E-36 Restrictor Plate/Andy Bettencourt [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

jwsbmw325

12-06-2004, 04:27 PM

ANdy - I have heard for a while that for some reason you were on the warpath against us BMW's. THis makes little sense to me since you opted out of ITS to run your little Spex Maita. Maybe if Hendo or Rob or I had punted you at Limerock or NHIS, totaled your car, etc, I could understand.
But I dont get it? What do you give a sh*t about what the guys do at Roebling or Atlanta? Our AutoTechnic cars are all legal. Fast, yes, exspensive, yes, but illegal? No. Face facts ANdy, times change, cars change, technology changes. The BMW 2002tii used to be THE car for ITA. But it eventually lost ground to newer cars like the Hondas. I bet Anthony Serra's car was illegal too tight? He beat the SH*T OUT OF EVERYONE IN ITA, so it must have been. I mean, he ran 1:02's at Limerock. 5 years ago a good ITA time was 1:03-1:04. Why are these Hondas, liek Anthony's so fast now?? Why? 1) Driver skill, 2) Car development.

But I see you have led thaecharge and now you have helped spoil racing for all of us who chose, or could afford to choose, racing an E-36 BMW. Is that what you are upset about? WHy didnt you rail again Kip - he appears to race IT for a living, and seems to have a LOT of $$ to throw at plastic/lexan/fake wood trophies, but it never bothered you when none of the BMW's coul;d beat him. But now your beolved rotary powered cars (who's technology by the way is about 5-6 years senior to the E-36's) are getting beat, and you cant seem to handle it.
As for all your facts and figures, I'd really, really like to hear your real reason behind this - since this decision will clearly affect ITS next year. I have even heard Nick may sit out the season because he'll have no competition unless Kip builds his 944. Here's what I (and I'm sure the rest of the E-36 world) want answers on...

1) Why does the natural performance potential of the E-36 bother you so much?

2) WHy do you think the cars are SO dominant in the Northeast, when Nick and Kip ran faster laps than almost all of the E-36's on a consistent basis?

3) Kip and Nick drove 1:00 laps at LRP. Rob and Jeff got close but I dont recall them running that fast. The best I managed was a 1.01.7 or something. Nick and/or other Mazda RX-7's have the track records at LRP, NHIS, and Watkins Glen (long course)...HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THAT THE BMW E-36 is such a dominant car?

4) ITS was a little more of a 3 BMWs vs 1 RX-7 show this year due to the fact that Kip had chosen to do other things this season. The BMW's could barely catch Kip in '03 and we had trouble catching Nick in '04. Yeah they are both fast, but so is Rob, so is Jeff and so am I. None of us ever walked away from a race and never looked back. Explain why we need plates to slow us down?

5) IF you arent driving in ITS, WHY have you made this your sole mission in life?

6) What do you do for a living other than spend time like a geeky hall monitor on this web board? Perhaps if you applied yourself to your method of gainful employment with the same passion you apply here, you would yourself be able to afford an E-36 with Motec. The fact is you would probably still run mid-pack. My sense is that guys who like to cry and whine about what otehrs are doing dont have potential to win races.
So Andy, let me just say that the next time I run into you, I hope I'm driving (my E-36 HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!)

dickita15

12-06-2004, 04:57 PM

one of the things i like about this internet board is we usually don't get many jerks like this particualy unsigned
dick patullo

jwsbmw325

12-06-2004, 05:25 PM

Why Dick, that added a lot to the discussion. Any opinion on ITS from the Formula Atlantic drivers?? Let's canvass all the HP guys too...but one of my points is that it seems a little strange for a guy who isn't racing in our class to have spent so much time and energy against one particular make, especially one that has had mixed success agains the mazda RX-7 in the Northeast. If that doesnt seem a bit out of line to you, then perhaps you have your helmet on backwards....

Greg Amy

12-06-2004, 05:34 PM

Our AutoTechnic cars are all legal...

http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11
(http://web.archive.org/web/20070202082724/http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11)

http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/c...ck_welded_1_006 (http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11/AFTER_lower_sub_ck_welded_1_006)
(http://web.archive.org/web/20070202083020/http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11/AFTER_lower_sub_ck_welded_1_006)

http://www.autotechnicracing.com/cars.php
(http://web.archive.org/web/20060622233431/http://www.autotechnicracing.com/cars.php)

trd77

12-06-2004, 05:36 PM

sounds like the original poster is doing all of the crying. I think he has a problem with competition adjustments when it effects him. I think it is important that there are adjustments every few to insure a competitive environment, and I do run in ITS and for the most part on the podium. So I am not a back marker looking for help as the origanil poster believes are they only ones pushing for competitve balance

JeffYoung

12-06-2004, 05:51 PM

What class does he run in? ITButthead?

erlrich

12-06-2004, 05:55 PM

Gee, when I first read this I thought it was a joke...

on second thought, I guess I'll stick with my first thought.

Earl

jwsbmw325

12-06-2004, 05:56 PM

TRD - dont think I know you, but maybe I do. I do know Andy and this whole thing agianst the E-36 strikes me as really weird. Like I said, the E-36 doesn NOT appear to dominate in the Northeast. As for me, back-marker, no I'm not. I had one win and a few podiums last year, and the same the year before. Whining, no I'm not. But it will force us to spend more time in the shop on development and as you know that means more $$ into the car, and no, I'm not happy about it. As another matter of fact, the RX-7s, especially Nick L (who I know, race against, and I consider a friend) would have had a better record were it not for some unfortunate mishaps that cost him a few races. The E-36's dominance (in NARRC) this year was actually a little affected by bad luck. So it is what it is guys, we'll try to appeal it, and time will tell....

Tom Donnelly

12-06-2004, 06:21 PM

If you look close, it appears that Andy was on the grassy knoll as well. Whether or not he knew Oswald is a matter for conjecture.

http://www.willamette.edu/cla/rhetoric/courses/argumentation/JFK/grassy_knoll2.jpg

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited December 06, 2004).]

JohnRW

12-06-2004, 07:00 PM

Banzai240

12-06-2004, 07:01 PM

OK Guys... I've been REALLY trying to just stay out of this, but this is TOO MUCH!

Based on REAL Dyno numbers that were sent to the CRB and the ITAC, the BMW turns out to be AT LEAST 100lbs or so UNDERWEIGHT in it's current ITS trim. This is determined by a process that involves comparing the specs of the car in question to a set of baselines, which for ITS includes the 240Z and the 2nd Gen RX-7.

The BMW was originally classified at 2950lbs in ITS, and then through the some "devine" intervention", and using the cheesy excuse about a 100lb ballast limit, the car miraculously got an addjustment under "errors and ommissions" to 2850lbs.

The numbers we were sent were for a Bimmerworld motor, but NOT an ALL OUT EFFORT Bimmerworld motor (i.e.: No Motec, and not a "to the gnats-ass" in development)... Just your good (maybe even 'very' good), "anybody with $$ could buy one" BMW motor, according the the gentlemans description of his car...

So you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair life is in IT racing and the SCCA, but the facts are pretty clear... A fully developed BMW has specifications that put in in a wt/pwr class over a full point beyond ANYTHING else in ITS. I don't give a rip about results at this track or that... or between this car or that... This doesn't mean a hill of beans unless you have the same driver driving the cars under ALL of these conditions and for every sample being compared. Sorry guys, we aren't ALL Mario or Michael, regardless of how much money we spend...

We are trying to get into the business of adjusting based on vehicle specifications and real world output values, not on whether or not someone put new tires on for a particular qualifying session...

So, for the BMW the case is simple... A LOT of research was conducted and a lot of information was gathered. The trends in the data show that the car is either misclassified, or mispec'd. It simple makes TOO much HP for the class, and doesn't give that up in any other area.

The ITAC recommended a weight adjustment, the CRB opted to go with a restrictor. Either way, the BMW drivers weren't going to be happy, but you can't keep everyone happy.

I have my doubts that a 56mm restrictor is going to have any effect on these cars, since I don't believe that the Throttle-body is the restriction point for this intake system. Time will tell...

In the meantime, put the damn plate on and go race with the rest of the group. If you want to compete with just other BMWs, then there is always BMWCCA...

Our goal is to try to get more than one car capable of winning a particular class, and this is just one in hopefully many steps that we have taken to try to do this. Wow, what a concept... now you can buy a BMW, Acura, RX-7, 240Z, or TR-8 ( http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) and have a shot at an ITS title... Yah, sounds shitty to me! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

planet6racing

12-06-2004, 07:10 PM

Joe Harlan

12-06-2004, 08:04 PM

As for the $25, I'll spring for it in a second!

I am in.....I tried hard to find this allowance in the ITCS....Did I miss something?

gran racing

12-06-2004, 08:10 PM

Just curious, why are you calling Andy out specifically here? Maybe I don't know something that others do here? Shouldn't you at least direct your complaints to both boards that are responsible for this? Or if it was specifically because of Andy's crusade as you call it, why not just contact him directly? He seems like the type of guy that would be willing to at least hear you out. Not that it really matters, but what is your name?

I can understand you being upset with the plate, but a post like that doesn't do much for your cause. Your # 6 - WTF? Essentially what you are saying is that someone who enjoys talking about racing on this board has no life? Sorry, but my wife doesn't exactly care to hear much about my racing. Ah, forget it. This just isn't worth it.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

Bill Miller

12-06-2004, 08:41 PM

John (I assume JWS is John Stewart)

Let's canvass all the HP guys too

Since you asked! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Being a tad melodramatic aren't you? "Spoil" racing for the E36 folks? PLEASE!

Your #6 point just shows how much of a jackass crybaby you are. The 'run into you' comment just reinforces it.

You guys (E36's) got off easy w/ just the restrictor, IMHO. As I've stated before, those cars really don't belong in IT, as they sure don't fit the PP&I of the category.

As far as those subframes, I'm in on that one too. And I guess I missed it when the E36 ITS cars were allowed to run 8" wide wheels.

Oh, and in case you didn't see this in the ITCS.

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the compeitiveness of any car...

Darin's right (ok, nobody have a heart attack), car specs should be set based on how they stack up w/ the performance envelope of the class. Track results shouldn't mean squat!! They may however, provide the impetus to re-evaluate a car's specs, to see if they are consistent w/ the class performance envelope.

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

Knestis

12-06-2004, 09:05 PM

The teacher in me wants to say something like, "Next year, whey you're in the 7th grade, they are going to expect you to behave much more maturely."

Seriously - IF Andy has been vocal about getting the e36 reined in, it is BETTER that he is not running in ITS. There's no conflict of interest involved, which is a good thing. Now on the other hand, we can hardly expect jwsbmw325 to be impartial, can we?

K

PS - that subframe pic is hysterical!

mlytle

12-06-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the compeitiveness of any car...

[/b]

come on now bill,
if that line were true we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would not be a restrictor plate to deal with......

marshall

Bill Miller

12-06-2004, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by mlytle:
come on now bill,
if that line were true we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would not be a restrictor plate to deal with......

marshall

Why's that Marshall? If there's a defined performance envelope for the class, and a car is outside that envelope, and can't be moved up (or down), why wouldn't weight/restrictor be applied to bring it back w/in the envelope? Really has nothing to do w/ competitiveness, but has everything to do w/ fitting the envelope of the class.

BTW, I hope someone saved copies of those pics. I wouldn't be surprised to see them taken down.

But, if you really want to take it to the extreme, why do we have more than one class?

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

trd77

12-06-2004, 10:17 PM

I agee with Bill Miller. The line "enterants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" should be applied to a car not the class. The board will not make adjustment to a particular car or model to make it more competitve. They will simply offer a place or class to run in. However, it should be the direction of the board to make sure that the class should be as level as possible and not have a car that exceeds the parameters of the class. The board should have the responsiblity to its members to evaluate cars in a given class to ensure to level competitive field.

mlytle

12-06-2004, 11:45 PM

the line doesn't say anything about classes or envelopes. it says there is no guarantee your car will be competitive. if you bring a car to play and it gets trounced, oh well.

lateapex911

12-07-2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by mlytle:
the line doesn't say anything about classes or envelopes. it says there is no guarantee your car will be competitive. if you bring a car to play and it gets trounced, oh well.

What if you HAVE a car, you DID your homework, you developed the HECK out of it, and the board adds a car to the class that is clearly an overdog? Is that FAIR?

And the denial of the car being an overdog has already been shot down by ...none other than the E36 drivers themselves, with lines like jwsbmw325's "But it will force us to spend more time in the shop on development and as you know that means more $$ into the car, and no, I'm not happy about it."

So, a complaint that the change will force owners to develop the car to its full potential? Awwww, hand me a violin! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

lateapex911

12-07-2004, 12:30 AM

Ok, is this a joke? Can anyone be so.....errr...ahhhh.... well, words (nice ones) fail me...let me make a few points...

Originally posted by jwsbmw325:
ANdy - I have heard for a while that for some reason you were on the warpath against us BMW's. THis makes little sense to me since you opted out of ITS to run your little Spex Maita. Maybe if Hendo or Rob or I had punted you at Limerock or NHIS, totaled your car, etc, I could understand.

Dude...., first sign your friggen name. Slandering a guy is kinda sleazy, at least have the b@#ls to back it up with a name. Is that the way you work? Motives are only Ok if they're personal? Is it POSSIBLE Andy has a big picture view? That he (and the entire ITAC, BTW) think there was a real problem in ITS?

But I dont get it? What do you give a sh*t about what the guys do at Roebling or Atlanta?

Because the world is bigger than your NE area?

 Our AutoTechnic cars are all legal. Fast, yes, exspensive, yes, but illegal? No. 
Well, I have known that your cars are NOT legal, as evidenced by the illegal modifications to the subframe pictured on your website. And I assure you, I was not alone in that knowledge. You should be very aware that when things like this are found, lots of folks will wonder, "Hmmm what ELSE is fishy here?" Nuff said on that one...

 Face facts ANdy, times change, cars change, technology changes. The BMW 2002tii used to be THE car for ITA. ....(Serra) beat the SH*T OUT OF EVERYONE IN ITA, so it must have been.(illegal) I mean, he ran 1:02's at Limerock. 5 years ago a good ITA time was 1:03-1:04. Why are these Hondas, liek Anthony's so fast now?? Why? 1) Driver skill, 2) Car development. 

Wrong again. he ran a 1:01.6. Actually, the CRB made a mistake with the CRX, it proved too fast for the class, and the solution was to add equivilent cars to the class. So the huge drop in times isn't only the result of superior development and driving, it is the result of classing mistakes. JUST like the E36 was PCAs didn't exist back then.

But I see you have led thaecharge and now you have helped spoil racing for all of us who chose, or could afford to choose, racing an E-36 BMW.

Huh??? So, having a car that is even up is "ruining racing"??? A little spoiled are you??

..... But now your beolved rotary powered cars (who's technology by the way is about 5-6 years senior to the E-36's) are getting beat, and you cant seem to handle it.

News flash dude...you forgot he races in "Spex Miata" ...except if you were REALLY paying attention, you'd see he's talking about ITA...he doesn't even OWN a rotary!

(And an aside: your comments regarding "old technology" are disturbing...Do you think old cars have no right to be competitive against newer more expensive cars? It seems so, and your bragging about being able to afford the E36 is very distasteful, and brands you as an elitist...not sure we need that in "club" racing...)

6) What do you do for a living other than spend time like a geeky hall monitor on this web board? Perhaps if you applied yourself to your method of gainful employment with the same passion you apply here, you would yourself be able to afford an E-36 with Motec. The fact is you would probably still run mid-pack. My sense is that guys who like to cry and whine about what otehrs are doing dont have potential to win races.
So Andy, let me just say that the next time I run into you, I hope I'm driving (my E-36 HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!)

Nice! Check the results smartypants...I think Andy won the first time he drove his ITS 7,....not exactly "midpack".

And nice threat of violence.

As for me, I'm glad I don't run in ITS with characterless types like this....

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 06, 2004).]

Quickshoe

12-07-2004, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
What if you HAVE a car, you DID your homework, you developed the HECK out of it, and the board adds a car to the class that is clearly an overdog? Is that FAIR?

Well, hopefully that doesn't happen too often. If I have had car "A" for a few years (probably so if I've developed the heck out of it) then I keep an eye on the new "overdog" with the intention on building one after the guinea pigs have done most of the development and it becomes a must have car to win. IF that happens every five years or so, I am okay with it. YMMV.

This is one reason that part of my homework includes researching where most of the new classifications end up and deciding if I can afford to play there.

And the denial of the car being an overdog has already been shot down by ...none other than the E36 drivers themselves, with lines like jwsbmw325's \"But it will force us to spend more time in the shop on development and as you know that means more $$ into the car, and no, I'm not happy about it.\" 

I'm not so certain that the statement supports the overdog theory. If your RX7 was fully developed and they moved it to B on 6" wheels and put 100# on it, wouldn't you have more development work to do?

lateapex911

12-07-2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:

Originally posted by lateapex911:
What if you HAVE a car, you DID your homework, you developed the HECK out of it, and the board adds a car to the class that is clearly an overdog? Is that FAIR?

Well, hopefully that doesn't happen too often. If I have had car \"A\" for a few years (probably so if I've developed the heck out of it) then I keep an eye on the new \"overdog\" with the intention on building one after the guinea pigs have done most of the development and it becomes a must have car to win. IF that happens every five years or so, I am okay with it. YMMV.

This is one reason that part of my homework includes researching where most of the new classifications end up and deciding if I can afford to play there.

And the denial of the car being an overdog has already been shot down by ...none other than the E36 drivers themselves, with lines like jwsbmw325's \"But it will force us to spend more time in the shop on development and as you know that means more $$ into the car, and no, I'm not happy about it.\" 

I'm not so certain that the statement supports the overdog theory. If your RX7 was fully developed and they moved it to B on 6" wheels and put 100# on it, wouldn't you have more development work to do?

___________________________________________
Good points....but in the BMWs case, I probably should have quoted the guy(s) who stated (on another thread) that they would now have to go out and get an ECU, or "build a motor"....leading me to believe that their examples were doing just fine in their eyes without developing the car to anything NEAR its full potential .

I think the RX-7 example is valid, but a bit of a greater extreme...the guys who have full blown development will have minimal changes available to them with the new plates. Its not like NASCAR...no cams, etc to play with. It IS unfortunate that they have a bit of work, but it IS better than the alternative, which is the potential "one model" class.

(I think James Clay of Bimmerword admitted on this forum, a year or more ago, that yup, the car was an overdog, and if they (SCCA) adds weight, hey, that's fine....it had it's day in the sun....)

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

lateapex911

12-07-2004, 01:11 AM

One last thought, jwsbmw325....do the AutoTecnic guys know you're shooting your mouth off? It's not making them look too good.....

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

seckerich

12-07-2004, 01:32 AM

I know of plenty of BMW's that have already done some testing with the restrictors of various sizes before the rule was published and it takes a lot more than most think to slow them down. I have not figured the percentage of restriction with the current size (don't have the stock diameter handy) but I would wait until I ran to get too worked up. As for Andy leading the charge I can promise you that Phil Clark probably quit so I would stop calling and some other comp board members as well!! All our cars will someday be replaced by faster, newer cars and we will have to replace them--just not a whole class in one screwed up classification. The BMW has battery in rear stock, very balanced, good brakes, well spaced gears in trans, good selection of rear gear ratios, slipped in 16" wheels this year for new Hoosier with very short sidewall, and TONS of torque and horsepower. Life sucks!! Welcome to 10-10ths to win instead of 9-10ths and zero to hero.

Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Southeast

RSTPerformance

12-07-2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11

http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/c...ck_welded_1_006 (http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11/AFTER_lower_sub_ck_welded_1_006)

http://www.autotechnicracing.com/cars.php

John Stewart

Born before 1970, John has been racing before the Disco craze of the 70's Proud owner of the shiniest car on the grid, John prides himself on the cleanliness of his high speed, beautifully prepared car. John resides in Westport CT and New York City.

2004 results for Car #11 pictured above driven By John Stewart

5/08 LRP 3rd
5/15 POCONO DNF
6/19 LRP 1st
8/07 LRP DNF
10/03 LRP 3rd

Stephen

Team AutoTechnic takes a 1-2 finish at Limerock Park!

John Stewart, driving the #11 AutoTechnic BMW 325is, took his first win and the team's 4th win of the season. Stewart was fast out of the gate, qualifying 2nd on the grid behind the highly competitive Flatout Motorsports Mazda RX-7 of Nick Leverone. Jeff Henderson in the #52 qualified 3rd, while Driscoll in the #25 had trouble getting in a clean lap and started from the 5th position. At the drop of the green, it appeared that Stewart and Leverone were too concerned with one another getting the jump, allowing Henderson get off to his usual flying start, leapfrogging the two to take the lead. The running order was then Henderson, Leverone, and Stewart, with Driscoll close behind. The wagon train continued for 4 laps until Stewart got a good run on Leverone going into the diving turn, pulling even with the Mazda going into the braking zone for turn one. Stewart nosed inside of Leverone's RX-7 and the two exited Big Bend door handle to door handle. The two cars touched, and Stewart's heavier BMW prevailed, with Leverone's Mazda spinning to the outside of turn 2. That left Stewart and Driscoll following Henderson, who had capitalized on Stewart's contact to stretch his lead to several seconds. From there it appeared that the race might unfold as an AutoTechnic 1-2-3 sweep. But you never know with racing, and the usually bullet-proof engine of Henderson's BMW let go on lap 7, leaving Stewart in the lead with Driscoll putting the pressure on as the two threaded their way through the slower ITB class cars.

Despite a few close calls, Stewart managed stay in front of the hard charging Driscoll, and the two ended 1st and 2nd. Ed Tisdale, in his C-Tech Motorsports BMW 325, ran a clean and conservative drive, took 3rd place making an all BMW 325 podium.

It's a great win for the Team and my first win at Limerock! It's also nice to pick up some momentum after my disastrous weekend at Pocono, where my car was way off the pace due to engine management problems. Obviously, we were able to sort them out for today. The car felt awesome right off the trailer. AutoTechnic again put an awesome car under me. Rob had made some subtle suspension set-up changes that really worked for me. I'm really happy to contribute to the team's success this year.

Team Autoechnic now stands atop the SCCA ITS NAARC Championship with 4 series wins. Come watch the streak continue as the BMW's battle again at NHIS on 7/17th and 18th. Don't miss it!!!!

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited December 07, 2004).]

JLawton

12-07-2004, 08:36 AM

A post like that not only makes all the Autotechnic guys look bad but will get even less sympathy for them to have to spend more money http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif Way too harsh........

Jeff Lawton

------------------
Jeff L
#74 ITB GTi

[This message has been edited by JLawton (edited December 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by JLawton (edited December 07, 2004).]

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 08:44 AM

Based on the previous post, and especially the pictures, am I to assume that the win captured above was done with illegal Autotechnic cars?

If indeed true this seems rather bold to be placing on the forum in the open, incriminating for drivers and Autotechnic alike, although I don't suppose Autotechnic really has anything to lose since they build the cars - the driver is responsible for legality.

Looks like to me the next time #11 or another Autotechnic car shows up at a race folks are really going to be checking out those subframe pieces and mounting points for signs of strengthening, I'm pretty sure that was specific mentioned as a "no can do" in the GCR. I did save those pictures since someone mentioned it.

------------------
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 07, 2004).]

jwsbmw325

12-07-2004, 11:32 AM

First of all let me again say that I am overwhelmed by the intensity of this issue on the boards here. Be that what it may, yes, I started something with Andy here, cause I know him. As for the "run into you" comment, it is a bit of an inside joke between us and the Flatout Boyz, about Nick pushing me up the hill at Limerock w/ him glued to my "bumpah"....And since I drive in ITS, and he in Spec Miata, that's not possible. I also noticed someone pointed out a typo, perhaps thinking there was somehting sinister in the making: I mentioned Andy's "spex" Miata. If you would all look at your keyboards, you will notice that the "c" abd te "x" are right next to one another. I do not typew for a living and when I do, the results, like my racing, are somewhat mixed....SO for all of you who are reading way too much into this, please, please calm down.
Now, as for the discussion on my sub-frame: These pictures are of a repair made to the subframe while the car was under construction. The car was purchased with over 120K miles on the chassis, the sub-frame was cracked. The repair is consistent with BMW specs laid out in the factory shop-manual, and i beleive them to be legal. The repair poieces are availble from BMW.
Someone asked why I didnt come down the the AARC race? I would have loved to. But I could not arrange the time off of work, with travel and practice days - that is almost a full week commitment. That's why.
That's it....

JohnRW

12-07-2004, 12:19 PM

Please explain the 8" wheels, and let us know if you used red paint for that bulls-eye on your back ?

jwsbmw325

12-07-2004, 12:28 PM

8" wheels? excuse me? Sure, they go great with the M-5 cross-drilled rotors....!!! Guys, guys, guys, stop it - the only wheels I own are SSR Comp 15X7.

Geo

12-07-2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by jwsbmw325:
..SO for all of you who are reading way too much into this, please, please calm down.

Actually, I think people are only reading what you wrote.

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

ITSRX7

12-07-2004, 12:34 PM

Well. Where to start?

I do know John and he is a good guy. All the Autotechnic guys are good guys.

Simple and calm response? John, your perception of my position on the E36 is very agressive and distorted. I would be happy to talk to you about it offline, anytime. Just know this, I am in the majority, you are in the minority.

As far as my driving record (I beat you at NHIS, you beat me at LRP), my financial position (I do ok) and the other personal stuff you mention, let's just say that I expected better from you.

My position on the E36 is simple and easy. The cars performance potential was underestimated from the get go and a correction is being made. I believe that 10/10th's examples of cars in each class should be in the same stratosphere...and this is a good step.

Andy

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

dj10

12-07-2004, 12:38 PM

dj10

12-07-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by jwsbmw325:
Now, as for the discussion on my sub-frame: These pictures are of a repair made to the subframe while the car was under construction. The car was purchased with over 120K miles on the chassis, the sub-frame was cracked. The repair is consistent with BMW specs laid out in the factory shop-manual, and i beleive them to be legal. The repair poieces are availble from BMW.
Someone asked why I didnt come down the the AARC race? I would have loved to. But I could not arrange the time off of work, with travel and practice days - that is almost a full week commitment. That's why.
That's it....[/B]

Sorry for 1st post must of bumped key...hehe.

As to his post on the subframe repair, he is correct, these are BMW parts and this is the appropriate repair to these cars. My question is are the brackets you welded to the sway bar brackets also a BMW Repair? What about the short shifters & 8" wheels?
I just saw the #25 BMW ITS.
DJ

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 01:35 PM

Maybe the repairs are correct, but, I suppose the question would be how many E36 ITS cars have these "repairs". If #11 is the only car then fine. But if many cars have identical repairs then you know something is fishy. I would think it easier and quicker to pull pieces from cars in yards instead of making repairs, there are plently of E36s around.

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

gran racing

12-07-2004, 02:03 PM

Oh, you know Andy. I guess we should be glad we don't know you as well.

If you know him, then keep this garbage off line. Otherwise consider writing your complaint in a more professional manner (or should I just say like an adult would). Just out of curiosity, was all of this what you hoped for when writing that silly post? Or did you not put any thought into any of this at all?

What bothers me the most about this junk is that we have many novices reading these forums. This is not the impression we want them to get about this forum and club racing in general.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited December 07, 2004).]

jwsbmw325

12-07-2004, 03:03 PM

Dave - that is about the only thing i have read so far that makes any sense!

JeffYoung

12-07-2004, 03:04 PM

That "repair" raises an interesting issue. Rear subframe failures are a known issue on E36s. BMW has, if I recall correctly, authorized the above strengthening, etc. as a repair of a known "stock" fault. Is THAT legal? A factory authorized repair that goes beyond what was stock on the car?

If so, that opens a pretty big door

dj10

12-07-2004, 03:28 PM

[quote]Originally posted by rlearp:
Maybe the repairs are correct, but, I suppose the question would be how many E36 ITS cars have these "repairs". If #11 is the only car then fine. But if many cars have identical repairs then you know something is fishy. I would think it easier and quicker to pull pieces from cars in yards instead of making repairs, there are plently of E36s around.

[/QUOTE

In all honestly, the repair to the sub frames suggested by BMW is the cheapest and the best way to solve this know problem. Yes this rule opens the strengthing of these areas to all BMW E36's....but you don't want this to happen on a fast long high G turn. So saftey is a major factor to consider. I don't know yet on the reinforcement of the rear sway bar brackets. I'm still looking into that.
DJ #10 ITS E36

RSTPerformance

12-07-2004, 03:41 PM

jwsbmw325
Member posted December 07, 2004 10:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesnt matter, it is what it is. If the plate rule is administered for 05 - we'll have one in there and we'll do our best. Nick is right, I am sure that the Bimmerworld cars and the other guys in teh SOuth have expanded the envelope on the motors. We dont run Motec for example. I felt the competittion was pretty fair in teh Northeast, maybe not in the South or other regions.

JeffYoung

12-07-2004, 03:46 PM

DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes. If the manufacturer were still around, and I could convince them that tiny discs and drums out back were insufficient to stop the car and they "authorized" a "repair" of bigger, ventilated discs all around, would I be legal?

Extreme case, but think about it. I'm not sure factory authorized upgrades should be an allowed modification. All cars come from the factory with weaknesses. Should'nt we be stuck with them?

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 04:15 PM

Interesting points on "repair/replacement" directives on cars if they are legal or not.

I have three that I know of on my car, one of which I'd really like to perform - it involves camshafts, the directive was put out in 1975. I'll be watching with interest.

Ron

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

Geo

12-07-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
That "repair" raises an interesting issue. Rear subframe failures are a known issue on E36s. BMW has, if I recall correctly, authorized the above strengthening, etc. as a repair of a known "stock" fault. Is THAT legal? A factory authorized repair that goes beyond what was stock on the car?

If so, that opens a pretty big door

I'd have to do a little research on this to be certain, but I'd guess it would require a TSB to be considered legal.

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

JohnRW

12-07-2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes.

Beware of calling a design or performance issue a 'safety issue'. Slippery slope. Many have tried this approach, many have failed.

Ever look at the front brakes in a 240Z ? How about control arms in 944's ? How about front hubs in A1 and early A2 VW's, or front rotor/hub assemblies in Mazda rotaries, or Neons ? Just because we can stress something to the breaking point, or postpone a 'maintenance replacement, or that the performance of one system (brakes) might not match the performance of another (engine) doesn't make it a 'safety' issue.

Pandora's box.

My recent favorite was a Fastrak proposal, from SCCA Pro, to beef up the door-bar requirement in ALL Club Spec Miatas. The 'safety issue' was that, sometimes, the Pro Spec Miatas share practice sessions with the WC cars, and that they needed extra protection from the heavier artillery in WC.

So...SCCA Pro's scheduling problem transmogrified into a 'safety issue' with Spec Miata. Lets have all 600-800 SM's add a bunch of new door structure because SCCA Pro can't find their ass with both hands and get schedules right, for about 30-40 Pro series cars.

Riiiiight.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited December 07, 2004).]

dj10

12-07-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes. If the manufacturer were still around, and I could convince them that tiny discs and drums out back were insufficient to stop the car and they "authorized" a "repair" of bigger, ventilated discs all around, would I be legal?

Should'nt we be stuck with them?

Ron & Jeff,
I understand both of your points of view...but if I read the ITCS GCR correctly, if your model, make, same body type can update components. At least that is what I read on page 6 ITCS paragraph C. It also reads:
"Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuels or parts guides for a particular model which supercede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted." also in ITCS page 20 par. h. states:
"All chassis/structural/electrical repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications and dimensions." etc. etc. etc.
LOL but I have been wrong before.....hehe.
DJ

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 05:44 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I don't read it that way - even though it adversely affects what I could do.

JH no longer makes cars. Lotus made the motors, so, Lotus provides parts for them even now. But, Lotus came out with a lot of technical service bulletiens, two of which could really affect what I do:

1) All previous 907 (JH motor),910,912 (NA and turbo) heads have been superceeded by the "Zeus" head.

What this means is that I could use a big valve, big port, head on my 907. It would seriously help since the 907 head is small.

2) All previous camshafts on 907 (JH motor),910 motors have been replaced with XXXX cam.

I can't remember the part number but it is a cam with 0.14 more lift and a better profile than my stock JH cam. Would really help with (1) above.

I'd love to do these things but I personally think it is a big stretch.

But, I also think those BMW "repairs" I saw in the photographs were a stretch too.

Maybe I need to stretch to be competitive, but I'm a novice and will err on the safe side. If those repairs are not in a BMW Factory Service manual, shown in black and white, with a paragraph that says something like "replace with new pieces of repair as shown" then I would think them illegal. And, that still doesn't answer the question of if repairs can legally be fitted where there is no problem? When do you do the repair? When the car is broken? Or, is it s preventive repair?

Ron "Looking for Zeus Heads Now" Earp

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

dj10

12-07-2004, 07:14 PM

JH no longer makes cars. Lotus made the motors, so, Lotus provides parts for them even now. But, Lotus came out with a lot of technical service bulletiens, two of which could really affect what I do:

1) All previous 907 (JH motor),910,912 (NA and turbo) heads have been superceeded by the "Zeus" head.

What this means is that I could use a big valve, big port, head on my 907. It would seriously help since the 907 head is small.

2) All previous camshafts on 907 (JH motor),910 motors have been replaced with XXXX cam.

I can't remember the part number but it is a cam with 0.14 more lift and a better profile than my stock JH cam. Would really help with (1) above.

But, I also think those BMW "repairs" I saw in the photographs were a stretch too.

Ron,
When talking engines you must replace the entire component, like the long block.
If your sawy bar had a warning that they were prone to break on high speed turns, would you wait until it breaks before you replaced it?
Dan

Knestis

12-07-2004, 07:25 PM

Apropos of nothing - I STILL love to say that - I think both the BMW subframe and Zeus head have valid cases if, as Geo pointed out, someone can show that they have official factory service bulletins documenting their "repair" and "supercession," respectively...

These are pointedly NOT cases made on "safety" grounds by some kind of special-case clase: They fall under the clauses cited above.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 07, 2004).]

Bill Miller

12-07-2004, 07:33 PM

JohnRW makes an excellent point about various component failures. The A1 VW (as well as the other cars mentioned) have been dealing w/ front hub failures for years. Not going to get a change in the rules to correct (although, I still want to know how the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 folks got the Saturn bits).

As far as repairing stuff that's not broken, I don't see how that's legal. The rules state repair. How do you repair what isn't broken?

jws,

The 8" wheel comment came from what's posted on the Auto Technic website. It states 12 15x8 SSR Comps.

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

JeffYoung

12-07-2004, 07:46 PM

That's my point exactly. Hard to see how a component failure is a safety issue. You just have to work around it.

I go through brake caliper seals in a weekend. Sure would like bigger calipers, pads and discs as a safety upgrade.........

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 08:04 PM

Sooooooooo...

The suspension piece break, presumably because they were poorly designed. Furthermore, racing puts stress on them and causes premature failure.

Someone says that the BMW shop manual shows this repair, so for the moment assume that is true (I've never seen a shop manual that showed fabrication of parts as a factory repair, but, I learn something new most days. However, my E36 Cylmer manual didn't mention this at all, but it isn't a BMW shop manual). I could see doing the repair after the part has broken, but, the car shown in the photographs has the "repairs" done while being built, on all four corners. Did the other shop prepped cars have the same "repairs"? Seems like lots of folks will be looking at E36s on the grid for this sort of thing. Might want to check for a washer bottle too, I didn't see that.

Heck, how far does this go? Lotus 907 motors that I have to use have bad oiling problems. Later 910/912 motors don't. If I needed a factory replacement motor and ordered one from Lotus I'd get big valve heads, agressive cams, and no oiling problems if I ordered one tomorrow. While this might be legal (to some), it definitely isn't in the sprirt of the rules, not legal to me, and I don't think those BMW "repairs" are legal either.

My opinion, humble that is.

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

Quickshoe

12-07-2004, 08:05 PM

How do you prove it wasn't broken prior to repair?

------------------
Daryl DeArman
ex ITA and EProd 1st gen Rx7 and ITA Mk1 MR2
current owner of a FV, who still visits this site because the Vee forums aren't near as fun.--and no there isn't anything to do on my Vee right now or I'd be doing it ;)

lateapex911

12-07-2004, 08:07 PM

I am struck by the bashing Andy was given, and the cavalier attitude displayed by the author when called on it. Pretty sad.

On the subject of the rear subframe, it strikes me that any of us who have concerns regarding legality, or the appearance of legality, would have merely swapped it for a known good one (of which there are plenty), and moved on.

Regarding "typos", was this diatrabe a typo?:
"6) What do you do for a living other than spend time like a geeky hall monitor on this web board? Perhaps if you applied yourself to your method of gainful employment with the same passion you apply here, you would yourself be able to afford an E-36 with Motec. The fact is you would probably still run mid-pack. My sense is that guys who like to cry and whine about what otehrs are doing dont have potential to win races. "

I am amazed at Andy's measured response. Better than deserved.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

JeffYoung

12-07-2004, 08:13 PM

Pretty clear they are repaired as opposed to replaced because the repair is stronger.....make of that what you will.

Greg Amy

12-07-2004, 10:45 PM

From the ITCS:

"...cars will be ...prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

"Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage."

"To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..."

So, am I to assume that it's AutoTechnica's position that any "repair" procedure or replacement part listed in the factory shop manual is legal for use in SCCA Improved Touring? Further, can anyone provide to us this so-called factory documentation?

If this was purely a "repair procedure", then why is it documented as a "reinforcement" on your web site, is done to BOTH the front subframe and the differential mount, and is proudly displayed on the spec line of your car prep ("we started with some abused piece-of-crap cars, and here's the repairs we had to make on it! You shoulda seen the FRAME DAMAGE we had to repair...!!!")

If these are "standard" repair procedures, why does the BMWCCA rules state the following:

"Additional welding of sway bar pick-up points and trailing arm pick-up points for reinforcement and safety is allowed...Front sub-frame, motor mount areas, control arm pick-ups, idler arm and steering box mounts can be strengthened for safety with additional welding."

Clever, at best. Disingenuous, more likely.

"Lame", without a doubt.

Ron Earp

12-07-2004, 11:12 PM

Clever, at best. Disingenuous, more likely.

[B]
Greg, "Clever at best" comes to mind, but to me it appears illegal - clear and simple. I'd love to weld supports on my subframe since I can bend pieces of it with my hand.

To me the repairs seem to be re-enforcement of a part that will fail. Not only that, to me it appears that a couple of holes are re-located but I do not assert this - I sold my E36 a month ago can't remember, but I can check. Just looking at the pics it appears they've been improved for strength and moved in position slightly. If this is what is takes to make a E36 run upfront then I am glad I didn't pick the car for ITS. I like E36s, but, owning (ed, sold) one I feel they are classed below weight and from what it might appear here and on other threads "odd" things happen to make them run.

And no, I'm not out to "get" E36s since I don't race - yet, and besides, what could I do to "get" them? Nothing. What I am out to get is knowledge and learn how things are done in the world of SCCA. From what I've seen here and talk on other threads, the contraversy about the E36 makes it seem as if something out of the ordinary is going on and it isn't exactly a great example for the beginning racer.
Ron

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 08, 2004).]

lateapex911

12-08-2004, 01:39 AM

You're right as usual, Ron...NOT a good example...

Lots of stuff welded on that car that is a bit sketchy, to say the least.

Let's, just for the sake of arguement, run with the claim that they did it because the factory authorized it...

My knowledge of the situtation is not 100% complete, but isn't the M3 strengthend in the same manner? Isn't there a "kit" of pieces from the factory to do the "repair"?

To the AT guys...are those the peices that were supplied by the factory??

What say you??

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

Ron Earp

12-08-2004, 05:21 AM

Jake, I sold my 98 M3 to a co-worker. So, I can look at it and see what the pieces look like and check. We (Ed does now) also have the complete factory repair manuals and Ed can check that as well. While not definite, I can report my findings back with little effort on my part since it involves walking down the hall and asking/looking.

Ron

DMaynard

12-08-2004, 01:41 PM

Hi All:

Well this was our very first year of ITS Racing and we had a BLAST. We met a lot of GREAT people and had a lot of FUN. Learnt tons from everyone every weekend.

So I am hoping to shed a little light on the issue begin discussed with regards to the rear sub-frame/chassis repair and I don't mean to offend anyone in the process.

Little information about us, our company repairs and services BMW's exclusively, we have all factory testing equipment and tools. Dan (my husband) has been working on BMW's exclusively since 1980.

So here's a little information:

The Rear Sub-Frame/Chassis Repair is actually four BMW factory plates (Part #41-11-2-256-497 | #41-11-2-256-498 | #41-00-2-256-495 | #41-00-2-256-496)that are welded to the BODY due to the Rear Sub-Frame tearing away from the uni-body. The Rear Sub-Frame is not what gets damaged, it is the Body attachment points that get ripped away. The usualy complaint is a loud clunking noise from the left rear.

We have had to do this repair to quite a few customers E36 daily drivers, most whom live in the Boston area "Big Dig" or customers who aggressively drive their vehicles.

We have not had to perform this repair yet to our own E36, but we do have to check the area after each race because of it being a known weak point. The left rear side is the one that usually tears away from the body.

In order to do the job it takes about 10 to 15 hours because you have to remove the rear sub-frame completely in order to access the area that the new plates attach to the body.

I hope this answers some of the questions about the Rear Sub-Frame/Chassis Repair. I do have pictures of some of our customers cars before and after if you are interested. I just haven't figured out how to attach them to this forum.

Hope you all have a NICE Day!! We are looking forward to racing our E36 in ITS in 2005!!

Just trying to keep the racing FUN!!
Deb

------------------
3D Race Team (1st Year)
Driver: Dave Maynard
Crew: Dan, Larry & Deb
BMW 325i (Red)
#18 ITS

Bill Miller

12-08-2004, 06:21 PM

Deb,

Thanks for the info, and by all means, please post those pictures.

Welcome to the IT board!

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

Ron Earp

12-08-2004, 06:55 PM

aa

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 08, 2004).]

DMaynard

12-08-2004, 07:08 PM

Bill:

I cannot figure out how to attach pictures to this forum, if you know how let me know your email address and I will email you some of the pictures to you so you can post -- OR explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Thanks!

Deb

------------------
3D Race Team (1st Year)
Driver: Dave Maynard
Crew: Dan, Larry & Deb
BMW 325i (Red)
#18 ITS

Geo

12-08-2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by DMaynard:
Bill:

I cannot figure out how to attach pictures to this forum, if you know how let me know your email address and I will email you some of the pictures to you so you can post -- OR explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Thanks!

Deb

Deb,

You must host the photo elsewhere. You can like directly to those photos so they show up here by doing the following:

1. Just before the URL of the photo type " without the quotes.

2. Type in the URL of the photo after what you typed in 1 above.

3. Just after the photo URL type "" without the quotes.

The image will appear in your post. Repeat as necessary in the post of subsequent posts.

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

mlytle

12-08-2004, 09:13 PM

for a before picture look at post #6 in this thread;
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showt...t=rear+subframe (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105667&highlight=rear+subframe)

ugly.

Knestis

12-08-2004, 09:28 PM

Lacking only factory authorized documentation of the repair...

K

Ron Earp

12-08-2004, 09:36 PM

I've got Ed checking the manual, factory manual that is, and I have pics of the M3 suspension front and rear that I will post. Still, those parts seem to be for the body right, not the suspension as shown on the car eariler?

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

MMiskoe

12-08-2004, 10:11 PM

For sake of argument (and my curiousity) what would the GCR say about an item repaired/replaced/changed via a recall? If BMW had done a full recall on the vehicles and made this repair would it not be acceptable for racecars that missed the dealer doing it get it done too?

BTW what is the cost of a replacement part vrs the cost of this so called factory kit and the labor to install it? Maybe because I've never done anything w/ a BMW dealer, I have never seen a dealer do something the long way. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't most dealers tend to just replace the part rather than fabricate a repair? My apologies to any dealer service techs who are offended by the idea that most tech's I've met know how to replace parts, but don't spend much (if any) time welding up structural enhancements.

What's the cost of replaceing the part?

How many hours are spent doing the repair?

lateapex911

12-08-2004, 11:09 PM

Yup....that seals the deal. (Thanks Deb-) The repair in question has nothing in common, from what I can see, to the "factory" parts and procedures.

(A side note...I liked how, on the AT website, that most of the photos had been viewed about 100 times...but the "After: subframe reinforcement" picture has been viwewed over 300 times! Hmmmmmm!)

It does indeed appear that the body is the issue.

Which makes these cars......

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 08, 2004).]

Geo

12-08-2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by mlytle:
for a before picture look at post #6 in this thread;
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showt...t=rear+subframe (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105667&highlight=rear+subframe)

ugly.

For photos of the factory braces:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showp...49&postcount=97 (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2889049&postcount=97)

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited December 08, 2004).]

DMaynard

12-09-2004, 12:15 PM

Mlyte:

Thats a great picture of the before, and basically what I have from our customers cars. It is not a pretty sight when you see it in person.

Geo:

Those pictures of the parts are the correct factory parts that we use when we perform the repairs and the other is what it looks like after repair.

Once I get better with trying to attach photos to this forum, I will post a few. But the links you provided pretty much show the damage that is possible and the proper repair.

I am presently trying to locate the Service Bulletin that explains the repair.

Deb

------------------
3D Race Team (1st Year)
Driver: Dave Maynard
Crew: Dan, Larry & Deb
BMW 325i (Red)
#18 ITS

JohnRW

12-09-2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:

Which makes these cars......

...red, like a toreador's cape.

Off to my east, I hear the sounds of horns being sharpened.

Bruce Shafer

12-09-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:

Which makes these cars......

[/B]

What?

The factory authorized fix for the rear subframe failure is to weld reinforcement plates to the body at the four mounting points above the differential carrier, as shown in the pictures from bimmerforums.

The factory authorized fix for front subframe cracking is to weld reinforcement plates to the front subframe at the motor mount points. The front subframe is what is pictured on the AT website.

Greg Amy

12-09-2004, 03:02 PM

...and the differential carrier? Is there another magical "factory authorized" procedure to cover that one, too? I wonder if they can write one to allow sequential gearboxes...

Damn, my old SSA Shelby had less chassis and frame cracks than these glorified pieces of doog poop! Frankly, I think they're far too unsafe to be on the race track with the rest of us...

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

GregA, also hearing the sounds of sharpening and wondering if JWS is yet sorry to have started this whole mess...and even more sorry to have put it on their web site...

Bruce Shafer

12-09-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
[B]...and the differential carrier? Is there another magical "factory authorized" procedure to cover that one, too?

The differential carrier is the rear subframe. Try and get a bit more informed about the car before continuing to bash it.

Didn't mean to confuse you even though it is so damn easy.

Greg Amy

12-09-2004, 03:42 PM

Hey, Bruce, a couple of posts above you stated:

"The factory authorized fix for the rear subframe failure is to weld reinforcement plates to the body at the four mounting points..."

Yet now you've changed your mind to:

"The differential carrier is the rear subframe", which one easily concludes by description and verbiage is a part totally unique from the bodt to which those plates are welded.

Ok, so what is it? Is the "authorized modification" for the body, the chassis, the subframe, the window glass or rear tail lights, or does it make it somehow make it real easy by saying "weld anywhere on the car where it might offer a performance advantage?"

'Course, if one of you guys would be so kind as to actually PRODUCE these documents for all to see, especially given your confidence of its legality (and one would assume you have a copy given your need to prove it) then it would certainly shut up a lot of people, including me ... Too easy?

Somehow, I don't think I'm the one that's confused here, Chief.

Matt Rowe

12-09-2004, 03:47 PM

Wait, so if the factory authorized repair can be done as preventative maintenance than we are starting down a very slippery slope. By that logic broken spotwelds can be fix by welding the edges of the body panels. So that means I can seam weld my frame, for safety reasons to prevent spot weld failure. Does anyone else think this is taking too liberal of an interpretation?

And yes I know the ITCS specifically disallows seam welding, but if I say stich weld it than some might intpret that as falling outside of seam welding and under the "factory authorized repair" umbrella.

Geo

12-09-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Wait, so if the factory authorized repair can be done as preventative maintenance than we are starting down a very slippery slope. By that logic broken spotwelds can be fix by welding the edges of the body panels. So that means I can seam weld my frame, for safety reasons to prevent spot weld failure. Does anyone else think this is taking too liberal of an interpretation?

And yes I know the ITCS specifically disallows seam welding, but if I say stich weld it than some might intpret that as falling outside of seam welding and under the "factory authorized repair" umbrella.

A few points if I may.

It would seem to me that factory authorization must be in the form of a TSB. This should be fairly easy to establish. Can anyone think of any other official channel for such a repair that would be acceptable?

Theoretically speaking, I would say if Daimler-Chrysler issued a TSB that said Greg's Charger suffered from poor spot welds and the factory recommended repair were seam welding, that would be legal (it seems to me, pun intended).

I know there are scruitineers here, so what say you about proper documentation?

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited December 09, 2004).]

Joe Harlan

12-09-2004, 04:50 PM

Ok so sometimes in an effort to save a crashed race car certain things need to get welded. I believe the ITCS allows for repairs as close to factory specs as possible. Itcs: 8.h What I do when repairs are made is first take photos of all damage and then of the repairs. I try to stay well within the allowance of the rule. The factory repair pieces on the uni-body in those photos look fine and legal to me, The subframe repairs that stiffen area's of the subframe go far beyond the written rule.

Matt Rowe

12-09-2004, 04:55 PM

Then how do you determine what is a factory authorized repair when dealing with something like crash damage. I've looked through my Factory Shop Manuals and nowhere does it state service procedures for repairs that would including rebending frames and sheet metal which would also typically include rewelding. So does that mean without documentation the work can not be done?

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but it brings up a real concern as my car was obviously involved in an accident before I bought it. As part of the repair a seam was welded in order to fix the torn spot welds. Is this legal. And if so how do you draw the line between this and the preventative repairs done on the E36.

Also, what's to stop a factory looking to support their cars in racing from issuing a TSB on something like a new cam. Remember TSB's aren't required so it wouldn't cost the factory anything but suddenly all the brand X cars could be claiming their cam, flywheel, pistons failed due to reason X, here is an authorized replacement and they now have a faster car that is theoretically legal. If we deviate from what was supplied to the public at large soon we might end up back in the days like SS in the late 80's early 90's where factory backed cars were anything but what the generally public could have. Right now it would be easy for Mazda to authorize a new cam for the Miata and a large number of SS and IT racers could suddenly be much more competitive. Is that what we want to allow?

lateapex911

12-09-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
What?

The factory authorized fix for the rear subframe failure is to weld reinforcement plates to the body at the four mounting points above the differential carrier, as shown in the pictures from bimmerforums.

The factory authorized fix for front subframe cracking is to weld reinforcement plates to the front subframe at the motor mount points. The front subframe is what is pictured on the AT website.

OK, nowhere here has anyone stated that welding anything in the rear EXCEPT fatory issued plates to the body could even be considered *possibly legal*......so picture #2 on the first gallery page shows a "rear diff reinforcment", and it is clearly not a body section, even to my easily confused eye.

Is that okie dokie too?

And...can someone show me, in those pictures, where the body had the BMW parts welded on? I can't seem to find them.

(just as an aside. IF there is a legitimate concern from a factory, and it appears there is in this case, proper procedures should be followed, and proper reinforcements should be legal. Which is completely different that wholesale welding everywhere.)

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

Bill Miller

12-09-2004, 06:51 PM

Matt,

Before, I would have said that the scenarios you laid out could have been an issue. But now, w/ PCA's in place, if a car gets a bounce from new factory parts, it can also get some lead (or a restrictor plate).

I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned 17.1.4.D
No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function

I dare say that you could make a solid case that chassis/pickup point reinforcement is a prohibited function.

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

JeffG

12-09-2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by DMaynard:
Hi All:

Little information about us, our company repairs and services BMW's exclusively, we have all factory testing equipment and tools. Dan (my husband) has been working on BMW's exclusively since 1980.

Deb,

An urelated question. I occasionally thrash my 525 a bit on the road, is the 5 series also subject to this structural weakness?

Thanks - Jeff

gsbaker

12-09-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by JeffG:
... I occasionally thrash my 525 a bit on the road, is the 5 series also subject to this structural weakness?

Thanks - Jeff

Absolutely. Especially if you have two dogs in the back of your wagon version while towing a trailer.

It's hell on the set up. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Gregg Baker
528ITA wagon daily driver.

DMaynard

12-09-2004, 07:27 PM

We haven't seen any chassis problems with 525's

Deb

------------------
3D Race Team
Driver: Dave Maynard
Crew: Dan, Larry & Deb
E36 BMW 325i (Red)
#18 ITS
Just Trying to Keep it FUN!!!

ths57

12-09-2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:

And...can someone show me, in those pictures, where the body had the BMW parts welded on? I can't seem to find them.

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/image/suspension/susp_e36_rsubframe_3_lg.jpg

lateapex911

12-09-2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by ths57:
http://www.turnermotorsport.com/image/suspension/susp_e36_rsubframe_3_lg.jpg

Perhaps I should rephrase that question...

Can anyone show me, on the AutoTecnics website, where THEY have used the factory parts on the body?

(Which would be the only "reinforcing" solution that would have a chance at legality in the rear.)

That shot is from Turner, right?

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

JeffG

12-09-2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by gsbaker:
Absolutely. .... It's hell on the set up.

Damn! I guess I'll have to give up playing on entrance ramps then slowing way down to highway speeds http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Jeff

Geo

12-09-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Right now it would be easy for Mazda to authorize a new cam for the Miata and a large number of SS and IT racers could suddenly be much more competitive.

Sure, they could spec a non-production cam in a TSB. Getting reclassed upward would put a halt to that however. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

Matt Rowe

12-09-2004, 11:05 PM

Agreed, they could get reclassed or their weight adjusted if the advantage was extreme. But then again we've all seen the storm of controversy over the intake restrictor for the E36. It seems to me that reclassifying or adjusting a car is not that easy, even if the car is ALMOST universally acknowledged as an overdog.

Look I'm not saying it's going to happen but by opening the door to allowing any TSB or factory authorized modification it opens vthe door. Who was it that wanted new heads for their Lotus based on it being the now factory authorized part?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Ron Earp

12-09-2004, 11:30 PM

Hold up on that Matt.

That is not what I said. And, it isn't a Lotus. I'm racing a Jensen Healey, motor by Lotus.

I made comments that I didn't like how some interpreted rules to allow a lot of things to happen - hence this discussion on this thread with BMWs. I also mentioned that since Jensen Healey didn't exist that Lotus was the "supplier" for parts for this car - this is true. And, if you call Lotus and want to buy a brand new head you'll be sent a head with big valves. Same if you want new cams, you'll get big cams.

I am not doing this and will not do this, if you read you'll find my response "tonque in cheek". I'll scavenge and make do with the stock parts because I know that is what the rules meant, even if they don't cover my exact instance. I was just pointing out that if certain folks were building a JH then this is what would happen.

Take it for what you will. Cheating sucks, and although I'm brand new I get the feeling it happens, more so on some models than others, but I might be wrong.

Come spec my JH, you'll find it in order and I suppose next year we'll find out if it is at the back or front. The hood will ALWAYS be up, you can always take a look. Stand there for more than 30 seconds and I'm putting a wrench in your hand (with warm beer if it is after hours) - its English, stuff is gonna break!!!

Ron

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

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 09, 2004).]

Matt Rowe

12-09-2004, 11:46 PM

Ron,

It must not have come across but my tongue was firmly in cheek when I mentioned your car. And I'm sorry about not referring to it as a Jenson Healey. To put your mind at ease I applaud the attitude you seem to have taken putting together a car you want to run and living with where that puts you without stretching the rules.

I certainly didn't mean to imply your up to no good the point was if we start allowing unrestricted TSB work or parts substitution for superseeded parts than a lesser man than you might take the easier path. And that was meant with all sincerity.

BTW, what tracks will you have your Jenson at. I promise I won't be looking under the hood for cheating. Just curious to see an IT prepped JH. I've been around enough old british machinery to know the term "low-maintenance" has never applied.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

JeffYoung

12-09-2004, 11:54 PM

Matt, Ron and I are in the Raleigh/Durham/Cary area in NC. I run a TR8 in ITS, have for the last two years. Ron's car will make its debut this year in S as well. Our paddock area will officially be known as Team Oddball.

You'll probably see teh cars at VIR, Roebling, Kershaw, Lowe's and Road Atlanta. I saw you are a MARRS guy, come on down to VIR for SARRC/MARRS in May. GREAT event -- 500+ cars, usually good weather, and a great track.

Ron Earp

12-10-2004, 08:25 AM

Sorry Matt, I didn't mean to get fired up. As a newbie this cheating thing is not cool and I'm reading with interest the responses on the other thread that is about cheating specifically.

This thread here was very unique in the way it started and, how it is playing out is probably not what the starter intended. I notice he hasn't posted back here since. I dunno, but from where I'm standing it looks like there is a problem with those cars that I bet will seriously be looked at next time one shows at the track.

Ron

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

JohnRW

12-10-2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:

Also, what's to stop a factory looking to support their cars in racing from issuing a TSB on something like a new cam.

Slow down and breathe.

For a factory to do this, it must be for a 'stock' part that they sell as a 'stock replacement' to a superceeded part, thru the dealer parts network.

A 'stock replacement' part would need to be certified as emmissions-compliant, as it would be the spec'ed part to replace a worn-out street car cam. That means Fed. certification, blah blah blah quack quack quack. It's not a simple process - it's not something that the manufacturer can pencil-whip.

You guys are starting to report Black Helicopter sightings.

I do find this whole BMW subframe thing hysterical. Sometimes, you don't have to turn over the rocks, as they turn themselves over !!!!

Matt Rowe

12-10-2004, 02:30 PM

Okay, say a cam is a bad example. But what about pistons, a larger bore throttle body, spherical suspension bushings etc. It's amazing what a little parts bin engineering could do. Off the shelf items like that can help a "weak" point of a car and there is no certification required on a number of parts. So where do we draw the line on TSB's. Honestly I'm curious because if superseeded parts are alllowed a lot of older cars might just need to check out there dealers parts book.

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Joe Harlan

12-10-2004, 06:49 PM

Then how do you determine what is a factory authorized repair when dealing with something like crash damage. I've looked through my Factory Shop Manuals and nowhere does it state service procedures for repairs that would including rebending frames and sheet metal which would also typically include rewelding. So does that mean without documentation the work can not be done? 

Matt, Industry standards is what would apply. There are standards used to make repairs and its funny but when you have frame rail replaced at a body shop they spot weld (even if it is a mig) the parts much like the origina, They have to concern themselfs with crush zones and the like. If I saw something like reinforcment patchs and gussets made up it would bring a protest right away. Some cars will crack the frame rails, I grind out the crack weld it pull a minimal patch panel over it and call it good. You can't just weld a crack. Cmmon sense says a 3" patch panel is one thing. A 24" patch panel stitch welded with a gussett is chasssis stiffening and nothing more.

Karl Bocchieri

12-11-2004, 02:37 PM

A BMW dealer would never spend the man hours to prep and weld a sub frame, they would just put a new one in. RX-7's have a front subframe that is spot welded and can bend, does that mean I can seam weld it, and plate it to strengethen it, to prevent it from breaking?
I think someone in a tech position needs to make a judgenent on this one, or is it going to cost us $25 to find out.

lateapex911

12-11-2004, 03:33 PM

I really don't think we need a techs opinion on this one!

The only possible reinforcement that might be legal on the rear is the extra plates on the unibody. As far as I can see, (and nobody has provided data that the AutoTechnics cars have done this) it hasn't been done, and the welding that HAS been done is on parts that have no chance of being legal in any way.

It seems obvious to me...but can anyone provide a legitimate case to the contrary?

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

Bill Miller

12-11-2004, 05:28 PM

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

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

seckerich

12-11-2004, 11:11 PM

It is like a fox guarding the henhouse but I am a tech steward. "repairs" are to be made as close to original as possible. If the body is to be repaired in these locations you must use the same guage metal as the original and not double sections to add strength. A broken subframe should have the bad mounts cut off and new ones welded on, not gussets to add strength. Cracks are allowed a small overlap for repair in the same way allowances are given for ripped out spot welds to have the seam welded in the same spacing as original spot spacing. Any added metal or welding other than this is considered illegal. Just my two cents worth.

Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
A BMW dealer would never spend the man hours to prep and weld a sub frame, they would just put a new one in. RX-7's have a front subframe that is spot welded and can bend, does that mean I can seam weld it, and plate it to strengethen it, to prevent it from breaking?
I think someone in a tech position needs to make a judgenent on this one, or is it going to cost us $25 to find out.

Karl Bocchieri

12-12-2004, 01:50 PM

Those pictures were great, and so were the responses. I think we should start a contest for next year, find and take a picture of the most flagrant rule infraction and post it on this site.
I love to hear and see how some people twist and interpret the rules.

And if some one thinks I'm hiding something, bring your camera, and I'll even jack up my car for you.

[This message has been edited by Karl Bocchieri (edited December 12, 2004).]

Spinnetti

12-12-2004, 04:05 PM

Soooo reading through some of this, is EVERYBODY on both sides of this a bunch of babies?

I was thinking about building an E36, but now I'm not sure. Adding weight just ruins the brakes.. Doesn't slow things down much. How about some restrictors for the former heads of the class? The RX7? 240? How come those cars weren't slowed down?

The irony is that IT has almost always been a one make class in most of the classes, and the people with money buy the cars that win. I've always been one of the ones doing the best I can in less than the top car, but suddenly everybody wants to knock down the new 'it' car? whats changed? Nobody on the comp board has an E36?

Greg Amy

12-12-2004, 05:08 PM

whats changed? Nobody on the comp board has an E36?

That's pretty lame, dude.

Ron Earp

12-12-2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Adding weight just ruins the brakes.. Doesn't slow things down much.

The car is classed at too low of a weight now, and, was classed at a higher weight. Nobody has ever posted how or why the weight was lowered, just that it was. So, if it weighs too much too bad, that is the way it is. And, I bet if it raced anywhere near its curb weight, like the other cars, then nobody would build one - too heavy, too hard on brakes, etc. Every other car in IT has to accept the good with the bad, why should the BMW be different?

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

lateapex911

12-12-2004, 09:12 PM

I am struck by the sense of "entitlement" (some of) the BMW guys are showing.

Many of us just want a chance at a win, but the feeling I get here is that some E36 guys are PO-ed that they will have to work and develop as hard as the rest of the field to run even up. I'd say they're lucky.

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

Quickshoe

12-12-2004, 11:45 PM

Trying to continue to see both sides of the E36 deal...

I still believe the E36 is an overdog. I mean "still" as in "I haven't changed my mind", not "the restrictor isn't enough"...that remains to be seen.

Just because someone builds an E36 doesn't make them winners. It doesn't even give them an unfair advantage. All it takes is one other e36 to show up and they don't have an unfair advantage. It will come down to the better driven, raced and prepared car.

The car to have, never has and never will guarantee anyone a win.

Quickshoe

12-12-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
How about some restrictors for the former heads of the class? The RX7? 240? How come those cars weren't slowed down?

Your use of the word "FORMER" should answer that question.

Tristan Smith

12-13-2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Just because someone builds an E36 doesn't make them winners. It doesn't even give them an unfair advantage. All it takes is one other e36 to show up and they don't have an unfair advantage. It will come down to the better driven, raced and prepared car.

The car to have, never has and never will guarantee anyone a win.[/B]

Amen! I bet if someone gave me a fully prepped, top of the line ITS E36, I could make it a midpack racecar!

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

benspeed

12-22-2004, 04:30 PM

Basic question - does anybody have an estimate on how much the restrictor plate will cut HP & Torque? I'm yet to be convinced that the plate will be the ruin of the bimmer. Guys will have to just race harder.

Ron Earp

12-22-2004, 04:36 PM

I am tempted to do an experiment. I could buy the plate for $25, put it on my old M3 that a buddy has, and dyno it back to back on the dyno that we use here in Durham. Wouldn't be a perfect comparison, but at least it'd show what would happen to an M3 and we could draw some conclusions. Bimmerworld has got to know the answer to this question, I'm sure they've done it already with the 325.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

dspillrat

12-22-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by rlearp:
I could buy the plate for $25, put it on my old M3 that a buddy has, and dyno it back to back on the dyno that we use here in Durham. Bimmerworld has got to know the answer to this question, I'm sure they've done it already with the 325.
Ron

Ron,
Sounds like a great comparison. I gotta wonder if 56mm? will be effective....
Been kinda quiet from the 325 guys.

David Spillman
Z-car w/2-42mm air restrictors
Moo-techless

[This message has been edited by dspillrat (edited December 22, 2004).]

ed325its

12-22-2004, 07:56 PM

I thought it was said here that the CRB has lots of experience with BMW's and restrictor plates and knows the answer to your question.

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

Andy Bettencourt

12-22-2004, 09:29 PM

The CRB doesn't frequent this board.

AB

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

ed325its

12-22-2004, 10:20 PM

I never said they did.

Bill Miller

12-23-2004, 08:14 AM

I asked this early on, but never got an answer. Sooooo, I'll ask it again. What's the stock bore of the BMW TB?

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

Andy Bettencourt

12-23-2004, 09:47 AM

Ed,

You imply that the CRB either has the information and won't answer on this board OR that they don't have it at all.

Either way, they don't know that the question has been asked because they aren't here every day.

Andy

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

Banzai240

12-23-2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I asked this early on, but never got an answer. Sooooo, I'll ask it again. What's the stock bore of the BMW TB?

According to the information we have, it's 60mm for the cars in question...

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

kthomas

12-23-2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I am struck by the sense of "entitlement" (some of) the BMW guys are showing.

Many of us just want a chance at a win, but the feeling I get here is that some E36 guys are PO-ed that they will have to work and develop as hard as the rest of the field to run even up. I'd say they're lucky.

Sorry, should have caught this earlier. Some of us didn't just fall off the turnip truck into a BMW and start winning. Some of us did stuff like researched the class and built 240Z's when Z's were winning. Then we threw away practically brand new motors after SCCA decided anti-friction coatings were taboo after specifically approving them the year before. But we developed and made up for it. Then we threw away practically brand new remote reservior shocks after SCCA decided they were taboo after being okay the year before. Then we developed and made up for it. Then we threw away practically brand new 240Z's when E36's started blowing our doors off on the straights. And we bought E36's and they suck until you develop them to where they stick and stop and don't blow up when you overrev them by 10rpm, and made up for it. So our reward is a restrictor, which we will develop around and make up for it. Etc.

I'm not at all "po'ed" that I might have to "work and develop as hard as the rest of the field". I can handle that and usually do. I get po'ed when I have to redevelop to keep up with SCCA's rule changes. They've cost me way more money over the years than my competitors have.

Now, that was all somewhat tongue-in-cheek but my point is just because somebody is running a BMW and winning doesn't mean they haven't also earned it.

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

Andy Bettencourt

12-23-2004, 12:38 PM

You've got legit gripes on the coatings and RR shocks. It is a shame that stuff got approved to begin with.

I know you know the situation and we all know that the top drivers are going to rise to the top no matter what but the issue is that some E36 drivers are publicly having issue with having to go to 10/10th in order to MAINTAIN their podium positions.

Boo hoo. EVERYONE else has had to do the same thing. IMHO, it isn't a negative to take the free lunch from a few to benefit many.

AB

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

Quickshoe

12-23-2004, 12:54 PM

All else being equal a 56mm TB will flow a maximum of 87% of what a 60mm TB will flow. IF the TB was the limiting factor in how well that motor breathes then we should see a fair reduction in HP. If it wasn't, may not hurt at all. Might even help the low end torque more than it hurts the top end...time will tell.

Don't broadcast "2-42mm restrictors" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif, they have the same area as a single 59.4mm TB....shhhhhhh

lateapex911

12-23-2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by kthomas:
.....
I'm not at all "po'ed" that I might have to "work and develop as hard as the rest of the field". I can handle that and usually do. I get po'ed when I have to redevelop to keep up with SCCA's rule changes. They've cost me way more money over the years than my competitors have.

Now, that was all somewhat tongue-in-cheek but my point is just because somebody is running a BMW and winning doesn't mean they haven't also earned it.

Understood, but....as Andy pointed out, this isn't about RR shocks or coatings, it is about class parity.

I agree whole heartedly that we all have a right to be PO'ed when management screws the pooch with dumb rules decisions, such as those you mentioned.

But....those of us who did the same development have a right to be PO'ed when a car is mis-classed, and we are now essentially second fiddle at best. The E36 is not the first overdog.

you are not the guy who was the intended recipient of that comment...but some of the posters here are clearly miffed that they will now have to dig deeper to stay up front.

I say, how lucky are they that they have a car that they CAN dig deep into and have a CHANCE at the front? I can point to lots of cars that were once potential winners, but due to misclassing, the ECU rule and further misclassing to "fix" the first misclassing, are now mid packers at best. (Your Z car is an example, although a weak example, as it's by no means midpack)Those are the guys who have a right to complain, as no matter how much they dig, the deal is up.

The E36 had it's day in the sun, and now it's time to play on the same field as the rest of the frontrunners. I fail to see how anyone who has a shred of integrity can come here and whine about that.

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