, a very competitve model there as well. Not only did having that option give me some flexibility, it also meant that when I sold the car I would have twice the potential market. Not a bad thing and certainly weighed my original decision to purchase that cars. If VARA implemented a rule(s) that would not allow my car to also participate in the SCCA at a similar competitive level than I would have made a choice to run with one series or the other.

Granted, I don't believe that the SCCA has a responsibility to its' members to maintain dual eligibility in its' rules. Nor should they make rules that aren't in the best interest of the majority of their members for the benifit of the minority. They do need to be aware, however, when fighting for the racers dollars (a battle that they are losing out here) how such decisions may affect their entries.

-Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D13 Vee

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 28, 2004).]


Sorry Daryl, I just don't see it that way. We're talking about SCCA rules for an SCCA category. I don't really give a hang about how those rules impact the competitvness of the car in another series. And if an ITS-prep E36 could compete w/ a BMWCCA E36 w/ open cams and larger brakes, I see that as supporting evidence for the car probably being an overdog in ITS.

The way I see it, the BMWCCA is throwing its members a bone by allowing them to compete in cars prepared to another series' rules. How often do you see the SCCA do that? I see it as his wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Disingenuous, especially in light of how much of a perceived (and apparently validated) overdog the car is in ITS.


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

Knestis
11-28-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board. ...


I'd like to clarify my thoughts on this point...

As I mentioned, I totally understand why the ITAC doesn't just put every decision out for dicsussion before they make it. Geo is absolutely right that someone is ALWAYS going to find something to bitch about, if it costs them perceived competitive advantage.

Further - and this might surprise some folks - I'm pretty OK with the idea that, once the weight is ballparked by some back-of-the-napkin power/weight math, the last +/-100 pounds can get determined subjectively, considering other aspects of the car's design - even without a published formula.

I just don't like the idea of the system becoming reactive to each individual member's desire to gain an advantage over other models in his or her region.

K

EDIT - I'd love to have those who have complained about the e36 restrictor addition post and tell us exactly what data they would accept as sufficient evidence that the change was necessary. My guess is that nobody will be able to answer that question...

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 28, 2004).]

Quickshoe
11-28-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...if an ITS-prep E36 could compete w/ a BMWCCA E36 w/ open cams and larger brakes, I see that as supporting evidence for the car probably being an overdog in ITS.

Bigger picture--The JP class allows free lift and duration but specifically states "no other internal engine changes allowed"...further, their rules state "aftermarket engine management systems not allowed". So, take the JP car give it cams and bigger brakes. Give me an ITS E36 with my Motec, port matching and small compression bump and perhaps we have a good race...irrelevent to whether the ITS E36 is an overdog or not (which I believe it is).

In fairness, my browsing of the BMWCCA JP rules also show that flwheel and spoiler rules are more liberal, while shock rules are more conservative than the ITS rules.

The BMWCCA doesn't want your otherwise ITS legal car showing up with the addition of big cam, big brakes and lightweight flywheel and expect to be able to play.

Quickshoe
11-28-2004, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The way I see it, the BMWCCA is throwing its members a bone by allowing them to compete in cars prepared to another series' rules. How often do you see the SCCA do that? I see it as his wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Disingenuous, especially in light of how much of a perceived (and apparently validated) overdog the car is in ITS.

I don't know that is throwing them a bone as much as it is allowing others to come play so that they (BMWCCA) have more revenue. What is wrong with that?

I also don't know so much about having his cake and eating it too, he went from having two good options to two not as good options. I'd be a little perturbed too.

Again, I am not arguing that the BMW is not an overdog in ITS. I am also not attacking their decision to put a restrictor on it. I am just saying that 'we' as a group get tweaked enough when a rule change makes our car less competitive in our own series, how would you feel if that same rule made it less competitive in two series at the same time?

Quickshoe
11-28-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
when the playing field gets leveled...that is pretty funny. there are what? three cars that are in the "competitive" group in its out of the couple pages that are classified? putting a restrictor plate on just e36's ain't helping that situation. those three cars are the only ones the top ita cars can't beat. some wholesale reclassing is in order, not just a targeting of the e36.

The other perspective (one that I agree with) is that when prepared to the limit of the rules there is only one ITS car to have. Maybe, the restrictor plate will make it three. Maybe it will be one, just not the BMW? I don't think we can ever get to the point where all the cars listed in the ITS will be capable of winning, that doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to give us more than one choice of vehicle capable of winning (when all the vehicles are prepared and driven to the limit of the rules--budget not a concern). It doesn't have to be an all or nothing. If you wanted all cars in ITS to be able to compete for the win, the BMW would have to get an even smaller restrictor, the Rx7 and Z's one too, albeit a little larger than the BMW's. What is the difference? The BMW still gets knocked down a peg or two relative to the others.

Andy Bettencourt
11-28-2004, 09:53 PM
Ed,

You infer that you think we operate in secret when you ask us for the data, I give you the information, then you tell me you have seen no data. Actually, you infer that you don't trust me or the committee. I gave you a number, a car and names. I asked you earlier, what is enough PROOF? Hard copies? At some point there has to be a bit of trust, and I don't see it from you.

The process is pretty simple. We evaluated the cars performance at 10/10ths and its documented power output. It then falls to us as an agenda item.

We debate it, both on a conference call and on an ITAC web board. We then make a recommendation knowing that we have weight and a restrictor to work with. The agreed upon recommendation is sent to the CRB. The CRB weighs our input and then MAKES THE DECISION based on their experience and the data they have at hand.

And I hope you are joking about just changing the oil and plugs on your E36 as your 'engine program'. Most don't know that you were in a year end points race (for first) in the NERRC Series up until the last checkered flew.

Bill,

Your comments on the ITAC / CRB interaction is nothing I can comment on. It happens how it happens. If you would like to see the 'process' on how things manuver through the system changed, I suggest you contact the CRB directly.

I won't answer the question on the weight of the E36 because only bad things can come of it. Plenty on complaining will go on and we will get tons of letters from people asking where THEIR car would fall if it was classed today. It's water under the bridge and we can only deal with what is in print.

I can tell you this: In my opinion, the E36 is underweight AND the power potential was underestimated. Those two things combined put the car where it is...an overdog.

AB

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

mlytle
11-28-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Marshall,

Not for nothing, but what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.


bill, go back and actually read my intro to that paragraph..

marshall

JeffYoung
11-28-2004, 10:28 PM
My understanding of how to document ITS E36 power potential:

Call Bimmerworld. Ask.

mlytle
11-28-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
If you wanted all cars in ITS to be able to compete for the win, the BMW would have to get an even smaller restrictor, the Rx7 and Z's one too, albeit a little larger than the BMW's. What is the difference? The BMW still gets knocked down a peg or two relative to the others.



my point was not to add more restrictors, my point was the last line of my post. wholesale reclassification is in order, not just picking on one car.

lateapex911
11-28-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.

Huh? So what you're saying is that the car was just fine before, because you didn't have to prep to the max to be competitive with those who DID prep to the max? Sounds to me like the car IS an overdog, and the easy life is coming to a close.

Don't drag the stupid ECU rule into this...it's really irrelevant. The bottom line was that the car was an overdog when prepped to the max and driven by great drivers compared to other equal prep/driver combos.

If someone can provide proof that the car is indeed NOT an overdog, then fine...but until then, I have a hard time accepting that folks are upset that they will now be required to do their homework to run at the front.



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

Geo
11-29-2004, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

First off, I said perception.


So noted.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, your comment incates that you don't believe that a committee such as the ITAC can be totally above board, and get anything accomplished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just the way I read it.


OK, fair enough. I think the connotation of "above board" is pretty harsh, but I'll operate under the assumption you didn't mean it to be.

What I am trying to say is that if all thinking and data that was considered in all decision making were published, the committee would become mired in minutiae from comments and arguments about all sorts of things.

Some will agree and some will disagree. In the end, it's not my call. But we do try to give good feedback on important issues and we always seek good information whether publicly or privately.


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

Ron Earp
11-29-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
My understanding of how to document ITS E36 power potential:

Call Bimmerworld. Ask.

Those fellows do and have been reading here I'm sure. I doubt a straight answer ever would or will come from that camp now as they are in the business of building E36s and selling them. I am no insinuating anything torward Bimmerworld, but I feel that at this time answering that question would be counter-productive from a business perspective and from the perspective of helping this thread.

Seems the easy solution would be for a fine upstanding ITS E36 person prepped 10/10ths (Motec etc.) to head to a dynojet and put this "BMW Power" discussion to rest. Maybe a board collection could even pay for the fees? And, maybe they could do it before and after restrictor to really give folks something to talk about.

Ron


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

Banzai240
11-29-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by mlytle:
my point was not to add more restrictors, my point was the last line of my post. wholesale reclassification is in order, not just picking on one car.



I disagree... We have hard proof that the BMW is at least 100lbs too light to "fit" into ITS, based on real dyno numbers that one of your own has sent us, and his numbers were on the "average" side of what is said to be possible. Further, prior to the entrance of the BMW, we had several cars that were "competitive" with each other in ITS.

Traditionally, it has always been the case that a very few cars were the ones that mixed up a class. In ITA, it's the Integra, the 240SX, and the CRX. This isn't just speculation, it's based on real hp numbers correlated with real on-track performance (in other words, the mechanical specs and estimates of potential seem to be validated by the on-track performance of these cars).

WHY would you say a "wholesale reclassification" is in order, when an adjustment to a few cars would restore the balance?

Here's a silly question to some I'm sure, but we know that the BMWs have been torn down in the past, and I'm assuming at the ARRC... Were the Mazdas??? If so, who and what was the result??

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

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Those fellows do and have been reading here I'm sure. I doubt a straight answer ever would or will come from that camp now as they are in the business of building E36s and selling them. I am no insinuating anything torward Bimmerworld, but I feel that at this time answering that question would be counter-productive from a business perspective and from the perspective of helping this thread.

Seems the easy solution would be for a fine upstanding ITS E36 person prepped 10/10ths (Motec etc.) to head to a dynojet and put this "BMW Power" discussion to rest. Maybe a board collection could even pay for the fees? And, maybe they could do it before and after restrictor to really give folks something to talk about.

Ron




Ron,

While I understand your premise, I don't think it's practical. If *I* had spent the money on the talent and knowledge that Bimmerworld and Rebello possess, and created a 215+WHP monster, WHY would I want to prove to everyone that it was an overdog? It's completely counter-productive.

I, as a competitor in life AND on the track, would exploit any competitiove advantage I found within the rules - so why would I hand that back to anyone on a silver platter?

On rare occasion will you find someone who did all his own work, spent the money, sold the car and then is willing to share his info.

AB

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

robits325is
11-29-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
No disrespect intended to the BMW guys - because I know some of you and I know you are good people...BUT:

This is sour grapes. The cars at the top prep level are very powerful. MORE powerful than either yours Rob or yours Ed. Nick has the on-track data to prove that. He loses 5 car-lengths to the fast Bimmers on the back of RA but loses nothing to your car at Pocono...without MOTEC etc, you just aren't making the power that is possible with these cars.

AB



Quote from Flatout Web page:
Leverone then led most of the race -- building a cushion in the tight infield portion of the course, only to watch Driscoll erase it on the long straights.


Not trying to be confrontational but you contradicted yourself.

I think that the races in the Northeast were as close as anyone with a rules book could create for two different makes of car. Our cars have identical horsepower to the super bimmers without Motec (yes we have proof) So, if the ultimate goal is to make for competitive racing without huge budgets then why not try to elimate the legality of Motec?

Now to remain competitive a front running E-36 HAS to have Motec ($7,000) and HAS to have a restrictor plate ($?) you just can't cut a piece of steel.

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 11:24 AM
Rob,

Come on now. You were there. You know what the deal was. When Nick was in your draft, it was equal. When you got into Nick's draft, you had a slight advantage. Also remember that the RX-7 has an OD 5th gear of something like .86:1.

From YOUR website:


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Race 1 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gifriving the #25 Auto Technic BMW, Rob Driscoll started 4th on the ITS grid and 14th overall in a crowded group on the Long Course at Pocono. Rob quickly moved up to second on the first lap then patiently waited to the time was right and made the pass for the lead on the last lap after picking up a nice draft from Nick Leverone's Mazda RX-7.</font>

It continues to amaze me that you think it's OK for your Bimmers to be competitive at 9/10th's when EVERYTHING else has to be at 10/10ths to keep up. Where is the equity in that???

AB

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

Ron Earp
11-29-2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I, as a competitor in life AND on the track, would exploit any competitiove advantage I found within the rules - so why would I hand that back to anyone on a silver platter?

On rare occasion will you find someone who did all his own work, spent the money, sold the car and then is willing to share his info.


I see your point Andy, but I hope there are more of us out there that wish to be helpful to fellow comrades than secretive. I plan on posting dyno numbers I get from my Jensen the day I get them, right here for everone to see. And if anyone wants to know how it is done, I'll tell them - while I'm still racing the car, not once it is sold. I know, it is only a Jensen not a BMW and nobody cares, but, should by chance the numbers make people pay attention and care I'll gladly help them make their own Jensen.

Maybe I should be more competitive to play this game, but, to me it is amateur racing and a hobby/sport, not a stakes game. I'm plently competitive in life, I wouldn't be where I am or doing what I do without being that way. But in situations like this someone stepping forward could put the whole matter to rest in one fell swoop without revealing anything but some output figures. They don't have to reveal how it is done, just the output from their efforts.

------------------
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 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 29, 2004).]

Ron Earp
11-29-2004, 11:53 AM
Double post again!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 29, 2004).]

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 11:53 AM
Ron you are right, however, it handicaps their efforts. And most people aren't willing to do that when there is significant skin and money in the game. I wouldn't expect them to.

I have posted my dyno sheets on the rotory. Why? You can't do crap to them internally and there is no secret to how they make power, exhaust. Anyone can have a 175whp 13B for just over $3500. It ain't that easy with a piston motor.

AB

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

Catch22
11-29-2004, 12:20 PM
I was feeling all Sherlock Holmesy this morning, so I looked some stuff up...

This years ARRC saw stiff competition in the IT classes and SM. It also saw perfect weather. Many track records were broken (13 in all, including SM, ITA, ITC, IT7, and ITE)and a few classes (like ITC) had as many as 5 cars in track record territory.
Again, tough competition and perfect weather.

Then there was ITS.
There were no track records, and the car that has the track record (the one that won the ARRC btw) was a full 7/10ths of its own record. Same car, same driver.
Hmmm...
Sandbagging?
Mechanical issues (but it still won?)?
I dunno, but it seems strange to me.

Oh, there were nine E36s in the 26 cars that finished the ARRC race. SEVEN of them were in the top 10.

C'mon guys... Really.
There's about as much eveidence that you're ever going to get in IT racing that this car needs to be slowed down. If you own one, sorry. It just means that you now have to work as hard as everyone else to run up front.



------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro

Joe Harlan
11-29-2004, 04:24 PM
you just can't cut a piece of steel.



Actually that's about all it will be if the rule is written correctly

Joe Harlan
11-29-2004, 04:25 PM
you just can't cut a piece of steel.



Actually that's about all it will be if the rule is written correctly

JeffYoung
11-29-2004, 04:59 PM
Harrison Bergeron.

Quickshoe
11-29-2004, 05:15 PM
How many people had to google that one? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I did! Ignorance is bliss!

11-29-2004, 05:27 PM
The sad part is the fact that the dominating E-36's has spent a rather significant amount of money on Motec's. The cars that aren't Motec equipped are usually slower than the front runners just enough that they are usually in a battle with the "non-E36" cars like the best prepped RX7's, 240Z's and GSR's.
The open ECU rule is the main culprit in this, and the problems associated with enforcing it.

The open ECU rule is inherently unfair to anyone who drives a well prepped carburated car that is prepped to the letter of the rules. There is nothing one can do when you've spent all that time and money on a carburated engine that is built to the maximum that the rules allow to gain HP the way the newer cars can just plug in a high dollar engine management like the Motec units. Many cars in IT have such antiquated FI systems that there is almost nothing that can be done to them and still be within the rules.

Maybe there ought to be claim rule on ECU's instead of trying to make Tech police them. That would slow down the dominating cars enough, and prevent people from spending piles of money just to run closer to the front and make IT more affordable.


[This message has been edited by 2Many Z's (edited November 29, 2004).]

Bill Miller
11-29-2004, 06:05 PM
George,

Fair enough, we agree.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I won't answer the question on the weight of the E36 because only bad things can come of it. Plenty on complaining will go on and we will get tons of letters from people asking where THEIR car would fall if it was classed today.</font>

Andy,

I take it from your comment that it is not the intent of the ITAC to run all the cars in the ITCS through the process. You guys have developed somthing that most people feel is a very good thing, yet it doesn't apply to everyone. THAT is a bad thing.

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

gsbaker
11-29-2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Harrison Bergeron.


The Incredibles.

"When everyone is Super, no one is Super."

G

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Fair enough, we agree.

Andy,

I take it from your comment that it is not the intent of the ITAC to run all the cars in the ITCS through the process. You guys have developed somthing that most people feel is a very good thing, yet it doesn't apply to everyone. THAT is a bad thing.



I disagree. If we ran every car through the process, you open Pandora's box. If a car is 35 lbs. off its target, do you change it? 40? 45? 48? 50? 100? What are the boundaries that you run by that keep the vision of PCA's but enough distance from Prod-style comp-adjustments?

Are you suggesting a one-time 'clensing'? If you are, I can agree it would be nice, but only after we evaluate our target performance envelopes and make sure we have the arrow pointed in the right direction.

AB

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

Bill Miller
11-29-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I disagree. If we ran every car through the process, you open Pandora's box. If a car is 35 lbs. off its target, do you change it? 40? 45? 48? 50? 100? What are the boundaries that you run by that keep the vision of PCA's but enough distance from Prod-style comp-adjustments?

Are you suggesting a one-time 'clensing'? If you are, I can agree it would be nice, but only after we evaluate our target performance envelopes and make sure we have the arrow pointed in the right direction.

AB



Andy, I think +/- 50# is probably decent enough precision.

And while I don't know if I'd call it 'clensing', that's pretty much what I had in mind. Everything gets run through to see how close it is. If you're +/- 50# of what comes out, nothing changes. If you're outside that, you get the weight set to what the process spits out.

I agree that getting a handle on the performance envelope is a good thing, but I'd like to see a time limit put on it. Say, by the end of the '06 season, all cars in the ITCS will have had their spec weights evaluated by the process, and adjusted as needed. If it can happen sooner than that, all the better.



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

Quickshoe
11-29-2004, 07:23 PM
Not attacking you Bill, even though it may seem so.

Why do we (as a group) need the weight so close to ideal (+/-50#)? Our horsepower estimate figures would need to be within 2, 3, 4 HP? We can't get the ultimate IT Prep HP estimate that close...

Reign in the apparant overdogs, give us a choice of 2-4 "cars to have" in each class and we should all be happy http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif. Anyone who chooses one of the cars other than those 2, 3 or 4 does so because they love the car more than their desire to be competitive. I find it hard to see it any other way...perhaps my view is obstructed with my head in such a dark place...does smell like roses though http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif.

robits325is
11-29-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:

Reign in the apparant overdogs, give us a choice of 2-4 "cars to have" in each class and we should all be happy http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif. Anyone who chooses one of the cars other than those 2, 3 or 4 does so because they love the car more than their desire to be competitive. I find it hard to see it any other way...perhaps my view is obstructed with my head in such a dark place...does smell like roses though http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif.



Who is going to build a $50,000-$60,000 E-36 for ITS with the hope of maybe running up front? Looks like its time someone builds an E-46. Double Vanos 2.5L with no restrictor....or will that be the next witch hunt?

Ron Earp
11-29-2004, 07:38 PM
Well, if the "formula" or process to spec cars won't or can't be revealed to the general public we can approach it a different way.

The situation as it stands is that we have a simple transfer function that is used to spec cars for the various IT groups. We should be able to calculate that function because we know the exactly what the inputs to the function are, and obviously we know what the outputs are, they are in the GCR table.

Example:
Input(a..z) --> f(a..z) --> Output (A..Z)

Where a..z are the stock parameters of the car, i.e., weight, brake swept area, hp, displacement, etc. And, A..Z are the IT parameters for the car once the function, f(a..z), is applied.

Therefore, what we need are cars that are "properly" speced with the inputs, a..z, for each car, and the outputs, A..Z. These will serve as the correct data for development of our model. Then, we can apply a number of models and analyze the dataset until we can accurately predict A..Z for our properly spced cars. Now we have our function (obviously not simple since we have a fairly complex mutlivariate situation, but I bet we can come up with something that is quite good and, even better, is completely objective when compared to other methods).

Properly armed, we could then reclass all the cars and have a much closer, in my opinion, field since the classifcation will be scientific, documented, fit current class models, and be easy to adjust. I wouldn't mind doing it for fun, what cars should be used as initial models?

------------------
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 29, 2004).]

Bill Miller
11-29-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
Who is going to build a $50,000-$60,000 E-36 for ITS with the hope of maybe running up front? Looks like its time someone builds an E-46. Double Vanos 2.5L with no restrictor....or will that be the next witch hunt?



Sorry Rob, but $50k-$60k cars hardly fit the stated philosophy, purpose, and intent of IT. Cars like that have no business in IT.

Daryl,

I don't take it as an attack. Let me ask you the same thing, why shouldn't we try and get things that close? We've got a lot of smart people here, as well as on the ITAC and CRB. If they can't hit a 100# window w/ the weight, something very wrong. And even if it is a little off, adjust it w/ PCA's.

And I just don't subscribe to the 'couple of cars "to have"' philosophy. People shouldn't have to choose between a car they want to race, and a car they can be competitive with. That's one of the reasons we end up w/ things like IT7. They were actually one of the 'cars to have', and got shuffled back in the grid by newer cars (and have gotten pushed even farther back w/ the new ITS transfers).

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

dj10
11-29-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
I think this is a joke. The only car that is allowed to be a dominate car is the RX-7? If the E-36 is an overdog than what about the Mazda? If adjustments were made on the 325 why wern't they made to the RX-7 too?

This rule change might make competition equal for some drivers at a few tracks but over all it is very bad for the class.

So if a Mazda wins every race at every track will that end this witch hunt? Why can't there be different 'penalties' for different cars at different tracks? Example: Restrictor plates at fast tracks with long straights like Road America or Atlanla?

This will equalize the 3 or 4 super E-36s in a few regions across the country but virtually eliminate the close racing everywhere else.

Any of the mid pack E-36 drivers hoping to advance to the front of the pack next season just had the rug pulled from under their feet.

I'm glad I sold my E-36 ITS car before the rule change.

Rob Driscoll
ex:E-36 ITS Racer

lateapex911
11-29-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
Who is going to build a $50,000-$60,000 E-36 for ITS with the hope of maybe running up front? Looks like its time someone builds an E-46. Double Vanos 2.5L with no restrictor....or will that be the next witch hunt?



You are absolutely right!!!!!!!!

For $50K, you should be guaranteed a win! As a matter of fact, for that kind of K, you should have driver do the dirty work so you don't have to break a sweat......

???? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif????

Whitchhunt?? ooookkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaay...



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

Knestis
11-29-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... Let me ask you the same thing, why shouldn't we try and get things that close? ... If they can't hit a 100# window w/ the weight, something very wrong. ...

If - again BIG IF - the system is going to look at on-track performance, I agree with what I think is the current ITAC thinking: We can't hope to get closer than 100# or so becaue the variance due to driver skill and other considerations, even at the top of the results chart, is too great. Heck, the same difference resulting from 100# might be accounted for in "good day" vs. "head cold" alone, for the same driver.

It's kind of like those opinion polls that we heard so much about this fall. A margin of error (or conficence interval, more accurately) of +/- 3% is achievable with a random sample of a thousand or so people. Pollsters get a rapidly decreasing return in improvement at about that point, where even dramatically increasing the sample size doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference in the confidence interval.

When the results are in, 3% is considered close enough so if the candidates come in at 47% to 50%, it's technically a tie. If some objective Reality (capital R) is that they are one point apart, we will NEVER know given the limitations of our methodology...

...so similarly, if two reasonably skilled shoes pedal the same ITB car around VIR and turn mean lap times that are 2.0 seconds different (about 1.5%) and, let's say, that much time can be attributed to the fact that one of them doesn't know the track very well yet, then how can we hope to adjust weights of different cars to get them closer than that?

Before you go saying that Kirk has gone all soft on this issue, remember that my much-maligned proposal suggested using ONLY a formulaic determination for weight, based on physical attributes of the car, and letting the chips fall where they may.

That plan presumed essentially what I suggest here - that we could get them "close enough" without resorting to considerations of lap times, finishing positions, etc. that are really not a direct indicator of the input variables under consideration - weight, and now restrictor size.

If you are suggesting (Bill, et al.) that we should try for accuracy greater than 100#, how will we know when we are there? There just isn't enough data to be sure.

Finally, it sure would be cool if people would stop mixing metaphors here. The issues of ECUs, spec weights, and restrictors are certainly related in the real world but they need to be argued as logically distinct questions, or you are shooting your case down before it's even made.

K


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 29, 2004).]

mlytle
11-29-2004, 10:04 PM
now this is interesting...
k put forth that a 3% margin of error would be acceptable and used times at vir as an example. anyone check the time for its qualifying and fast lap race times at the arrc? the fastest e36 was about 1% faster than the fastest rx7. hmmmmm.

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by robits325is:
Who is going to build a $50,000-$60,000 E-36 for ITS with the hope of maybe running up front? Looks like its time someone builds an E-46. Double Vanos 2.5L with no restrictor....or will that be the next witch hunt?



The same 'type' of people who would build a 10/10ths ANYTHING Rob. Why is it the E36 is the only car that can run up from when built and driven to the max? What right do you have to WIN a Regional Championship with a car that ISN'T?

It's SOOOO far from a witch hunt its silly to even use the term. Facts are facts.

AB

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

Andy Bettencourt
11-29-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
now this is interesting...
k put forth that a 3% margin of error would be acceptable and used times at vir as an example. anyone check the time for its qualifying and fast lap race times at the arrc? the fastest e36 was about 1% faster than the fastest rx7. hmmmmm.

For an ENTIRE class...not the difference between the top 2...

AB

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

seckerich
11-29-2004, 11:21 PM
One reality that keeps getting missed with these continuous rants about the "perceived advantage is only at a certain track" is that I can't think of one track that ends a race in a corner. I can run fast laps, sit on pole, and have a BMW blow by me when they drop the green. Then I spend the whole race passing the same car as they hold me up in the areas I am faster and pull away bigtime on every straight. I have run VIR with York, Chet, and some of the other fast BMW's from the areas and was only 1 to 1.5 seconds slower in a mazda but got drilled at the start. Same for slower tracks like Kershaw. If you want to compare numbers that matter you need HP and TORQUE if you want real comparisons. Races end and start on straights and this is where the cars kill the others in the class while giving up very little in the corners. This is reality.

Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Southeast

Knestis
11-29-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by mlytle:
now this is interesting...
k put forth that a 3% margin of error would be acceptable and used times at vir as an example. ...

Did not. I know it was a little rambling but re-read that again. The 3% bit was an analogy.

We sure spend a lot of time here picking ammunition for our arguments by reading selectively out of other's posts.

Is a 1% variance in lap times "close enough?" I don't know. What portion of that amount of time would the addition of 100# account for? One of the sophisticated lap time simulators out there might actually give us some data to play with.

K

Bill Miller
11-30-2004, 12:27 AM
Kirk,

I was simply saying that it shouldn't be that hard to develop a model that should predict the weight w/in that 100# window. You are right however, we'll never know what the true weight should be.

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

mlytle
11-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:

We sure spend a lot of time here picking ammunition for our arguments by reading selectively out of other's posts.

K

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif you are SO right!!!!
m

mlytle
11-30-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
For an ENTIRE class...not the difference between the top 2...

AB




i must be missing your point. 1% between two cars is well within even a 3% range for an entire class. although it looked like he was comparing two cars in his post.

whatever. i was just making an observation.

Quickshoe
11-30-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
why shouldn't we try and get things that close?

Because, while focusing on the end result weight being within 100# (or 1/3 to 1/2% of the cars' weight) we are ignoring the fact that we are estimating HP--and those estimations will vary by a similar amount. I just don't see much need to calculate this stuff down to the 3rd or 4th approximation when the HP (1st approximation) may vary by more than our target end result.

Even when we know the HP, apparently we are only using the peak number for weight calculation purposes, and are those examples torn down to ensure that they are not only legal but are also built to 10/10ths? Perhaps a car that has a closer ratio trans than another gets an 'adder' but what about the car with a big, wide powerband and a wide ratio box vs. a very peaky high reving motor with similar wide ratio box, any adjustment there?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And I just don't subscribe to the 'couple of cars \"to have\"' philosophy. People shouldn't have to choose between a car they want to race, and a car they can be competitive with.</font>

I hear what you are saying, we just have a very different philosophy. I am satisifed to have a choice of more than one "car to have". I am also okay with having to have a new choice of more than one every five years or so. Not so interested in being able to race the same car up front year after year after year. On one hand I don't want to have a chassis of the year situation, on the other I don't like the continuing aging of the class.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who vintage races a Vee. Old cars, one set of rules for all the cars, but about a billion +/- a few, chassis to choose from. 3 or 4 of which seem to be capable of running up front.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 30, 2004).]

Karl Bocchieri
11-30-2004, 03:59 PM
What's amazing about this entire argument is that everyone who has a BMW is complaining about the restrictor, and you don't even know how it will affect the car yet! Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

x-ring
11-30-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
...Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

Gee, you think maybe the plate won't do it? Look how effective it was in T3, er, I mean SSB.



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

dj10
11-30-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
What's amazing about this entire argument is that everyone who has a BMW is complaining about the restrictor, and you don't even know how it will affect the car yet! Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

You took the words right out of my mouth! It is only a matter of time until we E36 owners find out how this will effect us. I'm still optimistic that this comming year will bring some good close racing. A E36 with good components and well balanced, should still be strong. Lets not forget the driver.
Dan Jones

Bill Miller
11-30-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Because, while focusing on the end result weight being within 100# (or 1/3 to 1/2% of the cars' weight) we are ignoring the fact that we are estimating HP--and those estimations will vary by a similar amount.

Daryl,

100# is 5% of the weight of a 2000# car. The IT-pre HP estimates are probably +/- 2.5%. That's a 5hp window on a 100hp car and a 10hp window on a 200hp car.



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

Quickshoe
11-30-2004, 06:24 PM
[/Brainfart mode] I didn't even think to do the math with a calculator. For some reason, decided that 100# was 1/2% of 2000, and 1/3% of 3000, decimal obviously in wrong place in my head.

Now that you shot a big hole in my argument, my point isn't as strong...but I still say that when you have a large (relatively) margin of error in your first approximation, there isn't a need to calculate things down to the 3rd or 4th approximation.

Next time I'll use a calculator, or look at my figures for a second to see if they make sense... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif

Spinnetti
11-30-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by pgipson:
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)

Since its already faster than the Corolla GT-S and MR2, it sure wouldn't be reasonable to reclass that without reclassing a whole bunch of other cars first - OR do you mean move to IT-S?

dickita15
12-01-2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Since its already faster than the Corolla GT-S and MR2, it sure wouldn't be reasonable to reclass that without reclassing a whole bunch of other cars first - OR do you mean move to IT-S?

I think that most avocates of moving the 7 down to B agree that there are other cars that should go as well. the rx7 is being talked about as there are plenty of well developed examples and lots of cars.
this of course is a double edged sword. a move would bring a large number of cars in to B that seems to need the help but a mistake with this many cars would be a big mistake. I certainly understand the ITAC being carefull even thought the hard data supports the move.
the one thing that need to be done with the toyotas is to confirm what the potential for the cars are. proof of what a well developed car in the hands of a good driver can do. in my area there are say 10 rx'7s one mr2 and no corollas.
find a couple of well done cars and make the request. you have my support.
dick patullo
ITA rx7
ner scca

Ron
12-01-2004, 02:17 PM
From an ITB guy moving the RX-7 down to B you better add a bunch of weight. A quick peek at the ARRC information shows that the top 3 RX-7's were at least a second a lap faster.

Ron
Fairly Fast Ford Mustang ITB

snk328is
12-01-2004, 03:25 PM
Hello, I'm an IT newb so please be gentle... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I just got my novice permit and will attend my first race school this weekend. My car is a *gasp* ITS E36 325is. (Don't let my username fool you, the 328 is my daily driver.)

Anyway, my main concern is that if the restrictor plates lean out the engine beyond what the stock engine software is capable of handling, won't I be doing damage to the engine?

As a newbie, I've already made a significant investment and the prospect of having to get a custom tune on a dyno ($$$) is worrisome to say the least.

I know I'm making an assumption here, (we all know to "assume" is to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"), but if indeed we need to custom tune our ECU's to accomodate for the lack of air, then the introductory cost of racing an E36 in ITS has jumped by close to $1,000. Not a lot of dough considering what you spend in the grand scheme of things, but that could've been $1,000 spent on an extra set of tires and rims, or better yet, a better cage.

If indeed the engine can adapt to the lack of air, then I guess my point is moot, and I'd be a happy camper and spend the money on tires or better cage. But the prospect of a custom tune is still scary to me.

Any thoughts on this?

[Narrative ON]
I chose the E36 325 explicitly because I wanted to be able to race in both BMW Club Racing and SCCA ITS.

In this area, we only have 3 BMW club races per year within a few hours' drive, so the fact that I could race in both sanctioning bodies was VERY appealing. Not to mention that I could also auto-x my race car (oh the horror! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif) with my local BMW club every month, just for grins and to keep my reflexes sharp.

It was also appealing that the ITS prepped 325 was competitive in BMW club racing. The jury is still out whether this new plate will hurt the car in BMW club competition, but it can't help.

I do realize that I am writing all this in the company of folks that really don't care how any given car does in other sanctioning bodies' club race series. Nevertheless, I wanted to give you the perspective of a newcomer to the game and why I made the choice to race the 325.

Assuming (there goes that word again) that the restrictor plate does hurt the car in BMW club racing, I'm a little disappointed.

[Narrative OFF]

Thanks for listening!

Nobu
Soon to be E36 ITS 325is driver

Ron Earp
12-01-2004, 04:03 PM
The plate will not over-ride what the stock BMW system is able to compensate for, no doubt. You've got a good MAF system that will compensate for the reduced flow. I suppose you already know to run with the big boys a Motec is used many times, which is much more than a custom "tune". A stock Shark (insert favorite BMW chips here) canned ECU program isn't going to cut it. Dynoing tuning I would think would be a norm around here, at least it is with the drag racing crowd and is certainly helpful.

And, I don't understand your comments along with one other's, that the restrictor plate will hurt them in BMW club racing. I am going to go out on a limb here and open myself for ridicule, but I've owned an E36 and if you can't put remove and install a restrictor plate in 10-15 minutes on an E36 inline six then I'm not sure you're ready to deal with the mechnical issues you'll encounter racing - unless you always use the Check Wrench. It is not permanent and you can remove it for BMW racing, put it on for ITS racing. So how can it hurt you in club racing if it is not there?

------------------
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 December 01, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 01, 2004).]

Quickshoe
12-01-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
...the restrictor plate will hurt them in BMW club racing. I am going to go out on a limb here and open myself for ridicule, but I've owned an E36 and if you can't put remove and install a restrictor plate in 10-15 minutes on an E36 inline six then I'm not sure you're ready to deal with the mechnical issues you'll encounter racing - unless you always use the Check Wrench. It is not permanent and you can remove it for BMW racing, put it on for ITS racing. So how can it hurt you in club racing if it is not there?

Ron,

They can't remove it for BMW club racing and keep the car otherwise ITS legal.

The BMWCCA JP rules have some allowances that are more liberal than ITS rules, and some that are more strict. The BMWCCA JP entrants don't get to choose the best of both rule sets. The car either has to be ITS legal or BMWCCA legal...not a combination of both.

Geo
12-01-2004, 04:57 PM
One of the Bimmerforums self-made gurus planted the fear of the plate in Nobu.

You can't remap in SS, right? So, if they could run the plates in SS, I would think he should be fine.


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

Greg Amy
12-01-2004, 05:03 PM
Ron, what I think these guys are getting bent out of shape over, but which no one to date has adequately explained in this thread, is the following verbiage from the BMWCCA rules:

"Vehicles competing in SCCA classes Improved Touring, Touring 1, Touring 2 and Showroom Stock will participate in BMW CCA Club Racing adhering to either BMW CCA class rules or SCCA class rules, but not a combination of both."

Cars prepped to IT rules run in the Prepared class, which is similar to IT rules but allows cams, injectors, remote reservoir shocks, alternate master cylinders, 4-piston calipers, alternate brake rotors, lightened flywheel, spoilers and wings.

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/2004%20Ser...al_20041020.pdf (http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/2004%20Series/Rules/2005_rules_final_20041020.pdf)

Basically, what they're saying is that this change within IT will affect them for BMWCCA racing as well. To which, of course, I reply, "sorry!"

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

robits325is
12-01-2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

At Lime Rock and NHIS an ITS/JP 325 won each JP race - largest class in the field - at least 10 other competitors.

snk328is
12-01-2004, 06:52 PM
I thought the post below by Mlytle adequately explained the reason why the restrictor plate could not be removed.

Thus, I did not mention it in my post. (I was going to, but I didn't want to get flamed for being redundant. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif)

In any case, yeah, I agree. It's too bad, tough luck for us.

What I'm really hoping is that I can overcome this obstacle with my amazing driving! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif (Tongue fully in cheek.)


Originally posted by mlytle:
why? because of the the intricacies of bmw club rules. you can run either to the letter of scca its rule or the letter of the bmw prepared rules. either or, can't mix. if you prep your car to its rules, you have to leave the restrictor in, and may have things like brake valves and spherical bearings in your suspension. in bmw prep rules, you can't have those things, but can run hot cams and big brakes.
simply pulling the restrictor plate is not an option. end result...no more ability to have decent racing in both groups with same car. gotta choose.

Quickshoe
12-01-2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
...but which no one to date has adequately explained in this thread, is the following verbiage from the BMWCCA rules:

...BMW CCA class rules or SCCA class rules, but not a combination of both."

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

Hey, I resemble that remark! I thought it was made clear in more than one post, not an exact quote, but none the less a point made more than once.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the rules in JP, but I did browse the same link (you are now pointing to) the other day. A few things that might be a big equalizer--no aftermarket ECU's, no port matching, and no .5 point compression bump allowed unless the allowed .040" over combined with a stock head just happens to give you that .5 bump.

Quickshoe
12-01-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
...this change within IT will affect them for BMWCCA racing as well. To which, of course, I reply, "sorry!"

What if the rules were so different between NASA and SCCA Spec Miata classes the builders/drivers had to choose between one series or the other? Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?

Granted, I know that the BMW situation is very different. The interest of all ITS entrants is more important than a few BMW entrants.

If I was an E36 ITS racer I would now be faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other. I'm not into sinking that kind of effort into a car to race for second. In this case, the SCCA ITS would be the easier, less costly transition, and I will probably continue to be competitive. However, if it proves to be too large of a burden to overcome, then I go JP or sell the car to someone content with second being the best possible result.

Note: The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver? The ECU, port matching and .5 pt compression boost must really make the ITS cars a little stronger under the hood to overcome the brakes, downforce and weight.

lateapex911
12-01-2004, 08:05 PM
Ahhhh HA! NOW I get it...thanks Greg..

So ITS spec cars race against cars with bigger rotors, 4 piston calipers, bigger injectors, bigger cams and wings???

Sorry, but no ITS car should stand a chance against cars that are prepped to the max of the BMW rules and driven well! Those items are HUGE!

Sorry, but this "Now I can't compete in BMWCCA racing" is looking like a red herring to me...the cars never had a real chance anyway!

(and if they DID do well, as I am sure they did from time to time, it wasn't due to the equality between cars at full prep....)

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

lateapex911
12-01-2004, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Ron:
From an ITB guy moving the RX-7 down to B you better add a bunch of weight. A quick peek at the ARRC information shows that the top 3 RX-7's were at least a second a lap faster.

Ron
Fairly Fast Ford Mustang ITB


Ron, look into the Mazda section for lots of discussion regarding this move.

Also, keep in mind that a second over 1.75 minute lap time is fairly small. (Under 1%)

And...the rim size will be reduced by about 13%. A lot of weight? Probably not needed. Some weight, sure.



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

Greg Amy
12-01-2004, 08:21 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">At Lime Rock and NHIS an ITS/JP 325 won each JP race...</font>

Indicating to me that the preparers of JP cars aren't as serious as the ITS boys. C'mon, Robbie, which would you rather have: Motec, 1/2 point compression, and port matching; or camshafts, injectors, big 4-piston brakes, big rotors, master cylinder, spoilers and wings, and remote reservoir shocks? If I gave you the option of competing in ITS with a JP car, which would *you* choose? I think the latter is the obvious choice.

If you disagree, then you must agree that it indicates the ITS E36s were unintended overdogs for *that* class as well. One or the other...

I sincerely doubt you're going to get too many BMWCCA folks crying over this, either.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?</font>

"Would" or "should"? SCCA has *never* shown any concern in that regard, it's usually the other way around. That's why these other clubs always accept the rules of the 800-pound gorilla into their midst.

A little competition is healthy, but given that the BMWCCA focuses on one marque, then the SCCA has absolutely no concern or interest about what they do.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other.</font>

That's silly, at least in the context you present it; they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS. However, I sincerely doubt the BMWCCA intended the car to be competitive in JP, it was simply offering a place for the ITS boys to play; if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)

Note that the E36's legality for BMWCCA JP has not been compromised one whit; the car will still be legal for BMWCCA competition. Further, its position of competitiveness has not yet even been tested. If it's truly the dominant car that Robbie indicates then it probably needed a bit of a competition adjustment anyway, just as it did in SCCA.

So, why in the hell are folks already starting to slit their wrists in angst? Do you think the temper tantrums and threats of leaving are going to get anyone to change their mind?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?</font>

Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41). Even they indicate the factory weight on the car is almost 3100 pounds.

Bottom line: what happens in BMWCCA competition is interesting and intriguing, but has absolutely no bearing on what SCCA should or should not do. Feel fortunate, not entitled, that you have multiple choices of clubs and venues for competition.

GregA


[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 01, 2004).]

ddewhurst
12-01-2004, 09:01 PM
***And...the rim size will be reduced by about 13%.***

Jake, two questions.

1st. Who says the wheel size will be changed ?

2nd. In what year will the wheel size be changed ?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Knestis
12-01-2004, 09:22 PM
Why WOULDN'T the wheel size be changed if the RX7 were moved to B??

While I don't know enough about it to really have an informed opinion of whether it should happen, I am having a difficult time believing that if the 7 DOES get moved to ITB, that it would take its 7" wheels with it.

The suggestion in that other strand that it would be appropriate to ask "to use 7" wheels so we did not have to go buy new wheels" struck me as particularly wacky anti-logic.

K

lateapex911
12-01-2004, 09:57 PM
In another thread I offered to run around Lime Rock in nothing but my checkered flag if the RX-7 was left in A with a "street port"...and I am sure I will be accompanied by pigs flying, and the sound of hell freezing over. Just after that occurs, the RX-7 will be moved to ITB, on 7" rims!

So, in plain terms...ITB runs on 6" rims...duh.

IF the RX-7 gets moved to B, there is NO way it will go on 7"ers. No way. Fairs fair. (if it were to be moved into B on 7"ers, I doubt I would dare show my face !)

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

mlytle
12-01-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Indicating to me that the preparers of JP cars aren't as serious as the ITS boys. C'mon, Robbie, which would you rather have: Motec, 1/2 point compression, and port matching; or camshafts, injectors, big 4-piston brakes, big rotors, master cylinder, spoilers and wings, and remote reservoir shocks? If I gave you the option of competing in ITS with a JP car, which would *you* choose? I think the latter is the obvious choice.

If you disagree, then you must agree that it indicates the ITS E36s were unintended overdogs for *that* class as well. One or the other...

I sincerely doubt you're going to get too many BMWCCA folks crying over this, either.


Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?

\"Would\" or \"should\"? SCCA has *never* shown any concern in that regard, it's usually the other way around. That's why these other clubs always accept the rules of the 800-pound gorilla into their midst.

A little competition is healthy, but given that the BMWCCA focuses on one marque, then the SCCA has absolutely no concern or interest about what they do.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other.</font>

That's silly, at least in the context you present it; they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS. However, I sincerely doubt the BMWCCA intended the car to be competitive in JP, it was simply offering a place for the ITS boys to play; if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)

Note that the E36's legality for BMWCCA JP has not been compromised one whit; the car will still be legal for BMWCCA competition. Further, its position of competitiveness has not yet even been tested. If it's truly the dominant car that Robbie indicates then it probably needed a bit of a competition adjustment anyway, just as it did in SCCA.

So, why in the hell are folks already starting to slit their wrists in angst? Do you think the temper tantrums and threats of leaving are going to get anyone to change their mind?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?</font>

Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41). Even they indicate the factory weight on the car is almost 3100 pounds.

Bottom line: what happens in BMWCCA competition is interesting and intriguing, but has absolutely no bearing on what SCCA should or should not do. Feel fortunate, not entitled, that you have multiple choices of clubs and venues for competition.

GregA


[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 01, 2004).]

i, like others, chose to prep to ITS rule so that i could be competitive in both series. yes, the ITS trim on paper is an underdog in BMW JP racing. In actual practice, an ITS car with a good SCCA driver can be competitive with a JP car. definitely down about 25hp, but still in the game. with any additional loss in hp (read restrictor plate) the ITS deficit will be very hard to overcome.

saying racing in other venues has no bearing scca decisions is sticking one's head in the sand. all these organizations are competing for a limited racing audience. changes which affect a car in another venue will change the bottom participation line. there are a bunch of ITS BMW's that run both groups. there are people like snk328 and my self that chose ITS prep so we can run in multiple arenas. changes like this can and will affect those participation decisions.

issues like this, and the perceived loss of cars because of not wanting to race against the big bad e36s, all must be part of decisions on car classification and rule changes. scca ain't the only game in town. it may have been the 800lb gorilla in the past, but it is probably only a 400lb gorilla today.

m

lateapex911
12-01-2004, 10:15 PM
So I guess the question is...how many E36s will choose to go race in ONLY BMWCCA racing without the restrictor?

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the BMWCCA rule set, in that it insists that ITS cars, which are grossly underprepared compared to the other cars in the class, run in exactly ITS condition. As the SCCA had the issue with an obvious overdog hurting the class structure, it had to do what it had to do. Why doesn't BMWCCA add a line stating that the cars need not compete in exact ITS form..the plate may be ommited. No harm could come....the cars are huge underdogs even without the restrictor.

Would these E36 drivers have preffered weight instead of a restrictor??

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

Quickshoe
12-01-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS.

based on your edit comments, it seems you understand where I was coming from.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)</font>

Not so black and white. If the tracks that you raced were HP tracks, the ITS spec car has the advantage there. Why would you build a JP spec car unless you liked the bling factor of wings and and big rotors (again emphasis on hp tracks where the additional aero drag-downforce and bigger brake package actually had very little postitive affect on your lap times.
If we were talking about a handling track or really long races where brake package and aero downforce might be more good than bad, it might be another story. Don't discount peoples' love for big wings and 4 piston calipers, they might go JP just because they love the look.

From an earlier post I wrote "The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?"

Greg wrote :Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41).

I looked up the weight specs in the glossary. Page 38 shows the JP weights to be initially calculated at a minimum of 14.0#'s per stock HP (2646#) It would appear that the spec on page 41 would supercede what I found (which appears to be a guidline on establishing initial weights).

Lastly, I cited the weight spec with the intent of presenting both sides, not ommiting details that would support only one side of the ITS vs. JP debate. I am not biased in this. I don't have an ITS or JP car.


[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 01, 2004).]

wburstein
12-02-2004, 12:03 AM
I am really trying to understand this concern about restrictor plates affecting BMWCCA racing.

First of all, it appears that it should only take a few minutes to add or remove the restrictor plate. I KNOW that mlyttle can do this and suspect that even the folks that have a shop prep their cars can remove four bolts?, take out the plate, and bolt it back together again.

Since there seems to still be a big deal about this, is there some associated tuning that is also affected? I thought with a MAF system, this would not be so. Perhaps it becomes an issue when a Motec is involved?

Please help me to understand the real issue here.

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net (http://www.mountainmotorsports.net)

[This message has been edited by wburstein (edited December 01, 2004).]

Quickshoe
12-02-2004, 12:33 AM
GregAmy,

I guess it still isn't clear...anyone else want to give it a shot?



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 01, 2004).]

mlytle
12-02-2004, 12:46 AM
hi wayne!
you can race an e36 in bmwcca in jp class in two configurations, its or jp. you have to follow the rules of one or the other. you cannot mix. (bmwcca prepared class rules evidentally started out originally as improved touring spec, but there has been significant rules creep over the years.) if you race as an its car, you have to meet all the its rules, including the restrictor. if you take the restrictor out, you are illegal as an its car. if you have used spherical bearings in your its suspension, you are illegal as a jp car. end result, you can't race an its spec car without a restrictor. with a restrictor, you have no chance against a jp car. (assuming, of course, that the restrictor reduces hp by some mystical amount enough to stop e36's from being the "overdog" in its.)

yes, i could take a restrictor out in a few minutes, but then i couldn't race legally in either group...

disclaimer - this issue is irrelevant whining and not pertinent to the narrow scca only view of the world held by an apparently large percentage of the topic contributors....those persons may disregard and do not need to reply. :-) )

was there anything else of interest in the jan fastrack?

marshall

wburstein
12-02-2004, 12:55 AM
Marshall,

Thanks for clarifying that -- it must be past my bedtime...

I guess one option that might make sense is if the BMWCCA ammended their rules to allow the E36 to run in ITS trim without the restrictor plate. They would still be down on horsepower compared to the JP prepped cars, but it would bring BMWCCA racing back to the present scenario that appears to be working. Not having raced in that venue, I am not aware of how difficult it would be to make such a rule change.

From the BMW tuners I have been talking to, the jury is still out whether the restrictor plate will bring the E36's acceleration down to the same level as the other cars in the class. I have not found anyone that has done any dyno testing yet...

I think that 2005 will be an interesting year for ITS!

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net

seckerich
12-02-2004, 12:59 AM
BMWCCA is very similar to SCCA when it states that other preperation levels are allowed with no cross preperation. SCCA allows IT cars to compete in autocrosses in their street prepared classes is COMPLETE IT TRIM--PERIOD. You may not pick and choose from the two sets of rules to get the best of both. The best bet for you BMW guys is to petition BMWCCA to allow you to compete without the restrictor as you will be racing with cars that have a proven comperable performance as proved in the past. In that series you compete against cars with a higher level of prep--this is not true in SCCA.

Knestis
12-02-2004, 01:50 AM
While I'm sympathetic to those who've made their car choices and are retroactively diddled on the BMWCCA front, there are simply too many considerations WITHIN SCCA club racing, to put another club's issues into the mix for determining IT car specs.

Now, if the issue is whether SCCA recognizes that they run the risk of losing participants to other clubs? That's a strategic question that has to get shaken out in policy LONG before anyone sits down to decide what a specific car should weigh.

Whatever, this is a non-issue as far as the official ITAC/CRB PCA process is concerned - and appropriately so, I think.

K

lateapex911
12-02-2004, 02:20 AM
What about the flipside? Knowing that the E36 is being brought back to the fold, will other non E-36 drivers who are either hibernating, or standing by waiting, be inspired to jump in and run other cars?

Will the net net on this deal be a more balanced class AND greater (not less) subscription?

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

JeffYoung
12-02-2004, 08:33 AM
I had a friend run the restrictor size by an engineer who ran some calculations. The conclusion was that the BMW would still flow 1000 cfm+ with the restrictor and that there would not be a significant impact on power.

Not saying this is gospel, just offering someone else's opinion based on some calculations they did.

Ron Earp
12-02-2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
I had a friend run the restrictor size by an engineer who ran some calculations. The conclusion was that the BMW would still flow 1000 cfm+ with the restrictor and that there would not be a significant impact on power.

Not saying this is gospel, just offering someone else's opinion based on some calculations they did.

This is true, that is, the hole can pass that much air - that is the maximum amount of air that will pass through a hole that size. But, Adam needs a lot of other things to flesh the calculation out as to how much air a motor can pull through the hole - cam specs, plenium size, and lots of other specs about the motor. The URL that Adam posted on is here, for interested parties, but please bear in mind that Adam indicates a lot more would be required to really know anything about how much hp the hole will support.

http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.p.../0/page/0#47668 (http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/47668/an/0/page/0#47668)

Ron



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